§ 29, Vol. I., p. 77), "I remain of opinion that the United States ought not to submit to the payment of the Sound Dues, not so much because of their amount, which is a secondary matter, but because it is in effect the recognition of the right of Denmark to treat one of the great maritime highways of nations as a close sea, and prevent the navigation of it as a privilege, for which tribute may be imposed upon those who have occasion to use it." And substantially identical language is found to have been held by Mr. Secretary Fish in his instructions to Mr. McVeagh on the question of the Ottoman claim to exclude ships of war from the Dardanelles.

This claim, the American Secretary of State was careful to lay down, was one which the President deemed it important to avoid recognising "as a right under the Law of Nations." The American Government, said Mr. Fish, "had observed the acquiescence of other powers whose greater propinquity would suggest more intimate interests in the usage whereby the Porte claims the right to exclude the national vessels of other powers from the passage of those straits." The similarity of the position of Turkey with reference to the Euxine and of Denmark with reference to the Baltic, did not escape the notice of Mr. Fish, which is an additional reason for our referring to both questions in this place. The difference was and is, as Mr. Fish pointed out, rather in favour of Turkey, as being "sovereign over the soil on both sides of the straits, while Sweden owns the territory on the east of the Sound leading to the Baltic." Nevertheless, there were and are certain considerations which seem fairly to weaken the prima facie strength of both the Ottoman and Danish claims, inasmuch as "the Black Sea, like the Baltic, is a vast expanse of waters, which wash the shores not alone of Turkish territory, but those of another great power, who may, in times of peace at least, expect visits from men-of-war of

friendly States. It seems unfair that any such claim as that of Turkey should be set up as a bar to such an intercourse, or that the privilege should in any way be subject to her sufferance." And throughout the correspondence, cited by Dr. Wharton, between Mr. Secretary Fish and the Representative of the United States at the Sublime Porte, the American Secretary is careful to insist that the United States are "not a party to the convention which professes to exclude vessels of war from the Dardanelles," and that "a proper occasion may arise" for the American Government "to dispute the applicability of the claim to United States men-of-war." Any present acquiescence in the claim is rested entirely on grounds of expediency, and respect for the "traditional sensibility of the Porte" as to the Dardanelles. Similarly, the freedom of the Straits of Magellan is strongly insisted upon by Mr. Secretary Evarts, in his instructions to Mr. Osborn, in 1879, when Mr. Evarts said that "the Government of the United States will not tolerate exclusive claims by any nation whatsoever to the Straits of Magellan, and will hold responsible any Government that undertakes, no matter on what pretext, to lay any impost or check on United States commerce through these straits."

Thus, it would certainly seem from the well sustained identity of language held by former Presidents and Secretaries of State that the historical tradition of the United States is in favour of that very freedom which is contended for by Mr. Robertson in his articles on the Atlantic and Pacific Fisheries Question in the pages of this Review, and that even if we take only the narrowest issue that can well be raised on the Pacific side, viz., that concerning the Fisheries in Behring Strait, as distinguished from the broader question of the Behring Sea, which it is submitted is clearly a part of the Pacific Ocean. This historical

some value in a tradition in Diplomacy, and there should be more than ordinary value attaching, under a Republican Government, to a Tradition in favour of Freedom. We can only hope that the present appearance of a break in this Tradition may prove not to be such in reality, and that the words written some years ago by the then Deputy Whewell Professor of International Law in the University of Cambridge (op. cit., p. 137), may be as true of the Government of the United States as we believe that they are now of the Governments of Europe, that the "old claims to exclusive sovereignty over vast tracts of open ocean have been expressly or tacitly withdrawn for generations past," and that "no sea is now a mare clausum unless it is practically an inland lake, entirely surrounded by the land territory of a single State."

VI. CURRENT NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL

ONE

LAW.

Expulsion of Aliens.

NE of the most interesting discussions at the Lausanne meeting of the Institute of International Law, as recorded in its recently published Annuaire for 1888-1889, was that which arose out of a very able paper by M. RolinJacquemyns on the subject which forms the heading of the present Note. The Resolutions finally adopted by the Institute differed very considerably from those originally submitted to it by the proposer, and we must confess that they savour too much of theory to be of much use to the practical student of the Law of Nations. The original propositions of M. Rolin-Jacquemyns, however, do, we venture to think, represent very accurately the actual rules of International Law as at present existing on this much. vexed subject.

66

friendly States. It seems unfair that any such claim as that of Turkey should be set up as a bar to such an intercourse, or that the privilege should in any way be subject to her sufferance." And throughout the correspondence, cited by Dr. Wharton, between Mr. Secretary Fish and the Representative of the United States at the Sublime Porte, the American Secretary is careful to insist that the United States are "not a party to the convention which professes to exclude vessels of war from the Dardanelles," and that a proper occasion may arise" for the American Government "to dispute the applicability of the claim to United States men-of-war." Any present acquiescence in the claim is rested entirely on grounds of expediency, and respect for the "traditional sensibility of the Porte" as to the Dardanelles. Similarly, the freedom of the Straits of Magellan is strongly insisted upon by Mr. Secretary Evarts, in his instructions to Mr. Osborn, in 1879, when Mr. Evarts said that " the Government of the United States will not tolerate exclusive claims by any nation whatsoever to the Straits of Magellan, and will hold responsible any Government that undertakes, no matter on what pretext, to lay any impost or check on United States commerce through these straits."

Thus, it would certainly seem from the well sustained identity of language held by former Presidents and Secretaries of State that the historical tradition of the United States is in favour of that very freedom which is contended for by Mr. Robertson in his articles on the Atlantic and Pacific Fisheries Question in the pages of this Review, and that even if we take only the narrowest issue that can well be raised on the Pacific side, viz., that concerning the Fisheries in Behring Strait, as distinguished from the broader question of the Behring Sea, which it is submitted is clearly a part of the Pacific Ocean. This historical

some value in a tradition in Diplomacy, and there should be more than ordinary value attaching, under a Republican Government, to a Tradition in favour of Freedom. We can only hope that the present appearance of a break in this Tradition may prove not to be such in reality, and that the words written some years ago by the then Deputy Whewell Professor of International Law in the University of Cambridge (op. cit., p. 137), may be as true of the Government of the United States as we believe that they are now of the Governments of Europe, that the "old claims to exclusive sovereignty over vast tracts of open ocean have been expressly or tacitly withdrawn for generations past," and that " no sea is now a mare clausum unless it is practically an inland lake, entirely surrounded by the land territory of a single State."

VI.-CURRENT NOTES ON INTERNATIONAL LAW.

ONE

Expulsion of Aliens.

NE of the most interesting discussions at the Lausanne meeting of the Institute of International Law, as recorded in its recently published Annuaire for 1888-1889, was that which arose out of a very able paper by M. RolinJacquemyns on the subject which forms the heading of the present Note. The Resolutions finally adopted by the Institute differed very considerably from those originally submitted to it by the proposer, and we must confess that they savour too much of theory to be of much use to the practical student of the Law of Nations. The original propositions of M. Rolin-Jacquemyns, however, do, we venture to think, represent very accurately the actual rules of International Law as at present existing on this much vexed subject.