The

representatives of the various countries represented. view has been expressed by so eminent a continental student of this question as M. Lachau that the only method of overcoming the difficulty is for treaties to be made between one nation and another on this subject until in course of time all countries can thus gradually be brought into line; but there should not be room for doubting that suggestions for general international adoption, with this object, are at least useful as indicating general uniform lines on which engagements between particular nations can be formed.

Immunity of Private Property at Sea.

This subject, of all those discussed at the above Conference, is that which is perhaps of the widest interest in public international law. At the Hague Conference it was brought up, but was ruled to be outside the scope of its functions. At Rouen, although the discussion did not end in any conclusion being adopted, the various views on the subject were fully presented and criticised. The American representatives, in accordance with tradition, advocated the adoption of the principle as a general rule of international law, preserving at the same time the belligerent rights of search, seizure of contraband, and blockade. The European members, on the whole, opposed making such a change in the existing law on the ground that it is a question of policy for each State, varying according to its geographical position; the wish was even expressed that the Declaration of Paris should be renounced; and it was pointed out that that Declaration does not historically represent a tendency in the direction of limiting the operations of war, and exempting the private property of the subjects of belligerent States at war from confiscation, nor was it intended as a step towards the doctrine that a citizen may

have the rights of peace while his country is at war. From the standpoint of policy, it has been urged, or admitted, by English writers (Westlake and Holland) that the adoption of the principle by England will be to her advantage, as securing the safety of her shipping in any event. Without attempting to discuss the subject here, it may be useful to recall that the principle has been applied as yet only by four States, Austria and Prussia in 1866, Prussia in 1870 until France began to act according to the established law, and the United States and Italy in 1871, none of these nations being what may be called maritime nations, drawing their support from or possessing ascendency at sea. Moreover, the argument that because property on land is not subject to capture, therefore property at sea should not, can be much discounted by the fact that the former is not always exempt, but is liable to destruction or seizure if military necessities require it. Again, compensation may take the place of exemption, supplied by marine insurance, and this method is already available to British shipowners. It does, however, seem that the area of loss under the existing law is, or may be, out of all proportion to the necessities of the particular war, and whether this acts as a moral force to prevent nations plunging into war is not certain; and it is noticeable that Hall (International Law, 1895, p. 465) observes that "opinion in favour of the principle sought to be established is sensibly growing in volume and force, and that the larger number of well-known living foreign international lawyers undoubtedly hold that it ought to be accepted into international law."

G. G. PHILLIMORE.

The Comité Maritime International at Paris. The yearly meeting of this Society in the Salle des Congrès at the Paris Exhibition last month was fully attended by representatives of all, or almost all, the maritime nations

of the world. Lord Alverstone, president of the Maritime Law Committee of the International Law Association, represented Great Britain, together with some half-dozen other English members of the Association. The subjects discussed were (1) the steps that have been taken in England to give effect to the resolution passed in London last year upon the subject of limitation of shipowners' liability; and (2) the unification of the laws of various countries relating to salvage.

As to the first matter, namely, the thorny question of shipowners' liability, no progress was made beyond the passing of a resolution, proposed by Lord Alverstone, that a small committee of the Society be appointed to formulate the laws which it is desirous of having passed for the purpose of making the liability of shipowners the same in all countries. This will be a very difficult task. It is much easier to pass a resolution in general terms than to put those terms into a working shape, which will be accepted by the legislatures of all the maritime nations of the world. As to England, the Act of Parliament passed last Session, by which shipowners' liability for damage done to objects ashore was limited, and more especially the manner of its passing, will not facilitate any measure which may hereafter be proposed in the English Parliament, having for its object the further limitation of the liability of shipowners. The price that was paid, as Lord Alverstone expressed it, for that Act, namely, the limitation of the liability of dockowners, did not escape the notice of the Lord Chancellor and other members of the House of Lords; and the public, other than shipowners and dockowners, will have something to say when they fully realise the character of that Act, and of the legislation with which the Society and the shipowners desire to supplement it. Some speakers at the Congress endeavoured to represent England as the only nation that stands in the way of

progress towards uniformity of law on this point; and her stupidity in resisting an alteration in her law by which her shipowners will be benefited, has been pointed out again and again. It must not be forgotten, however, that the interest that is most strongly, indeed, almost exclusively, represented at these meetings, is the interest, not of the public, but of the shipowners. But there are higher and greater interests involved in this question than those even of the shipowners. It is, nevertheless, the fact that, as things stand at present, the British shipowner has a real grievance. Nowhere in the world, we believe, can he recover a farthing in a foreign court, if the negligent ship that sinks his vessel is herself lost in the collision, whilst he is himself liable to be sued in the courts of his own country in a similar case, and, if the collision is proved to have been caused by the fault of his ship, judgment goes against him personally for damages.

Upon the other subject which was discussed at the Congress, there is little to be said. No such fundamental differences exist in the municipal laws of the nations of the world upon the subject of salvage as exist in those relating to collision. Several resolutions were passed, the object of which was to assimilate the various codes or systems of salvage law, and to eliminate differences. The broad principles of salvage law were laid down; and where differences exist, the law of England was generally preferred. One rule of English statute law, namely, the enactment which raises a presumption of fault, in case of collision, against the ship that runs away and gives no assistance to the other, was not approved ; and, we think, the Congress was right in refusing to advise a general adoption of this arbitrary and uncertain rule. The first resolution upon the general subject of salvage was opposed by the representative of the United States.

It was to the

effect that it was desirable to state, in terms, the general law of salvage, and to propose and recommend a code for adoption by all nations. The United States representative, Mr. Benedict, speaking on behalf of his colleagues of the Maritime Law Association of the United States, said upon this that they did not consider that it was advisable to formulate the law of salvage; that the general principles of salvage law were the same all the world over, and that to enact a law that all seamen should be humane and should assist each other would be futile. This, however, was not the opinion of the majority of the members of the Congress, who thought that something is gained by enunciating the law, even though its main outlines are already the same in most civilised countries.

At the close of the meeting an interesting speech was made by Professor Matsunami, a member of the Japanese branch of the Society. He called attention to the fact that in the case of a collision between a man-of-war and a merchantship the former has a right of action against the latter, whilst the merchant ship has, in no country in the world, a legal right to recover damages against the man-of-war. This, he urged, was an anomaly and an injustice; and he proposed that a right of action should be given to the merchant ship, or, in the alternative, that an international tribunal should be erected with power to adjudicate upon such cases and to give redress. The Professor, who has given. much time and study to ascertain the law of England upon this subject, presented to the Congress a book (reference to which will be found in the Review section of this number, p.114) in which he sets forth the law of England, and suggests amendments which appear to him to be desirable before it could be adopted as a model for other nations. This matter is obviously a very large, important, and delicate one, and the meeting decided that it was too large and too important to be properly dealt with at the close of