FOOTNOTES:
[1] Hall, Introductory chapter.
[2] Dicey, "Conflict of Laws," English, with notes of American cases, by J. B. Moore.
[3] Wheaton's "International Law," translated and made a textbook for Chinese officials in 1864.
[4] "Inst.," I., 1, 1.
[5] "De Jure Belli," Bk. I., Ch. I., § 10.
[6] I. "Political Ethics," 2d ed., p. 68.
[7] Maine, "Ancient Law," Ch. IV.
[8] "Inst.," I., 2, 1.
[9] "Inst.," I., 2, 2.
[10] Heffter, "Völkerrecht," § 2.
[11] Cicero, "De Republica," 2. 17.
[12] Droit international is the French term, subsequently adopted.
[13] Last hostages given in Europe 1748, by England to France.
[14] "Lectures on Jurisprudence," I.
[15] Walker, "Science of International Law," Chs. I. and II., fully discusses Austin's definition.
[16] Bluntschli, "Völkerrecht," Introduction; Lawrence, § 20.
[17] Walker, "Science of International Law," Ch. III., p. 58. "But when, beside the vague and fleeting World Law, the law of all humanity, was recognized a law special to certain peoples, when the distinction was drawn between the progressive and the stationary, between civilization and barbarity, when the Greek noted [Greek: ta nomima tôn Hellênôn], and the Roman felt the ties of a particular Jus Fetiale and a particular Jus Belli, International Law cast off its swaddling bands, and began its walk on earth."
[18] Cicero, "Pro Lege Manilia," Ch. XIII.
[19] Justinian Digest, 14. 2, "If goods are thrown overboard to lighten the ship, as this is done for the sake of all, the loss shall be made good by a contribution of all."
[20] Bluntschli, "Völkerrecht," Introduction; Thucydides, "Peloponnesian War," II., 12, 22, 29.
[21] The Amphyetionic League recognized some principles of interstate right and comity, as well as preserved Grecian institutions and religious traditions. This is shown in the oath of the members, "We will not destroy any Amphyctionic town nor cut it off from running water, in war or peace; if any one shall do this, we will march against him and destroy his city. If any one shall plunder the property of the god, or shall be cognizant thereof, or shall take treacherous counsel against the things in his temple at Delphi, we will punish him with foot and hand and voice, and by every means in our power." They also agreed to make and observe humane rules of warfare. See also Bluntschli, "Völkerrecht," Introduction.
[22] Maine, "Ancient Law," Ch. III. The idea as to what jus gentium was, of course varied with times. Under the Empire it lost its old meaning. See Cicero, "De Officiis," III., 17; Livy, VI., 17; IX., 11; I., 14; V., 36; Sallust, "Bell. Jug.," XXII.; Tacitus, "Ann.," 1, 42; "Quintus Curtius," IV., 11, 17.
[23] Bryce, "Holy Roman Empire," Ch. VII.
[24] Bryce, "Holy Roman Empire," Chs. VII, and XV. The "Truce of God" introduced by the clergy (1034) left only about eighty days in a year for fighting and settling feuds.
[25] On effects of Crusades, see Milman, "Latin Christianity," VII., 6; Hallam, "Middle Ages," Ch. III., Pt. I.; Bryce, "Holy Roman Empire," Chs. XI., XIII.
[26] Hall, § 268, p. 740.
[27] Laws of Wisby contain early reference to marine insurance, § 66.
[28] Expanded in 1614.
[29] De Valroger, "Droit Maritime," I., § 1.
[30] The Marine Ordinance of Louis XIV, 1681, became the basis of sea law.
[31] With the decline of the influence of the "Holy Roman Empire," the use of Latin in diplomacy became less general.
[32] Abbé Saint-Pierre, in three volumes, 1729, "Abrégé du Projet de Paix perpétuelle," outlines a plan for peace by fixed system of balance of power.
[33] "Institutes," II., 1, 21, 22.
[34] Declaration of Russia, Feb. 28, 1780.
[35] The works of Moser (1701-1786) and his immediate followers attempt to make practical the principles of International Law.
[36] I. Hertslet, 317.
[37] I. Hertslet, 573.
[38] Ibid., 658.
[39] Hall, § 88, p. 297.
[40] Walker, "Hist. Law of Nations," pp. 283, 336.
[42] Jenks, "Law and Politics in the Middle Ages," p. 30.
[43] The Santa Cruz, 1 C. Rob., 49, 61.
[44] Act of Congress, March 3, 1891. 26 U. S. Sts. at Large, 826.
[45] Lawrence, § 64.
[46] Bolton v. Gladstone, 5 East, 155, 160.
[47] United States v. Rauscher, 1886, 119 U. S., 407.
[48] United States Constitution, Art. III., § 2. For English view, see Walker, p. 46, who quotes 3 Burr, 1480.
[49] Declarations, protocols, conventions, proclamations, notes, etc.
[50] III. Hertslet, 1904.
[51] Holtzendorff, "Introduction droit public," 44.
[52] Hall, § 1 p. 18; I., Rivier, § 3, 9, I.
[53] Hall, § 1, p. 20.
[54] The internal acts of a de facto state are valid, whatever the attitude of the international circle. As an example, in 1777, during the Revolutionary War, the British governor of Florida made a grant of land in what is now the southern part of the United States. Fifty years later a descendant of the grantee laid claim to the land, but the Supreme Court of the United States declared, "It has never been admitted by the United States that they acquired anything by way of cession from Great Britain by that treaty [of Peace, 1783]. It has been viewed only as a recognition of preëxisting rights, and on that principle the soil and the sovereignty, within their acknowledged limits, were as much theirs at the Declaration of Independence as at this hour. By reference to the treaty, it will be found that it amounts to a simple recognition of the independence and limits of the United States, without any language purporting a cession or relinquishment of the right, on the part of Great Britain ... grants of soil made flagrante bello by the party that fails, can only derive validity from treaty stipulations." Harcourt v. Gaillard, 12 Wheat., 523, 527. See also M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 4 Cr., 209, 212.
[55] Suarez, "De Legibus," 6.
[56] Wheat., D., 41 n.
[57] United States of Central America, Nov. 1, 1898, from Republics of Nicaragua, Salvador, and Honduras.
[58] Japan has been generally recognized since 1894, and her foreign relations have been in course of readjustment.
[59] 1 Whart., § 70.
[60] I. Rivier, §§ 44, 125.
[61] See on this subject 1 Whart., § 70.
[62] 13 Pet., 415. See also Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202; Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet., 253.
[63] State of Mississippi v. Johnson, President, 4 Wall., 475, 500. For late review of the question, see 32 Amer. Law Rev., 390, W. L. Penfield.
[64] I. Rivier, Droit des gens, §§ 3, 11.
[65] Hall, § 26*, note 1, p. 93.
[66] Hall, § 27, p. 100.
[67] Lawrence, § 51, p. 75.
[68] "Political Annuals," since 1887 rich in discussion of neutralization.
[69] Statesman's Year Book 1901, p. 591.
[70] Ibid., pp. 657, 1237.
[71] 6 American Cycl., 376.
[72] Lawrence, p. 82, § 54.
[73] Wheat., D., note 15, p. 37.
[74] For full discussion see Wilson, "Insurgency" lectures U. S. Naval College, 1900.
[75] Hall, § 5, p. 31, ff.
[76] 3 Whart., § 381; United States v. "Ambrose Light," 25 Fed. Rep. 408. Snow, 206, "Montezuma."
[77] President Cleveland's Message, Dec. 2, 1885. U. S. For. Rel. 1885, pp. 254, 273.
[78] Parl. Papers, 1887, 1 Peru, 18.
[79] 3 Whart., § 381, "Huascar."
[80] 33 Albany Law Jour., 125.
[81] Lawrence, § 162.
[82] 1885, For. Rel. U. S. 252, 264.
[83] 1885, For. Rel. U. S. 254, 273.
[84] See 3 Whart., § 381; Bluntschli, § 512; Hall, § 5, p. 34; U. S. For. Rel. (1885), 252, 254, 264, 273.
[85] See numerous references in 51 Br. and Fr. St. Papers; also Hall, § 5, p. 39.
[86] Hall, § 5, p. 35.
[87] Wheat., D., note 15, p. 34.
[88] 1 Whart., §§ 69, 71.
[89] Story, "Santissima Trinidad," 7 Wheat. 354.
[90] Hall, § 83, p. 281.
[92] 3 Whart., § 327, p. 147. Snow's Cases, § 179.
[93] § 87, p. 291.
[94] Hall, § 87, p. 294.
[95] Von Gentz, "Fragments upon the Balance of Power in Europe," 1806.
[96] Hume, "Essays," VII.
[97] Nys, "Origines," pp. 165 ff.
[98] Bernard Lectures on "Diplomacy," 98.
[99] Tucker, "Monroe Doctrine," 4.
[100] "The Monroe Doctrine," VI.
[101] See Tucker, "Monroe Doctrine."
[102] Ann. Cycl. (1895), p. 741; (1896), p. 804; (1899), p. 845, also U. S. For. Rel. 1896.
[103] Bonfils, No. 295; Pradier-Fodéré, No. 355.
[104] § 92, p. 304.
[105] Hall, § 88, p. 297.
[106] Bonfils, 295.
[107] "Letters to Historicus," p. 41.
[108] See Rolin-Jaequemyns, R. D. I., XVIII., 591.
[109] Hall, § 91, p. 301.
[110] Hertslet, 1181, 1193.
[111] § 85, p. 129. See also 1 Halleck, 507.
[112] 1 Hertslet, 317. Ibid., 658.
[113] Walker, p. 151.
[114] Ann. Cycl. 1898, p. 159; U. S. For. Rel., 1898, p. 760.
[115] 30 U. S. Sts. at Large, 738.
[116] Bluntschli, § 477.
[117] § 94, p. 307.
[118] 1 Hertslet, 664 ff.
[121] 1 Hertslet, 574.
[122] For detailed summary, 1826-1881, see Holland, "European Concert in the Eastern Question," Ch. II.
[123] "European Concert in the Eastern Question," p. 221.
[124] Lawrence, "Disputed Questions," V.
[125] Lawrence, "Disputed Questions," V., end.
[126] 3 Kent Com., 379, 380; 1 Gould and Tucker, 484.
[127] In case of the United States, while the President may after declaration of war conquer and hold foreign territory, the joint action of the President and Senate is necessary to make the title complete by treaty.
[128] Treaties of U. S., 444.
[129] Woolsey, 496.
[130] See discussion in Hall, § 36, note 1, p. 124.
[131] The "Anna," 5 C. Rob., 373.
[132] "Institutes," II., 1, 20.
[133] See Lawrence, 153, 161, 164-167; Reinsch, "World Politics," pp. 60, 113, 184.
[134] Wheat., D., § 193, p. 274.
[135] Ed. Engelhardt, "Du régime conventionnel des fleuves internationaux," Ch. II.
[136] Grotius, II., ii., 12-14; Pufendorf, III., 3, 4; Vattel, §§ 104, 126-130, 132-134; Bluntschli, § 314; Calvo, §§ 259, 290-291; Fiore, §§ 758, 768; Carnazza-Amari, "Traite," § 2, Ch. VII., 17; Heffter, § 77; Wheat., D., § 193.
[137] Wheat., D., §§ 197-204; Whart., § 30; Pradier-Fodéré, "Traite," §§ 727-755.
[138] Justinian, "Inst.," 2, t. 1, §§ 1-5.
[139] 3 Whart., § 305 a.
[140] Parl. Papers, 1889, Commercial, No. 2; Holland, "Studies in International Law," p. 270.
[141] See Tucker, "Monroe Doctrine," pp. 43-76; Lawrence, "Disputed Questions," 72-146.
[142] See Regina v. Keyn, 2 L. R. (Exch. Div.), 63.
[143] Ann. Cycl. (1894), 292.
[144] Lawrence, pp. 138, 182.
[145] See Cushing's "Treaty of Washington."
[146] 24 U. S. Sts. at Large, 475.
[147] See Whart., §§ 301-308.
[148] Treaties of U. S., 940.
[149] Proceedings Fur Seal Arbitration, 1893; also 27 U. S. Sts. at Large, 947.
[150] Note 63, § 105.
[151] IV. Hertslet, 2783.
[152] Art. 28, Gen. Act Brussels Conference, July 2, 1890.
[153] Wildenhus's Case, 120 U. S. 1, 18.
[154] Bonfils, "De la compétence des tribunaux français," § 326.
[155] Statutes, 41 and 42, Vict., p. 579.
[156] U. S. Rev. Sts., § 1993; 1 Gould and Tucker, 478; 2 ibid., 178, 203.
[157] Civil Code, Art. 28.
[158] Law of June 1, 1870.
[159] Dec. 24, 1879.
[160] Feb. 27, 1858.
[161] July 3, 1876.
[162] Whart., § 183 ff.