The appalling loss of life and property resulting from the sinking of the Titanic served to direct public attention both here and abroad not only to the laws which should provide the safeguards of navigation, but also to the incidence of liability for accidents upon the high seas. The former subject has been dealt with in an interesting paper published in this Journal. We here propose to discuss the application to foreign ships, of the United States rule of the limitation of the shipowner’s liability, the foreign law upon the subject and the significance of the international movement for reform through identic legislation in many countries.

The recent adjournment of the Nicaraguan Mixed Claims Commission marks the accomplishment of one of the measures suggested by the American Government for the financial rehabilitation of Nicaragua, and the conclusion of the most comprehensive examination yet made in Central America of claims against a government.

After the fall of the governments of Zelaya and Madriz in Nicaragua, the new government which came into power in September, 1910, found, among the many problems awaiting it, a heavy internal debt and an enormous number of claims pending against a bankrupt treasury. The claims were principally war claims arising in the various civil commotions to which Nicaragua had been a prey, and especially in the revolution that had just ended. Further, during the Zelaya regime, the country had been plastered with concessions, which were regarded as unconstitutional, illegal and burdensome monopolies, and of which many were held by foreigners. The liquidation of the claims and the cancellation of illegal concessions were necessary incidents in the task of ameliorating the unfortunate economic condition of the country.

By the common law an alien is a subject of a foreign state who has not been born within the allegiance of the King: he is counted an alien friend if his sovereign or state is at peace, an alien enemy if his sovereign or state is at war with the King. By the Naturalization Act of 1870 an alien may: (1) take, acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property of every description in the same manner in all respects as a natural-born British subject; (2) after five years’ residence in the United Kingdom and on giving proof that he intends to reside in the kingdom or serve under the Crown, obtain a certificate of naturalization by which he becomes entitled to all political and other rights, powers and privileges and subject to all obligations to which a natural-born British subject in the United Kingdom is subject, with the qualification that he may not be deemed a British subject within the limits of the country of his original allegiance, if, according to its laws, he has not ceased to be a subject of that state. (This last provision has been abrogated by the new Nationality Act of 1914, which came into operation in January.)

One of the immediate consequences of the outbreak of war, according to the Anglo-American law, is that all the commercial relations between subjects of the belligerent countries come to an end. Fresh dealings cannot be entertained, and existing dealings cannot be continued, between persons divided by the line of war, save with the licence of the sovereign power. It is stated in several of the old English books that such trading is a misdemeanor, and even that it amounts to a felony, but there is no reported instance of a conviction by a criminal court. In numerous cases, however, contracts concerned with such trade were declared null, and goods seized when so engaged were confiscated as prize to the Crown. The broad principle was laid down clearly during the Napoleonic wars by Lord Stowell in the case of The Hoop, where a cargo had been captured on a neutral ship on the ground that it was being brought to England from the enemy country by British subjects. There had been some divergence of practice between the prize courts and the common law courts on the question of the absolute illegality of commercial intercourse with the enemy during war, and Stowell then stated the rule which was derived from the Dutch jurist Bynkershoek and which was conceived to be a rule of the law of nations:

The invasion by German troops of the territories of Belgium and Luxemburg and the occupation by Japanese troops of Chinese territory to facilitate their attack upon the German forces at Kaio-Chau have raised one of the most fundamental questions of international law, namely, under what circumstances, if any, is a belligerent justified in violating the territory of a neutral for the purpose of prosecuting his military operations against the enemy. The German and Japanese offenses differ somewhat because in the one case the neutrality of the violated territory had been guaranteed by a special convention of long standing to which the violating belligerent was himself a party; in the other case the neutrality of the violated territory, although protected by a long established rule of international law, as well as by one of the Hague conventions, had not been made the subject of a special and solemn guarantee by a group of Powers. This fact, together with other circumstances, places the two acts upon a different moral if not a different legal footing.

The law of nationality, which determines the relation borne by private individuals to sovereign states, is a distinct branch of public law. Being necessarily somewhat technical and detailed in its provisions, it does not ordinarily attract popular interest and attention in times of peace. However, when war breaks out, the question of nationality is seen to be one of vital importance to the state. In times of peace the population of a country presents an appearance of uniformity, and citizens and aliens mingle freely, carrying on the ordinary business of life with each other, apparently regardless of the question of allegiance. Especially has this been so in modern times, with their extensive intercourse between nations and liberal laws governing the rights of aliens. But, nevertheless, when a country is cast into the crucible of war, the component parts of its population are quickly separated into citizens or subjects, allies, alien enemies and neutrals. For some years the theory has been growing that divisions of nationality are being obliterated and replaced by economic and class divisions. The great war now being waged has proven that, whether or not the change mentioned is in a process of development, it has not yet reached the stage where it effectively controls the relation between separate countries. Divisions of nationality are still predominant.

On the 23d of August the English official press bureau issued the following public statement:

The Admiralty wishes to draw attention to their previous warnings to neutrals of the danger of traversing the North Sea. The Germans are continuing their practice of scattering mines indiscriminately upon the ordinary trade routes. These mines do not conform to the conditions of the Hague Convention. They do not become harmless after a certain number of hours; they are not laid in connection with any definite military scheme, such as the closing of a military port, or as a distinct operation against an invading fleet, but appear to be scattered on the chance of touching individual British war or merchant vessels. In consequence of this policy, neutral ships, no matter what their destination, are exposed to the greatest danger. * * * The Admiralty, while reserving to themselves the utmost liberty of retaliatory action against this new form of warfare, announce that they have not so far laid any mines during the present war and that they are endeavoring to keep the sea routes open for peaceful commerce.

By an order in council issued on the 4th of August, 1914, the British Government announced a list of articles which it proposed to treat as contraband “during the war with the German Emperor”; by an order of August 12th the first mentioned order was extended to the war with “the Emperor of Austria—King of Hungary,” and by an order of September 21st certain additions were made to the list of contraband articles published in the two preceding orders. By an order in council of October 29th the list of contraband articles in the earlier proclamations was withdrawn in consequence of the complaint of the Swedish Government that it included metallic ores, which were on the free list in the Declaration of London, and that the treatment of such articles as contraband would seriously injure Swedish trade. A new list was therefore substituted, from which ores were omitted.