International A röitrafion.
153
WHAT THE UNITED STATES HAS DONE FOR INTER NATIONAL ARBITRATION ' BY HONORABLE JOHN VV. FOSTER, Formerly Secretary of State. WHEN we come to consider what the United States has done for interna tional arbitration we are carried back to the period in history when the United States en tered the family of nations. At that date there was a marked contrast between the state of law which controlled the rights and inter course of nations and that which enforced the rights and duties of the inhabitants of the respective nations. The civil law, which was in force in most of the countries of Con tinental Europe and their colonies, was the accepted product of the ripened experience of many centuries of Roman jurisprudence. The common law which prevailed in Eng land and its colonies had been brought into an established system through the careful study and practical application of successive generations of renowned jurists. But the law of nations was then in its infancy. Only one century had passed since Grotius, who has been styled the father of international law, had compiled his treatise on the "Rights of War and Peace;" and Vattel had but re cently published his "Law of Nations," and the principles he enumerated were far from being an accepted code. International law was still in a formative state when our country began its career. It had scarcely entered upon its organized lite when the wars consequent upon the French Revolution forced it to consider its rights and duties as a neutral power. It soon learned that there were no established prin ciples which warring nations respected. Iti first effort towards the maintenance of inter national rules of conduct was in President 'An address delivered at the annual meeting of the New York State liar Association, held at Albany, Jan uary 19, 1904.
Washington's neutrality proclamation, which within less than a generation brought about a complete change on this important subject. From the beginning it stood as the champion of a freer commerce, of respect for private and neutral property in war, and of the most advanced ideas of national rights and justice. In the defense of these principles it did not hesitate, even in its youth and feeble ness, to challenge the prowess of the .Mother Country. After years of remonstrance, it declared war against Great Britain in re sistance to the right -of search and impress ment, of paper blockades, and in support of free ships and free goods. That war did not vindicate these claims, but by persist ence in their advocacy this young nation has seen the principles for which it contended finally recognized, not only by England, but by all the nations of the world. After the recognition came, a Secretary of State of the United States, in a letter to the British Min ister for Foreign Affairs, referring to that period said: "From the breaking out of the wars of the French Revolution to the year 1812, the United States knew the law of na tions only as the victim of its systematic vio lation by the great maritime powers of Eu rope." By its steady championship of a freer com merce and of most elevated principles of conduct in war, the United States has brought about an almost complete change in the practice of nations. There still re mains to be incorporated into international law one of the principles announced by the founders of our government, and steadily advocated up to this day—the exemption from seizure of private property on the sea in time of war. President Roosevelt, reiter
