Mr. Atherly-Jones, in his Commerce in War, says that what the courts of the United States did, during the Civil War, was not to apply the principle of a continuous voyage (which had been originally asserted in support of national monopolies of colonial trade), to the carriage of contraband goods, still less to blockades; but to depart from the old rules of evidence.

The late Professor Edward Bourne, of Yale, used to say that the Philippine Islands were attached to the Spanish West Indies till after 1823, and therefore it ought to be presumed that Monroe intended his doctrine to apply to that Asiatic archipelago. The quip leads the mind to the important fact that the relations of the Pacific Coast of America, the Pacific Ocean, and the nations of Asia, are all bound together. The first Asiatic trade went from Philadelphia, Boston, Providence, and other Atlantic ports via the Northwest Coast to China. The relation of the original Monroe Doctrine to Oregon is familiar to all students of the Monroe Doctrine. It is curious that the objection to “colonization” which was intended to block the way of Russia, has been applied almost entirely to the West Indies and the eastern coast of North and South America. The clause in Monroe’s declaration had little to do with the process by which the United States came to have a Pacific front.

International law allows a belligerent two means of preventing wholly or in part sea-borne commerce between his enemy and neutral states. These are: first, the right to seize and confiscate absolute contraband goods destined to enemy territory and conditional contraband intended for the use of the armed forces or government of the enemy state; and, second, the right to blockade the ports and coasts of the enemy and thereby to prevent commercial intercourse with him in all articles whether contraband or not. In the April number of this Journal (pp. 372–401) I discussed in the light of the rules of international law applicable thereto the measures that have been adopted by the British Government in respect to trade in contraband since the beginning of the present war. The present article will be devoted mainly to a consideration of the British order in council of March 11,1915, the purpose and effect of which was to establish a blockade of all commerce entering and leaving Germany.

The recent adjournment of the Nicaraguan Mixed Claims Commission marks the accomplishment of one of the measures suggested by the American Government for the financial rehabilitation of Nicaragua, and the conclusion of the most comprehensive examination yet made in Central America of claims against a government.

After the fall of the governments of Zelaya and Madriz in Nicaragua, the new government which came into power in September, 1910, found, among the many problems awaiting it, a heavy internal debt and an enormous number of claims pending against a bankrupt treasury. The claims were principally war claims arising in the various civil commotions to which Nicaragua had been a prey, and especially in the revolution that had just ended. Further, during the Zelaya regime, the country had been plastered with concessions, which were regarded as unconstitutional, illegal and burdensome monopolies, and of which many were held by foreigners. The liquidation of the claims and the cancellation of illegal concessions were necessary incidents in the task of ameliorating the unfortunate economic condition of the country.

The law of nationality, which determines the relation borne by private individuals to sovereign states, is a distinct branch of public law. Being necessarily somewhat technical and detailed in its provisions, it does not ordinarily attract popular interest and attention in times of peace. However, when war breaks out, the question of nationality is seen to be one of vital importance to the state. In times of peace the population of a country presents an appearance of uniformity, and citizens and aliens mingle freely, carrying on the ordinary business of life with each other, apparently regardless of the question of allegiance. Especially has this been so in modern times, with their extensive intercourse between nations and liberal laws governing the rights of aliens. But, nevertheless, when a country is cast into the crucible of war, the component parts of its population are quickly separated into citizens or subjects, allies, alien enemies and neutrals. For some years the theory has been growing that divisions of nationality are being obliterated and replaced by economic and class divisions. The great war now being waged has proven that, whether or not the change mentioned is in a process of development, it has not yet reached the stage where it effectively controls the relation between separate countries. Divisions of nationality are still predominant.

In discussing the relations between the United States and Porto Rico it would seem proper to state at the outset that prior to the Spanish-American War, which may be regarded as the starting point in these relations, they were, so to speak, non-existent, at least in a juridical sense. Before the war, Porto Rico was a Spanish province and as such had no political personality of its own outside of the Spanish dominion and, therefore, it could not as a political entity be regarded as standing in any other relation in respect to the United States than as an inseparable part of Spain, between which country and the United States there existed the relation of one sovereign country in respect to another sovereign country.