to the toast, "The Judicial Department," defined the requisition of a typical American court as

First, honesty; second, courage; third, good sense, and fourth, a knowledge of the law.

All in all the new court seems to have grappled with energy the perplexing situation before it, and we may look forward to some new developments of the common law in this new field for American jurisprudence which will not only make for the betterment of conditions in China but throw some interesting light upon old legal problems in a new environment.

ANGLO-AMERICAN RELATIONS

The year 1907 opened without any friction between Great Britain and the United States and it is to be hoped that the year will close without any. It is a pleasure to be able to state that the modus vivendi, safeguarding the American fishing rights within the Newfoundland waters, accomplished the purpose which the contracting countries had in mind. The rights of both parties were clearly set forth in advance of the fishing season, the imperial authorities had seen to it that these rights. were in no instances violated by local ordinance or action, with the result that the fishing season of 1906-1907 closed without any untoward incident. If the modus vivendi (the text of which was in the Supplement to the January number, pp. 22-31) should be continued or if a permanent arrangement could be reached or if a treaty or convention could be negotiated which would clearly define and adequately protect the rights of American fishermen, a recurrent cause of friction would be removed.

For one brief moment an incident occurred at Jamaica which might have caused an unpleasant feeling if there had been any source of irritation existing between the two countries. The lamentable earthquake which destroyed Kingston and caused the death of many an inhabitant seemed to furnish opportunity to the jingo on both sides of the water to resort to favorite, but fortunately forgotten, methods. The landing of Admiral Davis at the request of subordinate authorities for protection of life, liberty and property did not meet with favor from the governor, and a thoughtless phrase written by the governor in a moment of excitement might have caused infinite trouble if it had not been disavowed by the English press and had it not been charitably received in this country. If Admiral Davis had landed without the consent of the local authorities he would have been guilty of a technical violation of

British sovereignty, but the owner of a house is not overmindful who enters it to put out a fire. An action of trespass under such circumstances is unknown, and the technical violation of sovereignty, had it occurred, would not have been the source of criticism by the rightminded. It is a fact, however, that Admiral Davis landed his men at the request of the local officials and therefore a human action does not have to defend itself.

The following colloquy occurred in parliament:

Mr. Collings asked the under-secretary for the colonies if it were in accordance with international law and international etiquette for the admiral of a foreign ship to land an armed force in a British colony without the permission of the governor of that colony.

Sir E. Grey [secretary of state for foreign affairs], who replied, said: The answer is in the negative, and I may add that in the incident to which the right honorable gentleman has previously referred no such right was ever claimed.

cheers.]

Mr. Collings: Was the right, or supposed right, exercised?

[Ministerial

Sir E. Grey: No, sir; if a right is not claimed you cannot say it has been exercised. What I am convinced of is that there was naturally in the presence of such a catastrophe a certain amount of misunderstanding. The action of the American admiral was inspired by the single-minded motive of humanity and the desire to remove suffering. [Cheers.] Any other construction placed upon his actions would be both unworthy and untrue. [Cheers.]

Mr. Collings: Does not the fact remain that in opposition to the governor of a British colony this armed force was landed, and that there was no disorder that would warrant any such action? [Opposition cheers.]

Sir E. Grey: No, sir. According to my information the question of the right honorable gentleman contains a statement of fact which is not borne out by the true accounts of the occurrence. [Ministerial cheers.]

Mr. Collings asked Mr. Churchill when the papers referring to matters connected with the Jamaica earthquake and to Sir Alexander Swettenham's resignation would be issued.

Mr. Churchill [under secretary of state for the colonies]: The colonial secretary is in communication with the foreign secretary, and the question of publication is receiving consideration. I cannot say more at the moment as to whether any papers will be issued, and, if any are issued, what they will be.

Mr. Collings: Has the honorable gentleman not already made a promise that such papers should be issued?

Mr. Churchill: I am certainly not aware of any such promise as that suggested. The only statement that has been made is that we would consider whether papers should be laid and what papers. That process is still going on. [Laughter.]

The episode is mentioned here in no unkindly spirit. The burst of good feeling on both sides of the water makes one almost glad that the incident happened.

The appointment of the Right Honorable James Bryce as ambassa

dor to the United States has been received on all sides as the most pleasing and tangible exhibition of good feeling on the part of Great Britain. No choice could have been more happy, for if an ambassador's chief function is to interpret the people by whom he is sent to the people to whom he is accredited, nobody could more fully perform this mission than one who has interpreted our institutions not only to Great Britain but to the Americans themselves. We feel, not unnaturally, that Mr. Bryce understands us, and understanding us we feel that we will have no difficulty in understanding him. The American Commonwealth is a standard and household work, and we look upon Mr. James Bryce as a sincere and sympathetic friend of our country and its institutions. It is in no unkind or critical spirit that we say that Great Britain was never so adequately represented in the United States as it is at present in the person of this simple and high-minded Scotchman. It is natural that we take an abnormal interest in British affairs for we are, to use the happy expression of the late John Richard Green, "two nations but one people." The coming of Mr. Bryce to interpret to us the old world is therefore no ordinary event. In expressing pleasure at the coming of Mr. Bryce no criticism of any other country or its representative is intended: it is simply a recognition of the apt phrase of Plautus, "Tunica propior pallio est," "My shirt is nearer to me than my coat.” A more elegant version would be "blood is thicker than water." In any case we bid Mr. Bryce welcome and wish him success.

ANGLO-FRENCH CONVENTION RESPECTING THE NEW HEBRIDES

When the Anglo-French agreement of April 8, 1904, was signed, it was impossible for the two contracting governments to reach an accord with respect to the New Hebrides, and it was stipulated simply that the two governments agree to draw up in concert an arrangement which, without involving any modification of the political status quo, shall put an end to the difficulties arising from the absence of jurisdiction over the natives of the New Hebrides.

The question of the New Hebrides is one of long standing. The people of Australia feared in 1877 that France intended to occupy the islands as a penal colony, and in 1878 France disavowed any designs upon their independence. French influence was steadily augmented, however, and it was thought that Great Britain would withdraw its objection to French control of the islands if it were agreed not to use them as a penal colony. But no change took place in the political status of the territory. In 1886 a military force was sent to the islands to protect French colo

nists, and in 1887 an Anglo-French convention established a mixed naval commission for the maintenance of order and the protection of French and British citizens in the New Hebrides. This commission had too little power to maintain order. British orders in council of 1877, 1879 and 1880 created the office of high commissioner for the western Pacific, and the title of high commissioner was conferred upon the governor of the Fiji Islands. From 1888 to 1890 a British agent, with the title of consul, was stationed in the New Hebrides. Under the Pacific orders in council of March 15, 1893, the British high commissioner was given. jurisdicion with respect to British subjects in Pacific islands having no organized government; ample protection was thus extended to British subjects in the New Hebrides.

After the convention of 1887, France took no further steps for the protection of French subjects in the New Hebrides, until 1900. By a French law of July 30, 1900, the president of the republic was authorized to take measures to secure the protection of French citizens settled in the islands of the Pacific Ocean which did not form a part of French territory, and in execution of this law a decree of February 28, 1901, appointed the governor of New Caledonia commissioner general of the French Republic in the Pacific Ocean. The French commissioner general was given powers similar to those exercised by the British high commissioner.

After the action of France there were in the New Hebrides four distinct authorities: (1) The native authorities. (2) The mixed naval commission created by the convention of November 16, 1887. (3) The agents of the British high commissioner. (4) The agents of the French commissioner general. There were no authorities which properly had jurisdiction over other than natives and British and French subjects. This situation has been altered by the terms of the Anglo French convention, signed at London on October 20, 1906.1

THE ABOLITION OF PRIZE MONEY"

In the American Law Register for September, 1906, Mr. Charles Chauncey Binney calls attention to the present law of the United States with reference to "prize money." Inasmuch as the protection of private. property at sea in time of war is one of present interest, we give below the text of the law:

1 See text of convention in the Supplement. For a careful discussion of the question of the New Hebrides, see an article by Professor N. Politis in Revue Générale de droit international public, 8:121, 2,30.

All provisions of law authorizing the distribution among captors of the whole or any portion of the proceeds of vessels, or any property hereafter captured, condemned as prize, or providing for the payment of bounty for the sinking or destruction of vessels of the enemy hereafter occurring in time of war, are hereby repealed. (March 3, 1899. 30 Stat. L. 1007.)

This enactment marks an important step toward greater security of private property in time of war, for it takes away the pecuniary inducements for the capture of such property. The institution of "prize money" is still in existence outside of the United States, and its abolition would be a proper subject for consideration at the coming Hague conference.

Many people advocate the complete immunity from capture of nonoffending enemy property upon the high seas and consider its capture as unjustifiable, as the seizure of such property would be if on land. This may be so, but it is important to consider whether freedom from capture of property on sea would remove a check upon war by freeing large and important commercial interests from danger. The question is one of fact not of theory.

The abolition of privateering has freed commerce from a band of irresponsible adventurers; the abolition of prize-money removes an incentive to prey unjustly and for personal profit upon private property.

It may be said that one class of property should not suffer solely by reason of its situation while property of the same kind would be immune on land. This is unfortunate but if capture of property so circumstanced serves to prevent war by weighing the purse against the sword, it is better that property afloat be subject to loss rather than that a human life be endangered. Certain classes of the community do not suffer in their persons by war, while the soldier and sailor meet death. Why should not property be exposed to danger? The question is, as suggested, one of fact not of theory.

ANGLO-FRENCH-ITALIAN AGREEMENT REGARDING ABYSSINIA

After prolonged negotiations, France, Great Britain and Italy signed, on December 13, 1906, a treaty regulating their respective rights in Abyssinia. The treaty guarantees the integrity of Abyssinia, and the maintenance of the status quo. In case future events should make impossible the maintenance of the status quo the three signatory powers agree to act only in concert. Great Britain obtains the assurance that nothing will be done to modify the course of the Nile and its tributaries; Italy is given a free hand to construct railways from Eritrea to AddisAbeba, and from there to its colony of Benadir; to France is assured