EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT concludes that the Roman influence coming chiefly through the Church was responsible for much more of this system than the earlier Germanic influence. " Feudalism," he says, "was a necessary and intermediate stage between Germanic independence and Roman absolutism." ISTERNATIONAL LAW (Arbitration). In the January American Law Review (V. xl, p.i) Dr. Hannis Taylor writes interestingly of " The Growth of Hague Ideals." He recalls the growth of sentiment toward international arbitration which resulted in the Hague con vention, and regrets that the United States alone of all the powers has in its subsequent conduct been hostile to carrying out the policies there recommended. He quotes largely from the report of the Committee of the American Bar Association on this subject, which we printed in our Sep tember number. In conclusion he says: "If experience should prove that such a delegation of power to the president is danger ous, it could be easily revoked, while no great harm would be likely to arise from submissions to arbitration made by the president in the meantime in the light of day, after full deliber ation upon the part of his constitutional advisers. Far greater harm is likely to result from a narrow and technical construction of the treaty-making power which will place it in an exceptional . position in conflict with that occupied by the other great states of the world. The civilized nations are, by a common and almost involuntary impulse, now moving with a firm and steady tread towards the attain ment of certain ideals to which the Permanent Court of the Hague is as a nucleus of light. So far from obstructing the march, this re public should place itself in the lead. It can afford to do no less." INTERNATIONAL LAW (Enforcement). "Is International Law a Part of the Law of Eng land" is the title of an interesting article by J. Westlake, K. C., in the January Law Quar terly Review (V. xxii, p. 4). The discussion is suggested by a recent case in which a petition of right was filed seeking the performance by the Crown as successor to the South African Republic, of an obligation alleged to have rested on that republic for the repayment of
163
the value of gold commandeered by it shortly before the commencement of the late war. The court said of the proposition, which is the title of the article, that " any doctrine so in voked must be one really accepted as binding between nations, and the international law sought to be applied must, like anything else, be proved by satisfactory evidence, which must show either that the particular proposi tion put forward has been recognized and acted upon by our own country, so that it is of such a nature and has been so widely and generally accepted that it can hardly be supposed that any civilized state would repudiate it." In the United Kingdom as a-rule a treaty has no effect on private rights. It must be fol lowed by an act of parliament, but in the United States a treaty is itself a part of the law of the land. But it has been held that a subsequent act of Congress repeals such a treaty, so that in fact the faith of treaties is treated in the same way in the two countries. But apart from treaties, there are cases of private rights in volving international law, as well as rights which the state itself can sue for. Such are diplo matic immunities, and rights held by the states for the benefit of its subjects. Assuming that the national obligation exists in the case in question, it seems reasonable that British subjects seeking the fulfilment of that obliga tion by petition of right, should not be worse off than aliens having a state to undertake their case. But the answer in the principal case was that the annexation, which was alleged as the foundation of the right, was an act of state, and acts of state cannot be inquired into either by judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. This does not decide whether international law is a part of the law of England, but merely sets up a rule by which the law of the land is excluded from having a voice with regard to certain matters described as acts of state. Inter national law may also be brought before the courts by private persons in questions of prize. The author summarizes his conclusions as follows: "The English courts must enforce rights given by international law as well as those given by the law of the land in its narrower sense, so far as they fall within their jurisdiction in respect of parties or places, subject to the rules that the king cannot divest or modify
