contains in addition various stipulations concerning the new order of things which is to follow the termination of hostilities. Private rights are safeguarded, provision is made for the resumption of commercial intercourse, and legal matters of an international character receive due attention.

The legal consequences of the restoration of peace.

§ 239.

The restoration of a state of peace carries with it certain consequences defined by International Law, and not dependent for their existence upon treaty stipulations, though they may be modified or set aside thereby. The moment a treaty of peace is signed, belligerent rights cease. There must be no more fighting. Requisitions and contributions can be no longer levied by an occupying army, and arrears of them remaining unpaid cannot be demanded. The right to detain prisoners of war as such ceases, though convenience dictates that they shall remain under supervision till proper arrangements can be made for their return home. When the area of warfare is very large, and portions of it are too remote to be reached by quick modes of communication, it is usual to fix in the treaty a future date for the cessation of hostilities in those distant parts. But if official news of the restoration of peace reaches them before the time fixed, it seems to be settled that no further acts of war may be committed. The notification must, however, come from the government of a belligerent in order to be binding upon its commanders. They are under no obligation to take notice of information derived from any other source. This was clearly laid down. by the French Council of Prizes in the case of the Swineherd, a British ship captured in the Indian Ocean in 1801, within the five months fixed by the Treaty of Amiens for the termination of hostilities in those regions, but after the French privateer which made the capture had received news of the peace. The information was, however, English and

Portuguese in its sources. No notification of an official character had been received from France, and the capture was therefore adjudged to be legal. Captures made in ignorance after the conclusion of peace, or after the time fixed in the treaty for the termination of hostilities, must be restored, and the effects of all acts of war performed under similar circumstances must be undone as far as possible.

At the conclusion of peace private rights suspended during the war are revived. Thus debts due from subjects of one of the powers lately belligerent to subjects of the other can again be sued for, and contracts made before the war between private individuals on opposite sides in the struggle can be enforced at law. But specific performance cannot be demanded if any act done in furtherance of warlike operations, or as an incident of them, has rendered it impossible. A man, for instance, cannot be compelled to fulfil an agreement to sell a particular house or a particular herd of cattle, if the house has been battered to pieces in a siege or the cattle requisitioned and eaten by the enemy. When a period is put to legal obligations, the time does not run during the continuance of hostilities. Let us take as an example the payment of a debt, the recovery of which is barred after seven years by a statute of limitations. It could be enforced at the end of a war, provided that less than seven years had elapsed between the time when it was contracted and the outbreak of hostilities, and it could also be enforced at any subsequent period, provided that the time between the signature of the peace and the commencement of the action added to the time between the incurring of the debt and the war did not exceed seven years.

As between the belligerent powers themselves, it is held that the conclusion of peace legalizes the state of possession existing at the moment, unless special stipulations to the contrary are contained in the treaty. This is called the

1 Kent, Commentaries on American Law, I., § 172, note b; Pitt Cobbett, Leading Cases in International Law, p. 150.

principle of uti possidetis, and it is of very wide and far reaching application.1 Cities, districts and provinces held in belligerent occupation by an enemy fall to him by the title of completed conquest, when it is not expressly stated that they are to be evacuated. Captures made at sea but not yet condemned by a Prize Court become the lawful possessions of the captor, and seizures on land of such things as a belligerent is allowed by the laws of war to appropriate are his by good title. It is very rarely desired that all these consequences should follow the conclusion of peace. The victor does not wish to acquire in perpetuity every post he holds when hostilities cease, nor does the vanquished intend to give up whatever territory may be at the moment in the hands of his adversary. Accordingly when one side has overrun large districts and captured many places, the treaty of peace almost invariably contains elaborate stipulations with regard to them. Their future destination is settled by express agreement, and detailed provisions are made for the regulation of proprietary and personal rights and obligations. Arrangements that seem at first sight to be pedantic in their minuteness are often necessary to carry out the intentions of the parties in the face of the rule that, when there are no express stipulations to the contrary, the principle of uti possedetis prevails.

§ 240.

Among the most extraordinary phenomena of modern times we may reckon the simultaneous growth of the material preparations for warfare and a sentiment growth of a horror of horror and reprobation of war.

The simultaneous

of war and prepa

Both are

The feel

rations for war. apparent all over the civilized world. ing in favor of peace is strongest in the two great Englishspeaking nations; but even they have added considerably to their fighting forces, while the other leading states of the

1 Wheaton, International Law (Dana's ed.), § 548.

civilized world have imposed crushing burdens on their manhood and their wealth, in their anxiety to bring themselves to the highest point of efficiency in defence and attack. The United States has been untouched by any desire to imitate the military armaments of the continent of Europe, but she has created within recent years a navy of modern war-ships, which she is steadily enlarging with the consent of both her great political parties.1 Great Britain has done little for the improvement of her army except increase its cost; but she has made and is making enormous additions to her fleet. On the other hand, a strong dislike of war is growing among the nations who are most energetic in strengthening their fighting forces. Throughout Europe there is a stirring among both rulers and peoples. Those who preach the doctrine that war is essential to manliness and self-sacrifice are not accorded the almost universal approbation which would have been granted them a few years ago. Thoughtful men and women are not disposed to traverse the statement that the exclusive pursuit of wealth and material comfort is debasing and dangerous. They are willing to admit the argument of Von Moltke that knowledge alone will not inspire patriots to give their lives for home and fatherland. But they do most strongly controvert the terrible conclusion which the great German strategist drew from his innocent premises. They cannot believe that eternal peace is a dream, and not even a beautiful dream. They would account it blasphemy to hold that war is a part of the divine order of the world. They see in England a nation in which the physical perfection of manhood is often attained by healthy sports and outdoor exercises, without compulsory military service. They look across the Atlantic and find another people among whom intense patriotism and a most jealous regard for the honor of the flag is kept alive without the existence of a standing army of sufficient size to be a calculable factor in the national life. All around them are the devotees of religion and philanthropy, the idealists of science

1 The increase of her possessions, resulting from the success of her war with Spain in 1898, has forced her to increase her armed forces.

and art, in whose bosoms love of God and man, or enthusiasm for truth and beauty, has kindled the most heroic selfsacrifice. While there are new countries to be explored, new tracts to be reclaimed from wilderness and tamed for the service of man, there will never be lacking an ample field for the utmost energy of the restless and the adventurous. While there are seas to be crossed and mountains to be climbed, skill and daring will be in constant demand. The fireman in the burning building is as brave as the soldier in the breach. The miner in his underground galleries has as much need of coolness and courage as the engineer in the trenches. Domestic life gives a far better training in selfcontrol and self-denial than the camp or the battle-field. Obedience and discipline are qualities necessary for the successful pursuit of countless manufacturing industries. Loyalty to comrades is developed by engaging with others in the work of many a civic and religious organization. The destruction and waste caused by war, the passions it stirs up, and the suffering and vice which follow in its train, are a terrible price to pay for noble qualities that may be gained by other means. Men can be manly without periodical resort to the occupation of mutual slaughter. It is not necessary to graduate in the school of arms in order to learn the hard lessons of duty and honor and self-sacrifice.

In the past war has often been a game which kings have played at in the interests of personal or dynastic ambitions. With the advance of democracy it is becoming more and more a matter for peoples to decide upon. They are hardly likely to engage in it deliberately after cool calculation as a mere move in a deep political scheme, but they may be easily led into it through ignorance, or driven into it through resentment and fury. The best hope for the future lies in their enlightenment as to their true interests, and their moral improvement to the point of regarding every unnecessary conflict as at once a blunder and a crime. If wars there must be, let them at least be wars of reason, and not wars of passion.