validity of a treaty it is essential that the contracting parties have power over the subject-matter, that consent be reciprocally and regularly given, that the object of the treaty be possible and lawful according to principles of international law. Consent is considered as freely given in the case of treaties under conditions of misrepresentation and duress that might render contracts voidable. Says Wharton, "If suppressio veri abrogated treaties to the extent it abrogates contracts, few treaties would stand." In the negotiation of treaties the parties are supposed to be on the same footing, and with equal opportunities of ascertaining the facts. Treaties of peace cannot be avoided by the unsuccessful nation on the ground that concessions have been extorted by threat of the further use of force. "It was," says Vattel, "her own free choice to prefer a certain and immediate loss, but of limited extent, to an evil of a more dreadful nature, which, 2 1 International Law Digest, vol. ii, sec. 133. 'During the negotiations leading up to the Webster-Ashburton treaty, a map supposed to be very favorable to the British contention as to the northeastern boundary, was unearthed by Jared Sparks in his researches in Paris. It was shown by Mr. Webster to the commissioners from Maine, but not to Lord Ashburton. Subsequently it became public by being sent to the Senate. In the midst of the popular outcry that followed in England, an English diarist records (Greville, February 9, 1843), "At the same time our successive governments are much to blame in not having ransacked the archives at Paris, for they could certainly have done for a public object what Jared Sparks did for a private one, and a little trouble would have put them in possession of whatever that repository contained." Lord Ashburton, who had reason to complain, if such reason there were, in a communication of February 7, 1843, said, "The public are very busy with the question whether Webster was bound in honor to damage his own case by telling all. I have put this to the consciences of old diplomatists without getting a satisfactory answer. My own opinion is that in this respect no reproach can fairly be made." Ibid., pp. 177, 180. though yet at some distance, she had too great reason to apprehend." Phillimore draws a possible analogy in this respect to a private contract entered into to avoid, or to stop litigation, which, although the party was induced to enter into it through the apprehension of delay, expense, and the uncertain event of a lawsuit, is nevertheless binding. Force or intimidation applied, however, to the person of the negotiator, in whom is vested the full and final treaty-making power of the state-and unless the power were thus fully and finally vested, the right of ratification would render the use of force futile -vitiates the agreement. Such a case is hardly to be imagined at the present time, and the paucity of recent instances is attested by the uniformity with which writers refer to the concessions extorted from Ferdinand VII at Bayonne. The importance of the subject-matter, the frequent changes in the personnel of the contracting organs, the inability to confirm by witness the utterances of a state, render it more necessary that contracts between nations should be carefully expressed in writing than contracts between individuals. While no particular form is essential to the validity of a treaty, it is the practice in formal treaties to make out and sign under seal as many counterparts as there are parties, one counterpart to be retained by each. In case of two parties only, which have no common language, each counterpart is usually made out in the languages of both. The texts sometimes appear on separate sheets but more often in parallel columns or on opposite pages, the text in the language of the nation by which the counterpart is to be retained occupying the left hand column or page. 'Bk. iv, ch. iv, sec. 37. 1Vol. ii, pp. 71, 72. Likewise with the development of the principle of the equality of states before the law, precedence in the enumeration of the negotiators in the preamble and in the signatures is given in the counterpart to the state which retains. Otherwise the two instruments are identical. In case of several parties having various languages, the instrument often appears in only one language, customarily in Europe, the French. The same precedence is given in the retained counterpart, the order of the other countries being alphabetical or determined by lot. The ratification is not only attached to the instrument retained, but, for the assurance of the other contracting party or parties, is also attached to an exact copy of the retained instrument, which is exchanged for a similar copy from the other party, or in case of several parties is deposited in such place as is designated by the treaty. Each state, in case of two parties only, has then not only its own counterpart with its ratification attached, but a copy of the counterpart retained by the other party with the latter's ratification attached. A protocol signed by the plenipotentiaries by whom the exchange is effected records the act. As there is no common court by which compacts between states can be enforced, they derive their obligation from the plighted faith. To insure their execution and observance, it was customary at one time to give to important treaties a special confirmation by oath or guaranty, or to deliver hostages as a pledge. Although 'See for instances, Phillimore, vol. ii, p. 77 et seq., and Rivier, vol. ii, p. 94 et seq. In a treaty of amity and commerce between Henry VII of England and Philip, Archduke of Austria, signed Feb. 24, 1495, one archbishop, two bishops, one marquis, five earls, one viscount, one prior, and the mayors and aldermen of seventeen of the principal cities of England, were joined as sureties on the part of the king of England. A General Collection of Treatys (2d ed. London, 1732), vol. ii, p. 21. as between civilized nations of the first rank the latter expedient terminated with the treaty of Aix la Chapelle of 1748, it has been resorted to in treaties with people of a less degree of civilization. For instance, the United States has accepted hostages in concluding treaties with Indian tribes. Likewise territory may be held as security for faithful performance. Such was the case with the treaties of peace of May 10, 1871, between France and Germany, and of April 17, 1895, between China and Japan. In the desire of each nation to have its word stand unimpeached, is found, however, at present the chief sanction of treaties. As Vattel says, "He who violates his treaties, violates at the same time the law of nations; for he disregards the faith of treaties-that faith which the law of nations declares sacred; and so far as depends on him he renders it vain and ineffectual. Doubly guilty, he does an injury to his ally, he does an injury to all nations, and inflicts a wound on the great society of mankind." 1 Vattel, Bk. ii, ch. xv, sec. 221. 3. Agreements concluded by the Executive independently of 4. Agreements reached by virtue of an act of Congress, rela- |