« 이전계속 »
ship of a belligerent nation, in violation of the obligations of the United States as a neutral nation.
In case any such vessel shall depart or attempt to depart from the jurisdiction of the United States without clearance-for any of the purposes above set forth, the owner or master or person or persons having charge or command of such vessel shall severally be liable to a fine of not less than $2,000 nor more than $10,000, or to imprisonment not to exceed two years, or both, and, in addition, such vessel shall be forfeited to the United States.
That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and empowered to employ such part of the land or naval forces of the United States as shall be necessary to carry out the purposes of this resolution.
That the provisions of this resolution shall be deemed to extend to all land and water, continental or insular, within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Approved, March 4, 1915.1
The view has been expressed in some quarters that the President of the United States might utilize the joint resolution to prevent the exportation of arms, munitions of war, and contraband in general. It is true that the attempt might be made so to construe the joint resolution, but it does not vest the President with power to refuse all clearances, but only clearances to vessels violating the neutrality of the United States, and whether the particular act is or is not a violation of neutrality can be tested by the courts. Thus, a collector of the port of Tacoma, Washington, felt that a vessel carrying a cargo of lead should not be given a clearance, as, in his opinion, it was illegal to ship a cargo of lead to China, which was then at war with Japan. The Supreme Court of the United States thought differently, and the collector was properly held in damages (Northern Pacific R. Co. v. American Trading Co., 195 U. S. 439).
The neutrality laws of the United States as they stood in 1818, supplemented by the joint resolution of March 4, 1915, enabling the President of the United States to prevent the commission or to secure the punishment of all acts of an unneutral nature committed within the United States contrary to the neutral duty of the United States, not otherwise covered by statute, enable our country to comply with the requirements of neutrality as they exist at the present day.
1 Public Resolution, No. 72, 63d Congress.
THE EFFECT OF MR. BRYAN'S PEACE TREATIES UPON THE RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES WITH THE NATIONS AT WAR
From time to time the effect of Mr. Bryan's so-called peace treaties upon the relations of the United States with the nations at war has been discussed. Approximately identical treaties have been made with France, Great Britain and Russia. No treaties have been made with the other parties to the great war. It is evident, therefore, that the relations of the United States with this latter group of countries are unaffected by Mr. Bryan's treaties.
With the three European allied Powers, however, the effect is very marked, and their observance by the contracting parties should prevent war over any disputes that might arise out of this war between the United States and any one or all of the allied Powers.
Each treaty provides for the formation of an international commission of inquiry, to which disputes not otherwise settled shall be referred. The commission is allowed a period of one year within which to consider and report upon the questions submitted to it, and during this time no act of force may be used by one contracting Power against the other. That is to say, the failure of diplomacy to adjust a difference between two of the contracting countries is not to result in war until at least a year after the dispute has arisen. It is likely, however, that diplomatic negotiations would extend over some time before the matter was referred to the commission, so that more than a year would elapse before either party would be free to resort to war. Within this period the countries would have cooled off, so that there would be very little danger of war.
It is true that the commission does not decide the case; it merely reports upon it, leaving the countries free to accept or reject it as they please. In ordinary conditions the report would be tantamount to a settlement.
The commission in each case is to be composed of five members, and each of the contracting parties is to appoint two members. In the French and the British treaty only one of these shall be a national, the other a stranger to the dispute. In the Russian treaty, however, each government may appoint two of its nationals. Provision is made in the British treaty for the substitution of a member from the colonies affected by the dispute.
In the British and Russian treaties the fifth member is to be chosen by the governments by common accord, with the understanding that he shall not be a national of either country. In the French treaty the fifth member, likewise to be a stranger, is to be selected by the two governments, but if they cannot agree, he is to be chosen in accordance with the provisions of Article 45 of the Hague Convention of 1907.
The portions of the treaties dealing with these three phases are quoted without further comment, as their meaning and effect seem to be sufficiently clear.
The treaty with France (signed September 15, 1914; ratifications exchanged January 22, 1915; proclaimed by the President of the United States January 23, 1915):1
Article 1. Any disputes arising between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the French Republic, of whatever nature they may be, shall, when ordinary diplomatic proceedings have failed and the high contracting parties do not have recourse to arbitration, be submitted for investigation and report to a permanent international commission constituted in the manner prescribed in the following article.
The high contracting parties agree not to resort, with respect to each other, to any act of force during the investigation to be made by the commission and before its report is handed in.
Article 5. * * * The work of the commission shall be completed within one year from the date on which it has taken jurisdiction of the case, unless the high contracting parties should agree to set a different period.
The treaty with Great Britain (signed September 15, 1914; ratifications exchanged November 10, 1914; proclaimed by the President of the United States November 11, 1914):2
Article 1. The high contracting parties agree that all disputes between them, of every nature whatsoever, other than disputes (he settlement of which is provided for and in fact achieved under existing agreements between the high contracting parties, shall, when diplomatic methods of adjustment have failed, be referred for investigation and report to a permanent international commission, to be constituted in the manner prescribed in the next succeeding article; and they agree not to declare war or begin hostilities during such investigation and before the report is submitted.
Article 3. * * * The report of the international commission shall be completed within one year after the date on which it shall declare its investigation to have begun, unless the high contracting parties shall limit or extend the time by mutual agreement.
The treaty with Russia (signed September 18, 1914; ratifications ex
1 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 609. "Ibid., No. 602.
changed March 22, 1915; proclaimed by the President of the United States March 25, 1915):3
Article 1. Any differences arising between the Government of the United States of America and the Imperial Government of Russia, of whatever nature they may be, shall, when diplomatic proceedings have failed, be submitted for examination and report to a permanent international commission constituted in the manner prescribed in the following article; likewise the high contracting parties agree not to resort, with respect to each other, to any acts of force during the examination to be made by the commission and before its report is handed in.
Article 3. * * * The work of the commission shall be completed within one year from the date on which it has taken jurisdiction of the case, unless the high contracting parties should agree to set a different period.
IN MEMORIAM—PASQUALE FIORE
The distinguished Italian publicist, Pasquale Fiore, honorary member of the American Society of International Law, died at Naples, December 17,1914. He was born at Terlizzi, in the Province of Bari, on April 8, 1837, so that, at the time of his death, he was by the calendar seventyseven years of age; but by his faculties he was a man in the full possession of his powers, and his presence and manner were those of a very much younger man.
As a very young man he acquired a reputation, which he held and increased in his maturer years, and it is no exaggeration to say that he is the one Italian publicist whose works have been accepted as authoritative in the world at large, and whose views have been quoted outside of his country as representing the Italian school.
Three years ago Mr. Fiore attended the meeting of the American Society of International Law in April, 1912, and delivered an address entitled "Some Considerations on the Past, Present and Future of International Law" (Proceedings 1912, pp. 15-36.)
At the time of his death he was senator of the Kingdom of Italy, member of the council on diplomatic affairs and of the Institute of International Law, in the proceedings of which distinguished body of publicists he took an active part, and professor of international law in the University of Naples from 1880.
In nominating him for honorary membership in the American Society of International Law, to which he was elected on April 25, 1914, the
» U. S. Treaty Series, No. 616.
committee upon membership presented the following statement of his career and of his services:
Born at Terlizzi in the Province of Bari, April 8, 1837; educated in the University of Naples; professor of philosophy in the Liceo di Cremona, 1861-63, of international law in the University of Urbino, 1863-65, University of Pisa, 1865-75, University of Torino, 1875-80. Author of the following publications: Constitutional and Administrative Law, 1 vol., 1862; Modern International Public Law, 1 vol., 1865 (translation into French by Pradier, 1868); Elements of International Private Law, 1869 (translation into French with annotations and preface by Pradier, 1875; translation into Spanish by A. Garcia Moreno, with preface by C. Martos, 1878, 6th Italian edition, 1905); Bankruptcy According to International Private Law, 1873; International Effects of Civil Judgments, 1874; International Effects of Penal Decisions and of Extradition, 1877; Treatise dealing with International Penal Law and Extradition, 2 vols., 1880 (translation into Spanish); The European Question, A Solution, 1890; Treatise upon International Public Law, 3 vols., 1879, 4th edition, 1904 (translation into French with annotations by C. Antoine, 2d edition, 1885; translation into Spanish); General Rules upon the Publication of the Laws, 2 vols., 1886-87; Treatise upon International Private Law, 4 vols., 1888, 4th edition; General Rules for the Publication, Application and Interpretation of Laws, vol. II, 1890; 2d edition, 1908; Citizenship and Marriage, 1 vol., 1909; International Law Codified, 1 vol., 1890, 4th edition, 1909 (translation into French, 1st edition, 1890, 2d edition, 1911); Questions of Law with reference to Controverted Cases, 1904; Monographs dealing with Adoption, Diplomatic Agents, Divorce, Juridical Personality of the State, etc., etc.
The Committee has felt that in proposing a name it should be that always of a man who has performed eminent distinguished services in the development of international law rather than a man whose fame was perhaps based upon a single instance. We have therefore felt amply justified in presenting the name of Signor Pasquale Fiore.
The works of Professor Fiore have been translated into French and Spanish but not into English. It is therefore a pleasure to state that his "International Law Codified," a fifth edition of which was passing through the press at the time of his death, and which has twice been translated into French, is shortly to appear in an English translation. The value of this work lies not merely in the fact that it gives the latest expression of his views but that it is a very successful example of the codification of international law.
THE WILLIAM P. FRYE CASE
The William P. Frye, a steel sailing vessel owned by American citizens and sailing under the American flag, carrying a cargo of 186,950 bushels of wheat on a voyage from Seattle, Washington, to Queenstown, Falmouth or Plymouth for orders, was encountered on the high seas on