interference in the internal affairs of certain nations to prevent the perpetration of crimes or the continuance of conditions that are revolting to humanity, every nation should, subject to the principles and rules applicable to all alike, be regarded and treated as standing on an equality with the others. This is, of course, an ideal standard, a standard that, perhaps, is unattainable, but just to the extent that it is not realized in the administration of law, municipal or inter national, just to that extent does law, munici pal or international, fail to be an instrument of justice; and if in either case, no attempt is made towards its realization, the law be comes worse than a set of empty forms, for the rule of open and undisguised force is better than the rule of force under the cloak of dishonesty and hypocrisy. The rulings of courts on points of Inter national Law that come before them and the decrees of prize courts and arbitral tri bunals are, as precedents, of great impor tance and value in its development, for thev are the products of reason seeking to ascer tain and apply the rules of that justice "whose set and constant purpose is to give to every" nation "its due." But the great mass of the questions of viral importance that arise, be tween nations are settled by diplomacy, pres sure, and war. and such settlements are of about as much value as precedents in Inter national Law as the results of the ancient. trials by ordeal or by combat would be in Municipal Law. Equality before the law is too often the last thing that enters into the consideration of the representatives of a powerful country when they are dealing with those of a weaker. Statesmen and diplomats seek to achieve victories, not to realize the principles of abstract justice. Lawrence in his excellent work, The Prin ciples of International Law, tells us (p. 20), "Statesmen uphold the cause for which thev are contending by reference to acknowledged rules deduced from the general practice of
States. . . . Very seldomdowefin:lappeals to natural rights or innate principles of jus tice and humanity. Sometimes such consid erations are used to bolster up a case for which little support can be found in acknowl edged principles or accepted rules. Their presence in a State paper is a pretty sure sign that International Law is hopelessly against the contention of its authors!" The practica! and logical results of such doctrines are later set forth in the same work, (p. 242) where it is declared,—"But a careful examina tion of recent international history seems toreveal a scries of important facts, which can have no other meaning than that the doc trine of Equality is becoming obsolete and must be superseded by the doctrine that a Primacy with regard to some important mat ters is vested in the foremost powers of the civilized world. . . . We do not assert that the hegemony of the Great Powers in the Old World and of the United States in the New is an undoubted principle of public law. All we contend ¡or is that events are tending in that direction and, unless this tendency is speedily reversed, the Grotian doctrine of Equality will soon be a thing of the past." That the tendency suggested by Professor Lawrence exists and that it is the outgrowth of diplomacy, pressure, and war, are ob vious, that if it is not checked or counter acted, the Grotian doctrine of Equality wih soon be "a thing of the past" is equally ob vious; and that if this foundation of Inter national Lav,- is destroyed, International Law itself as a system worthy of any respect or consideration must fall, is self-evident. Grapes cannot be gathered from thorns or figs from thistles in the field of international relations any more than in the fiefd of morals. The conditions suggested by Professor Lawrence, however, are by no means con clusive as to the future. The concert of the great powers of Europe is undoubtedly a strong factor in the preservation of peace
