The Permanent Court of International Justice has settled down to continuous hard work. The experimental stage seems now to be passed, and though the revision of the Statute is still pending, the Court has entered upon a period in which attention is to be concentrated on its functioning from month to month. During 1932, the Court was in session for 240 days. The 23rd session, which began on November 5, 1931, and was broken by a recess from December 15,1931, to January 11,1932, was not concluded until February 4, 1932. The 24th session began on February 1, 1932, and was concluded on March 8,1932. The 25th session began on April 18,1932, and continued until August 11,1932.

A composite picture of the status of the Papacy in international law as described by the text-book writers down to 1929 has notably clear outlines. From the 8th century until 1870, the Pope, in addition to his spiritual authority as supreme head of the Roman Catholic Church, had, except for brief intervals, the rights of temporal sovereignty as head of a state. In that year Rome was occupied on September 20 by an Italian army, the occupation was ratified by popular vote, and the city made the capital of the Kingdom of Italy by the Italian Parliament on October 2; on October 9 it was annexed by royal decree, which was confirmed by law of December 31; in consequenceof which the Papal States disappeared and the temporal power of the Popewas ended. On May 13, 1871, the Italian Parliament enacted the Law of Guarantees which regulated the status of the Pope, so far as Italy was concerned, and purported to extend to him all necessary safeguards for the freeexercise throughout the world of his spiritual authority. This law securedto him personal inviolability and exemption from criminal liability, thoughhe remained subject to the civil courts of Italy, and it bestowed or recognized his enjoyment of certain rights and privileges belonging in other cases to temporal sovereigns, such as maintaining an armed force, freedom of correspondence and sending and receiving representatives to and from states beyond Italy. As a municipal statute, the Law of Guarantees could conferno international status upon the Pope, and although it might have been made the basis of treaty agreement between Italy and any Catholic or other Power, it was, so far as known, never so treated, and therefore remained legallyalways capable of change by Italy alone. The Popes never formally acceptedthe provisions of this law nor the endowment granted by it, and in protest against the events of 1870 they objected to any Catholic sovereignvisiting the King of Italy, and remained after their election perpetually with in the Vatican without emerging on to other Italian soil. The Poperetained the right to make with sovereign states concordats concerningecclesiastical affairs, as before his loss of temporal power; and continued toexercise the rights of active and passive legation as assured by the Law of Guarantees. The Papal household subsisted on food and water whose deprivation would have threatened life itself had Italy joined for a month inthe policy of non-intercourse adopted for the Pope personally. The statusof the Pope in international law was abnormal and unique.

The Universal Postal Union is one of the oldest of the existing interstate organizations. It has a continuous record of useful service to the international community, extending over a period of almost sixty years. It was first established as the Union Générale des Postes in 1874, and it has borne it present name since 1878. A study of its structure has raised many interesting points with reference to its membership, and has revealed innovations of which little account has been taken by writers on international law, but which may have significance for the theory and the practical development of international personality. On the other hand, certain ambiguities of the texts of the Postal Conventions may be pointed out, which might be conveniently avoided in future enactments.

In the case of the Mexican Union Railway, Ltd., decided in February, 1930, the British-Mexican Claims Commission, set up in accordance with the Convention of November 19,1926, added another stone to the somewhat unsteady structure of decisions on the Calvo Clause. The majority of the Commissioners enthusiastically adopted the considerationsof the United States-Mexican General Claims Commission in the North American Dredging Case, “ not thinking it necessary to repeat them, or possible to express them better.” Even the British Commissioner, Sir John Percival, who dissented, differed from the majority mainly in regard to the application of the opinion in the North American Dredging Case to the case at bar, and was not less cordial in his approval of that opinion.

Since the middle of the 18th century the practice of extradition has gradually developed until today there are some 350 extradition conventions, practically all bilateral in nature, and extradition laws in twelve or more states. These conventions and laws regulate the various phases of extradition procedure, and, in most instances, contain an article concerning political offenses. This circumstance, combined with the fact that political offenders are numerous, makes the problem of political offenders in extradition one of current importance.

Even before most of the world was embroiled, the war of 1914 was a world war. Those countries which attempted at the outset to remain aloof from the conflict soon found that, while they might avoid military hostilities, they became parties, whether willing or not, to an economic war, a struggle scarcely less destructive than that which raged on the battlefield. National leaders might will the division of Europe into separate political or military units, but to break the economic ties which linked the warring countries to each other was an infinitely harder task. The truism that the world is economically interdependent, so blandly reiterated today, became grimly apparent in 1914. The demands of war could not be met without the continued exchange of commodities; no country was capable, by itself, of feeding and clothing its population and of supplying its fighting forces with arms and munitions. With the markets of Europe barricaded by belligerent lines, thus cutting off from both sides normal sources of large supplies, the neutral states became factors of immense importance. The war could not go on without the neutral merchant; each belligerent needed him, and a major objective of offense was to prevent the enemy from satisfying that need.

The Pact of Paris is a short document but it has invoked a wealth of commentary. It was hoped that the Pact would be an effective preventive of violence, that governments would therefore not often be called upon to interpretit, and that consequently exposition of its meaning would be largely the task of jurists and publicists. This hope has not been entirely realized, to the misfortune of the world, but at least the international jurists have a more positive grist to grind in their elucidations.

The work of the recent claims commissions between Mexico and various other states constitutes an important body of material for the development of international adjudication. The revolutionary disturbances in Mexico between 1910 and 1920 resulted in considerable damage to aliens. On July 14, 1921, the Mexican Government by a circular letter announced its willingness to conclude claims conventions for the purpose of indemnifying such aliens. Six such claims conventions were concluded with the following governments: United States, France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, and Italy.

At Bayonne, on Tuesday before the Feast of St. Barnabas the Apostle, in the year 1295, John, lieutenant in Gascony of the King of England, signed a letter addressed to all the officers of the King. At Canterbury, on October 3 of the same year, John's uncle, Edward I, King of England and Duke of Acquitaine, put his seal on a document addressed to his officers, in which he included John's letter in full and ratified its provisions subject to two briefly-stated conditions.

The General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, signed at Geneva, September 26, 1928, is intended to provide for the final settlement of every dispute, of whatever nature it may be. Chapter II is evoted to legal disputes, while Chapter III, Articles 21-28, lays down rules concerning the settlement of non-legal disputes. This idea of a recourse to arbitration for the settlement of purely political conflicts, which Chapter III puts forward, may appear to be inconsistent with a long evolution which has tended to emphasize the judicial character of arbitration. It is true that occasionally states have submitted such conflicts to an arbitral tribunal, but it is for the first time that a provision to this effect has been inserted in a multipartitetreaty. A treaty of this kind has a legislative character and exercises a great influence upon the development of international law. The importance of the General Act is all the greater since some twenty states, including three great Powers, have already ratified it. This treaty, which may be compared only to the Hague Convention,could largely contribute to a revision of the common conception of arbitration. Does it attempt to do so, or is it rather intended to leave this conception unchanged and to create a new method of pacific settlement? In either case, how should the new conception of arbitration be defined? Since purely political disputes cannot be settled by the application of a rule of law, are the powers of the tribunal unlimited? These questions deserve closer consideration, especially since the relevant provisions of Chapter III of the General Act have already inspired certain opinions which, it is believed, are not only contrary to the true meaning of this treaty, but also,if generally adopted, would destroy the very foundations of international arbitration. Now, one of the essential ideas underlying the General Act is not to impair in the least what has already proved useful, but to develop the existing means for the pacific settlement of disputes. Chapter III constitutes an important step forward. Its evolutionary character and its exact meaning can best be realized in the light of the practice of statesand of the jurisprudence of arbitral tribunals.

The short tractate De officio legati by Stephanus Doletus (Étienne Dolet) was printed by the author at his printing establishment at Lyons in 1541. All books with Dolet’s imprint are rare, many of them having been destroyed as heretical. From his press at Lyons between 1538 and 1544 proceeded 84 titles, no one library possessing more than a fraction of the total number bearing his imprint.