Politics require principles. When it is a question on the one hand of acquiring a position, and on the other hand of defending it, the opposed interests seek bases upon which they can rest. The sovereignties feel the necessity of invoking the authority of a principle which seems to draw its force from considerations superior to those that can inspire the political pretensions of a particular state. An appeal is made to a common interest the supposed existence of which is taken for granted—namely, that of maintaining the peace and good relations among the states—and it is presented in a definite formula, the principle of equilibrium.

The political achievements of the Greek people are so manifold and so important that any student of modern politics naturally is tempted to turn to ancient Greece to find the origin of, or parallels to, recent developments in his own field. And so there are not wanting those who would see in certain unions or associations of Greek states anticipations of the ideas which are incorporated in the newly constituted League of Nations. However, the view that any close parallel to the League of Nations existed in the ancient Greek world is due, I believe, to a misinterpretation or idealization of the character and aims of these ancient associations. Accordingly, in the present article I shall try to give a survey of the chief types of interstate associations that arose in ancient Greece, besides suggesting certain changes in their current English nomenclature, which is apt to mislead the casual reader as to their true character.

It is proposed to examine shortly, in the following pages, the precise extent to which a neutral’s commerce with a belligerent country is liable to interruption by the cruisers of the opposite belligerent, apart from the traditional doctrines of blockade and contraband, and from the practice of reprisals. We shall also eliminate the operation of the dogma of continuous voyage. Needless to say, that dogma is one which introduces utter uncertainty into the realm of prize law, and makes it easy for belligerents to behave towards neutral commerce in a quite arbitrary fashion. When combined with a swollen list of contraband, its application amounts to a complete control of commerce by belligerents; and might best be met by a friendly war being commenced between neutrals, who might thus, perhaps, regain the freedom of which they otherwise stand deprived.

Section 34 of the Merchant Marine Act, commonly called the Jones Act, approved by the President, June 5, 1920, is as follows:

Ordinarily we speak of an empire as a state governed by an emperor, as for instance, the two Napoleonic Empires in France. But in a broader and more modern sense, an empire is a powerful state which has wide and supreme dominion over extensive and outlying territories and countries inhabited by peoples usually of a different race, historical background and civilization. In this manner, we speak of an imperialistic nation when the policy of that nation, whatever its form of government, aims to create for itself a position of dominance and control over backward, weaker or helpless nations, territories or peoples.

The Trois Frères (Stewart, V, Adm. Cases, N.S. 1). The continued adherence of the British courts to the doctrine of a locus pœnitentiœ, even for persons domiciled in a country which becomes an enemy, is here seen. A Frenchman became naturalized in the United States and traded there. Ultimately, however, he left, with all his books and papers, on a French ship for France, intending to remain there permanently. “War supervening between France and Britain, the ship put about, with the intention of returning to America. But she was taken by the British, and the trader’s effects seized as prize. Liberty was given him to establish, by affidavit, the total abandonment of his intention of going to France.