This democratic spirit pervaded the European settlements in America and public concerns were discussed and determined in the town and county gatherings. The more general concerns were considered and dealt with by assemblies of representatives, modelled somewhat on the plan of the British Parliament, but without its hereditary nobility. The United States may fairly be called a pioneer in conscious government building, but, nevertheless, with an imported foundation of conceptions of law brought from England.

In tracing the transmission of ideas concerning social relations we find that the Hebrews brought much with them out of their ancestral home in Chaldea and borrowed some from the land of their captivity, Egypt. The lively Greeks brought with them the customs and traditions of their Asiatic ancestors, and their statesmen and philosophers studied the political institutions of Babylon, Egypt, Crete, Asia Minor, the Phoenicians and their great colonies, and of all the people dwelling about the Mediterranean Sea. The Romans, though more advanced in their governmental work, were students of the Greek philosophers and profited greatly from their teachings. All Europe and America have the benefit of the light that has come to them from Palestine, Greece and Rome, and at the same time of the wider view which includes the civilizations of India, China and Japan, and the yet more important lessons drawn from the experience of a whole world now open to the view of all, and supplied with facilities for instantaneous communications between the most remote nations.

While the prevailing conception of a state both in ancient and modern times has relation to a fixed territory, there are instances of migratory nations, the first accounts of which are of organized masses of people, either allured by some more attractive country or driven from their own by some superior force. Such were the Aryan conquerors of India, who moved down from the northwest and spread over the great peninsula. Such have been the hordes pouring into Europe across the grass lands of southern Russia.

The Romans had more practical wisdom in political affairs than the Greek philosophers, whose central purpose was to

build states with enduring governments, each thoroughly equipped for defense in war. Beginning with the conquest of the neighboring Latin people, the Romans treated them as allies rather than subjects, with equality of right in the acquisition of land and chattels and in trade. This relation, established during the early monarchy, continued under the republic. As other conquests were made Latin rights were accorded to some of the conquered districts but not to all. As Roman power was extended four classes of communities came into existence within the Republic:

1. Roman, with full Roman citizenship, which however could only be exercised in political affairs by the citizen in person at Rome.

2. Latin rights, with municipal freedom and local government corresponding in form to that of Rome, but in all matters of foreign policy, of peace and war, under the guidance of Rome, and prohibited from all other alliances within or without the Republic.

3. Communities whose members were citizens sine suffragio, included in the census, but neither entitled to vote or hold office.

4. Non-Latin communities with varying rights depending on treaties or Roman decrees.

By conquest and by diplomacy the sovereignty of Rome was extended over southern and western Europe, northern Africa, Asia Minor, Syria, Armenia and all the islands of the Mediterranean and other interior Seas. A single sovereignty was thus extended over all the great western nations and all the little city states among which destructive wars had raged from the most remote time. No nation approximated Rome in strength. For all this vast territory Rome furnished law and forbade conflicts between its dependencies. Far away Persia and the barbarians of northern and eastern Europe waged war at times, but there was little room for the play of international law between the Roman Empire and its relatively weak neighbors. The jus gentium, law of nations, of the Romans was law governing internal, not external, relations. Its principles were gathered from the nations taken into the Empire and out

of these the jurists sought to extract jus naturale. China and India, though large and populous, were so remote and little known as to call for no regulation of intercourse or relations. During the continuance of the Roman Empire in substantial integrity Europe presented no field for the growth of international law. The rise of Mohammedan power based on religious zeal was contemporaneous with the later period of the decay of the Roman, and religious intolerance on both sides rendered any profitable discussion of international relations impracticable. Roman civilization became obscured, and over most of the Empire utterly obliterated, as the waves of barbarians from the German forests and over the steppes of Russia swept over it. Charlemagne built a great empire by his military genius, but it was dependent on his personality and crumbled in the hands of his weak successors. Jenghis Kahn and his successors devastated Asia and Europe with their savage hordes and built a great but short-lived military despotism. They had little use for law within or without their dominions, or for treaties with other nations.

CHAPTER I

SOVEREIGN STATES

EARLY CONCEPTIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

The stages of the growth of conceptions of sovereignty must be traced more by comparison of contemporaries than by historical records of the progress of particular tribes and states, for history is altogether too incomplete to show the chain of events from the days of primitive savages to the organization of their descendants into highly civilized states. The starting point of the investigation is not, as many writers make it, the distinct, well ordered family, but the promiscuous herd, utterly devoid of law and order. Out of this chaos have slowly emerged family and tribal organizations. Leadership in war has usually given influence in council, but such sovereignty as exists in a primitive tribe is in the general assembly of all its members. In exceedingly diverse ways temporary leaders of tribes have acquired continuing power, and with increase in numbers and wealth rudimentary governmental functions have come into being. War, disease and famine have taken their tolls of human life with consequent partial or total destruction of the tribe. Only the more prudent, hardy or fortunate ones have survived to continue their development. With increase of numbers the home instinct asserts itself and families become more clearly defined and segregated. These usually have been in part polygamous and in part monogamous, the stronger or more crafty males enslaving more or less of the females. Polyandry, though much more rare, has become an established system in some tribes. Reliable records containing the early history of the nations known to us are very meager and in the nature of things commence after the invention of letters, which in itself is evidence of very considerable progress in civilization.

The earliest comprehensive discussion of the various forms, purposes and principles of government that has come down to us is that of the Greek philosophers after the Persian invasion and prior to the time of Alexander of Macedon. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and numerous others discussed these matters with a wealth of research and clearness and force of reasoning that commands the admiration of modern readers. The basis on which their reasoning was built was the Greek world with its many small cities, the Phoenician and other cities of the Mediterranean shores, Egypt, Crete, Palestine, Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Persia, the barbarians of the surrounding countries and faint gleams of light from distant India. The period was one of brilliant achievement and great intellectual activity.

Aristotle starts his discussion of the founding of a state with his views concerning the proper organization of a family, which he makes consist of a master, his wife, children and slaves. He accepts slavery as a natural and necessary institution and mastery of the husband over his wife and children. The state he contemplates is made up of families living in a city or well defined district of small size. Viewed from our standpoint and surroundings his state appears as merely the next step in advance of tribal organization, yet his definitions of monarchies, tyrannies, oligarchies, aristocracies, and democracies and of the various kinds of each, the principles on which they act, their good and bad tendencies and the laws which should govern them, are most enlightening to the student of the subject now. Unity of purpose and accountability was the central idea of the Greeks in the structure of their states. The welfare of the state as a political entity was deemed of more importance than that of the citizens as individuals. Lacadaemonia affords an extreme illustration of these views, with efficiency in war as the prime object in the organization of the state. To promote unity of sentiment home life was destroyed and common tables provided. Rigid discipline for the young and a hard life for the mature were enforced. In battle the soldier must fight to the death and the survivor of a lost battle was forever disgraced. At Athens democratic principles obtained, and far more scope was allowed for in