tained, the government ordinarily will not interfere in behalf of the claimant.32

Diplomatic settlements may be effected directly by agreement arrived at between the representatives of the governments, or indirectly by the submission of the matters in controversy to arbitration. Great numbers of claims, public and private, have been settled in this manner.33 As commercial and social intercourse between nations increases the volume. of such claims grows and is sure to continue to grow at an increasing rate.

So long as peaceful relations subsist between two rations, the business of the foreign offices goes on through the regular diplomatic channels, but war terminates them, and the ministers must promptly return to their own countries with all their records and belongings. Such communications as pass between the warring nations are sent through the diplomatic representative of some neutral power to whom the belligerent intrusts the care of its interests. During the great war many communications have in fact passed directly from one power to the other by wireless telegraph, but these are not deemed official. All formal dealings have passed through regular channels of communication.

The judicial power of diplomatic officers is usually limited to their official and domestic families, but more extended jurisdiction is sometimes given them. The United States has vested its ministers and consuls appointed to reside in China, Japan, Siam, Egypt and Madagascar with authority to arraign and try citizens of the United States charged with offenses against law, committed in such countries, and to pass sentence on the offenders, and also authority to execute the provisions of the treaties with those countries in regard to civil rights and jurisdiction in matters of contract at the port nearest to whch the contract was made. This jurisdiction embraces all controversies between citizens of the United States and of such others as are provided for in the treaties, and is

32 7 Moore Dig. Int. L. 987 et seq.

33 For an extended summary of International Arbitrations see Moore's History of International Arbitrations, Vols. 1, 2 and Appendix 3, Vol. 5.

to be exercised in all cases in accordance with the laws of the United States. Consuls and commercial agents in countries not inhabited by civilized people are given like power in civil cases involving $1,000 or less, and criminal jurisdiction of crimes committed by citizens of the United States.3

CONSULS

34

Consuls are not diplomatic officers, but are sometimes called on and temporarily appointed to perform diplomatic service in the absence of all the members of a legation. The duties performed by the consuls and vice-consuls in different countries are not uniform, but dependent on treaties and the laws of the country appointing them. All the consuls of the United States are commercial agents and as such required to make reports to the Secretary of State of the exports from and imports to the places to which they are accredited, the market prices of the various articles of commerce and the wages paid for labor within their jurisdictions. Where the laws of the country permit, it is their duty to take charge of and conserve the estates of citizens of the United States, other than seamen belonging to any vessel, who die within their consulates leaving no personal representative, partner or trustee appointed by him to take care of his effects.35 They are also charged with the duty to investigate the complaints of seamen and protect them in case of discharge in a foreign port, and to provide passage home for destitute seamen. By statutes and treaties judicial powers are conferred on many of them, especially in poorly organized countries. Consular treaties in great numbers have been entered into by the various governments. Consular officers of the United States are authorized to solemnize marriages and certify them to the Department of State.37 All consular officers are authorized to administer oaths, take and certify depositions, and perform any act that a notary public is authorized to perform within the United States.

36

34 Revised Statutes of United States §§ 4084, 4085, 4086, 4087, 4088. 35 Compiled Statutes of United States (1918) § 3162.

36 Compiled Statutes of U. S. (1918) §§ 8368 to 8374.

37 Compiled Statutes of the U. S. (1918) § 3211.

TREATIES

The peaceful relations and intercourse between nations and their respective citizens goes on in accordance with established customs and general principles recognized as international law, supplemented by such treaties as they mutually agree upon. A treaty is a formal agreement entered into by two or more sovereignties, binding on the nations as political entities and on their citizens and subjects individually and collectively. It is based on the idea of the unity and personality of the state, and its capacity to contract for all its people. Treaties are in no sense a modern invention. They are mentioned by the most ancient of historians. War may end by the extermination of one of the parties to it, as often happens among savage tribes, by the subjugation of one of the parties to terms dictated by the conqueror, or by a treaty between the parties fixing the terms on which peaceful relations are to be resumed. In modern times most wars between civilized states end in a treaty of peace. The treaty becomes a contract between the parties, ending the controversy and containing provisions to be observed as rules of right and conduct by and between the nations and their people. These rules do not bind any nation not a party to it, or become a part of general international law.

Without attempting anything like a comprehensive review of ancient treaties a few conspicuous ones may be mentioned. Solomon and Hiram, king of Tyre, entered into a treaty under which Solomon was given cedar and fir trees for the temple he was about to build, in exchange for wheat and oil for Hiram's household. Pursuant to this treaty Solomon sent his men to Lebanon and cut and removed the timber he needed and Hiram's builders and Solomon's builders worked together on the timbers and stones of the temple, "and there was peace between Hiram and Solomon; and they two made a league together.' When Cambyses of Persia applied to the Phoenicians for ships for an expedition against Carthage, they answered that they were bound by a treaty of amity and ties of blood to Carthage, and therefore refused his request.39

381 Kings, Ch. V. 39 Herod, b. iii 19.

1938

Montesquieu says "The noblest treaty of peace ever mentioned in history is, in my opinion, that which Gelon made with the Carthaginians. He insisted on their abolishing the custom of sacrificing their children.”40 The Sicilians under Gelon had just destroyed the great army and fleet sent against them by the Carthaginians, and the only condition of peace imposed was the abolition of an inhuman custom.

A treaty was entered into between the Romans and the Jews in the time of Judas Maccabaeus, 161 B.C., providing for mutual aid in case of war." It seems that the early Roman consuls were without power to conclude a binding treaty, for when the two consuls commanding the Roman army were taken prisoners by the Samnite leader, Caius Pontius, and made a treaty with their captor, the treaty was rejected at Rome and the consuls, who had been released on the faith of the treaty, were returned to the Samnites, accompanied by the Fetiales who refused to sanction the treaty, but Pontius again released them.2 About 508 B.C. the Romans and Carthaginians concluded an important commercial treaty by which the Romans were prohibited from sailing beyond Fair promontory, near Carthage, and fixing the dues to be paid at the port of Carthage. Prior to the invasion of Greece by Xerxes he entered into a treaty with the Carthaginians by which the latter agreed to invade Sicily at the same time that he invaded Greece." From the earliest times until the Roman conquests` covered most of the known world, treaty-making was carried on by the Greeks, Persians and their neighbors, but each party to a treaty had to rely on the good faith of the other for its observance. No method of enforcement of treaty obligations other than by war waged by the aggrieved party and such allies as he could get was devised.

43

As gunpowder put an end to the military system of feudal times, and kings came to rely on paid mercenaries and stand

40 Spirit of Laws, b. x, ch. 5.

411 Maccabees, c. 8.

42 Liv. lib ix.

43 Polyb. 1, iii, 247.

44 Diod. I xi, p. 1-16-21.

ing armies instead of the knightly services of their retainers, the power of kings increased. The theory of rulership by right Divine, inculcated by the Roman Church in its own and their interest, emancipated the princes from all accountability to the people over whom they ruled. Kingdoms were regarded as property of the sovereigns, to be acquired and disposed of as the king saw fit. Treaties were mostly agreements between crowned heads for the advancement of their personal and political interests. Matrimonial alliances, which had played such an important part throughout feudal times, were still a very important consideration in many treaties between kingdoms. Treaties remained secret unless the monarchs who were parties to them deemed it to their interest to make them public. This most pernicious practice of making secret treaties has persisted to the present time, and seems to be in some degree responsible for the awful war which has just terminated.

With the growth of commerce and the increase of intercourse between nations treaty-making has been greatly stimulated, and commercial interests have prompted a very large part of the treaties, especially between the new and the old world. In Europe territorial aggrandizement and military and naval supremacy have still occupied the attention of diplomats, and as a result of wars and diplomacy the political map of Europe has been changed many times and in most important particulars within the memory of the writer. Treaties between pairs of nations have been made in very great numbers in recent years. Great Britain has been the most active of all the nations in its diplomacy, and its treaties fill many large volumes.

From the earliest times to the present day all treaties between nations have been negotiated and formulated by their diplomatic agents. These are ordinarily appointed by the executive head of the nation. Treaties thus negotiated usually require ratification, and there is much diversity now in the laws of the different countries as to the requirements with reference to ratification. These agents are usually denominated plenipotentiaries, and are furnished with letters defining their