The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-04-20

the states In international affairs there are no states; there Is but one nation, acting in direct relation to and repre- sentation of every citizen in every state. Every treaty made under the authority of the United States is made by the na- tional government, as the direct and sole representative of every citizen of the United States residing in California equal 1y with every citizen of the United States residing elsewhere. It is, of course, con- ceivable that under pretense of exercis- ing the treaty-making power the Presi- dent and Senate might attempt to make provisions regarding matters which are not proper subjects of international agree ment, and which would be only colora- ble-not a real-exercise of the treaty. making power; but so far as the real ex- ercise of the power goes, there can be no question of state rights, Because the con- stitution itself, in the most explicit terms, has precluded the existence of any such question. .ss. -,,,-
 '2. Although there are no express limi- tations upon the treaty-making power granted to the national government, there are certain implied limitations arising from the nature of our government and from the other provisions of the consti- tuition; but those implied limitations do not in the slightest degree touch the making of treaty provisions relating to the treatment of aliens within our terri tory
 Rear Admiral Stockton.
 Rear Admiral Stockton of the United States navy resented what he termed charge of piracy made by Everett P. Wheeler of New York City, who in an address criticised the conduct of Amer lean naval officers in capturing ship load of non-combatants in the siege of Santiago during the Spanish-American war. As a representative of the United States navy, Admiral Stockton made strong defense of his brother officers.
 Papers were read by Admiral Stockton, Charles Sheney Hyde. professor of inter national law in Northwestern university, Chicago, and Everett F. Wheeler on the question: Would immunity from capture during war of non-offending private property upon the high seas be in the interest of civilization?"
 'Is the contraband of war unneutral, and should 1t be prohibited by interna- tional and municipal laws?' was the sub iect of a paper read by Admiral George B. Davis, judge advocate general of the United States navy, which was followed by a general discussion In which num- Der of delegates participated.
 General Davis.
 He sketched in brief the Twisting rules of contraband so far as they are recog- nized in international law, saying that they represented the compromise between conflicting interests of belligerents and neutras. The neutral desired to main tain his relations of amity with the bel ligerents and continue his antebelum trade while the belligerents were each unwilling that the others should be able to trade in contraband.
 General Davis pointed out the difficulty that confronted England and America in restricting contraband trade because of the practice of allowing the greatest freedom of business occupation to the citizen, while the continental European powers, with their more highly concen- trated and centralized systems, could easily impose restrictions upon the com mercial activity of their subjects. To abolish contraband of war would be to deprive the belligerent of the right to protect himself by reason of the warlike material which the enemy has succeeded in obtaining from neutral sources. Sooner or later, he said, the belligerent would with great reason, demand that the neutral states should charge them selves with the burden of preventing ex- port trade in contraband to belligerent destination in time of war.
 General Davis referred to the difference between England and the continental powers In. the matter OI poSslpiiltieS ol a Slockade, pointing out that owing to her insular situation, while the other European powers had land boundaries with other states, England was the one state which might be really effectively blockaded. In conclusion he said:
 Declaration of Paris.
 ''The beneficient operation of the dec laration of Paris has done much to miti- gate the rights or maritime research and capture and the practice of bellig- erents in refraining from exercising their conceded rights in localities distant from the theatre of the belligerent's activity has done still more to bring into being, such immunity from capture and annoy ance as is now enjoyed by neutral com merce in time of war. And 1t is in this direction that is in extent of the area Of neutral immunity and in resting the ac- tivity of the bellgerents to tho theatre of actual naval hostilites, that we must seek for the immunity of neutral com merce from the belligerent interference in time of public war"
 Afternoon Session.
 The speakers at the afternoon session. at which former Secretary of State John W. Foster presided included William l.. Penfield, solicitor general of the United States; Grammond Kennedy, who served as a member of the Venezuelan claims