de juristes ayant une connaissance approfondie du droit international. Ce Comité sera chargé de procéder, sous leur direction, à l'élaboration et à la rédaction du projet de Code ci-après prévu.

This conference would be in the nature of a constituent assembly, which would draft an international treaty to form a "Union des États civilisés." The organization proposed by Duplessix in the treaty which he projects includes a legislative assembly, an executive committee, and a court of justice. The composition of these "corps " would be identical, and the method of representation in them would be the same as in the constituent assembly, already quoted. A quorum consists of three-fourths of the delegates, and an absolute majority is necessary for a vote in each "corps." In the legislative assembly unanimity is necessary for the adoption of any addition. to or modification of existing law. But if a proposition of this kind does not receive a unanimous vote, and if its failure is deemed prejudicial to the interests of the union, the question may be resubmitted, and an absolute majority will serve. Those states of which the whole delegation is agreed may withdraw from the conference if they wish to do so.

Both Lorimer and Duplessix agree in proportioning the representation in the world organization to the actual value of the state in international affairs. Lorimer leaves the grading of the states to the great powers. Duplessix gives a definite scheme for determining the relative value of states on the score of population. He recognizes the desirability of unanimity in passing acts, but makes the absolute majority alone necessary to the final decision. We need not pass on

all the details of the two schemes in order to make their application to the organization of the Hague Conference. In the method of representation and of voting they agree. And we submit that it would be more in accordance with the facts if the principle of the inequality of states, recognizing actual facts and not being bound down by rules in the observance of which there is such diversity between precept and practice, were adopted.

Of course the objection will be raised that the sovereign states of the world will not consent to enter into any conference in which they do not have equal voting power. The old argument will be made

that this would be an admission of inferiority, and in derogation of their sovereignty. If such would be the result there is something fundamentally wrong with Lorimer's plan. He, however, based his whole work upon a definition of international law intended to exclude such a conclusion:

The law of nations is the realization of the freedom of separate nations by the reciprocal assertion and recognition of their real powers. (Lorimer, Institutes, Vol. I, p. 3.)

In our discussion of the so-called natural law, we have shown that liberty is a result of organization, and is not destroyed by it. It seems inevitable to conclude that a proper organization between states, clothed with proper authority, would produce truer liberty for states, just as it does for men. Moreover, the frank recognition of the real position of states should be the greatest possible incentive to growth in weaker states. This is not mere supposition; for we have at least one instance of a state stirred from its lethargy by its lack of influence in the Second Hague Conference. Chien Hsün, Chinese Minister to Holland, and a delegate to the Hague Conference, has presented a memorial to his Emperor, which is notable because it comes from the representative of a nation which for centuries has asserted its superiority to all other states, and because of its simple wisdom. (London Times, February 20, 1908, p. 4.) The memorialist frankly admits the predominant position of the eight great powers, but asserts that no state need be permanently weak:

The distinction between strong and weak depends on the efficiency or otherwise of the country's governmental system, methods of law, and military and naval preparations. *** Your servant feels, on reviewing the international situation as well as that of China herself, that unless perfection be obtained by her in the essentials above mentioned * * * it is impossible to predict the treatment which we shall receive at the hands of the powers at the next conference.

He then proposes a definite scheme for reorganizing the legal and educational system of China, considering the interval between the second and third Hague conferences as a providential opportunity " for accomplishing this work:

state which Burgess (Political Science, Vol. I, p. 85) characterizes as the perfection of humanity and the civilization of the world. The preliminaries of such a reorganization, prior to the convening of a Third Conference, lie in the field of diplomacy. The lead must be taken by the great powers, and among these the United States as chief representative of the Western Hemisphere has the plain duty of taking the initiative. Professor J. Westlake, speaking of the failure of the Second Hague Conference to agree on a plan for choosing the judges for the Court of Arbitral Justice and the wish of the conference that an agreement be reached by diplomatic means, attributes to the United States a realization of its commanding duty. He says:

There is a reason to believe that the Government of the United States is disposed to press on the Spanish American states and Brazil the institution of a court of arbitral justice for America in accordance with the plan annexed to the vau of the conference. It is obvious that that can only be done if the smaller American republics will consent to waive their cherished equality in the nomination of the judges; but such a result is not unlikely, the influence of the United States being great, and common sense having a better chance to prevail in pure diplomacy than under the incentive to self-assertion supplied by a world-wide assemblage with nominally equal voting. (Quarterly Review, January, 1908, pp. 235-236.)

With the exception of the Panama affair, America has always stood for the rights of the weaker nation. Witness the Shimonoseki affair and the return of the Boxer indemnity. America was instrumental in admitting to the Second Hague Conference the Central and South American states. But the United States would not be abandoning its time-honored position if it became sponsor of a new doctrine which is conformable to the law of facts. The question of voting power at The Hague, moreover, is in a somewhat different class from questions in which the United States has heretofore taken the side of the weaker states. As with man, so with states, suffrage is not a natural or inherent right. It comes only after compliance with rules established for its regulation. A man's vote represents himself and his family. There are physical limits to the influence and power which he may represent. A state, on the other hand, may be of almost any size and power. Yet with the present method of voting, no state is properly represented.

In the foregoing, the attempt has been made to do no more than state the prevailing theory of the equality of states; point out its most manifest defects; recount some of the remedies that have been suggested; make application of them to the organization of the Hague conferences; and suggest lines along which a reorganization might be made. FREDERICK CHARLES HICKS.

NEWPORT, R. I.

NEUTRALIZATION VERSUS IMPERIALISM

The article on "Neutralization in the April number of the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, written by a prominent member of the New England Anti-Imperialist League, seems to furnish additional evidence of the change of mind which has occurred in recent years among the advocates of the policy of antiimperialism. They originally based themselves on a supposed universal principle, according to which all "peoples" were regarded as having a natural right of independence - it not being made clear by them what constitutes a "people," or how great a number of nations would result from the application of the doctrine, or how the great number of nations which would probably result would be able to get on together. The policy, or doctrine, based on this supposed principle has been called "nationalism," and the revolutionary and opposition parties in colonies and in incorporated regions which are seeking to be disincorporated now generally call themselves "nationalists." For some years after the Spanish war of 1898, the American advocates of anti-imperialism, acting in sympathy with the "nationalists" in the Philippines, demanded the immediate recognition by the United States of the independence of the Philippines and, with less emphasis, of Hawaii and Porto Rico. Confronted with the objection that to declare these islands independent would in all probability result in their falling into anarchy and barbarism, or in their being annexed as colonies by one of the great powers other than the United States, or in a war to prevent such annexation in which the United States would participate, the anti-imperialists, under the leadership of the League, changed their ground. Independence, or "nationality," was no longer regarded by them as a natural right of all "peoples" in the original strict sense; and an arrangement with respect to these islands called "neutralization," based largely on expediency, has for some time been advocated by them. The article in question may,