The American Society of International Law met for the 28th successive year in Washington, April 26–28, at The Willard Hotel. The general program of subjects was somewhat different from the programs of the several preceding years.

At the recent annual dinner of the American Society of International Law I listened with much interest to the eloquent and impassioned address of Judge Florence E. Allen, of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, asserting that the conservation of peace has not hitherto been, and should be made, the principal objective in the development of international law. I think that her views might be summarized not unfairly in the form of a syllogism. Undeniable is its major premise that war is cruel, costly in life and resources, full of horror—a terrible infliction on those who resort to it. The minor premise is that means exist and others may be discovered whereby disputes may always be settled and peace enforced without recourse to war. And so comes the conclusion that all these means should be sought for, discovered and used, after which war will be unnecessary and will disappear from the world, leaving us under the rule of perpetual physical peace, no matter what may be the mental and emotional differences between nations.

It is interesting to know that a hundred years before the well-known attempt of Great Britain to stop corn on its way to the French, on the ground ridiculed by Woolsey, that the republic had incorporated its whole laboring class in its army, a similar attempt was made under Queen Anne, though not on the same ground, but rather as an appeal ad misericordiam. Henry Boyle, Secretary of State, wrote on April 12,1709, to Daniel Pulteney, then British Minister in Denmark (see Record Office, Foreign Entry Book, 4) as follows.

“The group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions, are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”—From the Imperial Conference Report of 1926.

Among the nationalities having no diplomatic representation in China, only the Russian emigrants come strictly within the terms of “unrepresented foreigners.” The Russian emigrants, whose legal status has been defined by the League of Nations as citoyen sans patrie, form at present the majority of the foreign population (to be exact—of Western population) not only in the treaty ports open for foreign trade but also in the interior of China. According to a very modest estimate, the number of Russian emigrants in China, not including Manchuria and Chinese Turkestan, amounts to over 100,000. The Russian colony in Shanghai alone counts 20,000, while that of Tientsin is 10,000, both showing a tendency toward a continuous increase owing to the influx from Manchuria, where, since the Japanese occupation, the conditions of life have become extremely hard for the early Russian settlers.

In connection with the war conditions which existed in Turkey from 1914 to 1922, a number of international claims arose against the Government of Turkey, including a large number on behalf of citizens of the United States. Negotiations with respect to these latter claims were undertaken by American and Turkish representatives, and on December 24, 1923, the American High Commissioner at Constantinople (Rear Admiral Mark L. Bristol), and the delegate of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Dr. Adnan Bey), entered into a claims agreement by an exchange of notes which provided.

In June, 1929, James Pugh, an Irish seaman, was arrested in a bar in the city of Colon, Republic of Panama, because of his belligerent attitude toward two policemen and his refusal to pay a bill. On the way to the police station a serious fight occurred, the circumstances of which were in dispute. Pugh died shortly thereafter. The Panamanian judicial investigation of the affair acquitted the two policemen of criminal responsibility for Pugh’s death, a result which apparently was not satisfactory to the British Government, for in July, 1930, a formal request was made upon the Government of Panama by the British Government for an indemnity of ®1,000 on behalf of the children of the deceased, based upon the allegation that his death had been caused by unjustified acts of Panamanian policemen in beating him and dissatisfaction with the manner in which the police agents had been tried.

In 1932, representatives of the legal practitioners, the judges, the law schools and the legal and diplomatic departments of the governments, founded the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law, with the object of fostering in Australia the study of public and private international law, particularly the study of those topics which affect, or are likely to affect, Australia or New Zealand. The First Annual Conference was held at the Sydney University Law School from Thursday, August 17, until Saturday, August 19, 1933.

While the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act were in force there was much debate on the question as to whether international law required that foreign diplomats be exempt from their operation. Administrative regulations provided for such exemption, but an interesting article by Mr. Lawrence Preuss argued forcibly that no such exemption was required. The matter has become wholly academic now, although it might become practical again should Congress ever reenact a prohibition law for the District of Columbia. None the less, it may be instructive to call attention to what seems to be the only direct precedent in international practice, a precedent which has apparently remained buried until now.