¹ Moore, John Bassett, “International Law: Its Present and Future,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 1 (1907), pt. 1, p. 12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Ibid.

³ Hooker, S, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. I, ed. by Church, R. W. (Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1905), p. 64 Google Scholar.

⁴ Ibid., p. 65.

⁵ Ibid., p. 66.

⁶ SirPollock, Frederick, “The Modern Law of Nations and the Prevention of War,” The Cambridge Modern History, Vol. XII, Chap. xxii, pp. 708,709Google Scholar.

⁷ Hooker, op. cit., p. 66.

⁸ Ibid., p. 59.

⁹ Ibid., pp. 62, 66.

¹⁰ See Martens, De, Causes Celebres (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1858), vol. ii, p. 156 Google Scholar.

¹¹ The Silesian Loan and Frederick the Great, by the Rt. Hon. SirSatow, Ernest (Oxford, 1915), p. 82 Google Scholar.

¹² 3 Burrow, 1478, 1480.

¹³ 3 Burrow, 1478.

¹⁴ Ibid., pp. 1480, 1481.

¹⁵ 4Ibid., pp. 2015, 2016.

¹⁶ 175 U. S. 677, 700.

³⁷ 2 Curtis, 454; affirmed by Supreme Court, 2 Black, 481. For a comment on this case and its consequences, see Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, 194 (1888).

¹⁸ 7Cranch, 31. It is interesting to observe that the case was argued on behalf of the United States by the Attorney General, William Pinkney, then and still the greatest of American lawyers. See James Grafton Rogers’ article, “Types of the American Lawyer, Past and Present,” in the American Bar Association Journal, Vol. XV (September, 1929), pp. 531, 532.

¹⁹ 5 Wheat. 153.

²⁰ An Act to protect the commerce of the United States and punish the crime of piracy, 3 Stat. 513-514, Sec. 5.

²¹ 5 Wheat. 160-161.

²² 1 Stat. 381.

²³ Francis Wharton, State Trials (Philadelphia, 1849), pp. 49, 84.

²⁴ Francis Wharton, State Trials (Philadelphia, 1849), p. 85.

²⁵ Act of June 5, 1794—An Act in addition to the act fox the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, 1 Stat. 383, Sec. 3.

²⁶ Sec. 4, p. 383.

²⁷ Sec. 5, p. 384.

²⁸ Sec. 6, p. 384.

²⁹ Adams, Charles Francis, “Memoir of Hon. Charles Francis Adams, LL.D.” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Second Series (Boston, 1900), Vol. XIII, p. 205 Google Scholar.

³⁰ Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols, and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers, 1776-1909 (Washington, 1910), Vol. I, p. 701.

³¹ Ibid., Art. II, p. 702.

³² Art. VI, p. 703.

³³ Ibid.

³⁴ Art. VI, p. 703.

³⁵ S. Ex. Doc. No. 21, 44th Cong., 2d Sess., Report from the Secretary of State, with

Accompanying Papers, relating to the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims (Washington, 1877), pp. 147, 148.

³⁶ Ibid. , pp. 148–9.

³⁷ Welles, Gideon, “The Capture and Release of Mason and Slidell,” The Galaxy (New York, 1873), Vol. XV, p. 647 Google Scholar.

³⁸ Adams, Ephraim Douglass, Great Britain and the American Civil War (New York and London, 1925), vol. 1, p. 205 Google Scholar.

Secretary Seward to Adams Mr., November 27, 1861—John G. Nicolay and John Hay, Abraham Lincoln (New York, 1890), vol. 5, p. 32.

In further reference to this point, see the statement of Miss Slidell, one of the Trent passengers, summarized on p. 517 of the Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 1911–1912, vol. 45 (Richard Henry Dana’s paper on “The Trent Affair—An Aftermath”), that “the American officer who boarded the Trent took pains to state that the commander of the San Jacinto had no instructions from his Government, but was acting on his own responsibility.”

³⁹ See letter of Lord Palmerston to Mr. Delane, editor of the London Times, Nov. 11, 1861, involving the very point at issue, in which His Lordship admitted that the right of a belligerent “to stop and search any neutral not being a ship of war, and being found on the high seas and being suspected of carrying enemy’s despatches” was “according to the principles of international law laid down in our courts by Lord Stowell, and practised and en forced by us.” E. D. Adams, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 208.

See also The Galaxy, p. 650, column 1, lines 3-5.

⁴⁰ Nicolay and Hay, op. cit., Vol. 5, pp. 25-6. President Lincoln was in the habit of referring to Messrs. Mason and Slidell as calculated “to be white elephants.”

⁴¹ Ibid., p. 38. Concerning this document, the author says: “That long and remarkably able document must be read in full, both to understand the wide range of the subject which he treated and the clearness and force of his language and arguments. It constitutes one of his chief literary triumphs. There is room here only to indicate the conclusions arrived at in his examination. First, he held that the four persons seized and their dispatches were contraband of war; second, that Captain Wilkes had a right by the law of nations to detain and search the Trent; third, that he exercised the right in a lawful and proper manner; fourth, that he had a right to capture the contraband found. The real issue of the case centered in the fifth question: ‘Did Captain Wilkes exercise the right of capturing the contraband in conformity with the law of nations?’ Reciting the deficiency of recognized rules on this point, Mr. Seward held that only by taking the vessel before a prize court could the existence of contraband be lawfully established; and that Captain Wilkes having released the vessel from capture, the necessary judicial examination was prevented, and the capture left unfinished or abandoned.”

⁴² See comment of Secretary Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles (Boston, 1911), Vol. I, p. 299.

⁴³ Treaty relating to the use of submarines and noxious gases (Conference on the Limitation of Armament, Washington, 1922), Art. III, p. 1608.

⁴⁴ App. Cas. (1901), p. 446.

⁴⁵ App. Cas. (1901), pp. 448, 449.

As was to be expected, the one time Mollie Cooke divorced her noble spouse, and his lordship, no doubt profiting by experience, married the author of Elizabeth and Her German Garden, although he appears to have resided in England, at a respectful distance from the garden of his distinguished wife.

⁴⁶ “ Annuaire of Institut de Droit International (1931), Vol. I, p. 236.