Chapter V secrated places, churches, and cemeteries, and of the village inside of its limits and the peace of public highways should not be disturbed by the feud. With particular emphasis, in several decrees of the peace of the land (landfrieden), the sanctity and inviolability of the home is proclaimed, and gradually the most interesting and significant principle is evolved that only such feuds shall be permitted as are directed against the immediately against the person, the body, and the life of the enemy, but not against his property. Zallinger cites two provisions of this kind from the end of the twelfth century: Feuds permitted person but not against property. Neutralization. "Si quis habet inimicum, persequitur eum in campo absque damno rerum suarum." (If any one has an enemy, let him pursue him in the field without injuring his property.) 66 in Qui cumque habet manifestum inimicum, eam persona et non in rebus laedere potest." (He who has an open enemy may injure him in his person, but not in his property.) The similarity in the development of the laws of war is manifest. Thus far there has been no attempt to limit the time of warfare, the going into winter quarters being obviously for entirely different reasons, and the attempts of some enthusiastic Sabbatarians to introduce a day of rest during the Spanish-American War having been generally dismissed with a smile. On the other hand, the exemption of particular persons and property from the consequences of warfare, -their "neutralization" according to the terminology of international law, -is now universally accepted as a matter of course in an increasing number of Chapter V instances. Whole States have been neutralized, as, for example, Switzerland, Belgium, and Luxemburg, as well as single provinces, such as Chablais and Faucigny on the southern shore of the lake of Geneva, and the Suez Canal. The provisions adopted by the Peace Conference, regarding military hospitals and ambulances and the personnel connected therewith, as well as non-combatants in general, have been referred to in the discussion of the Convention on the Laws of War. measures. The closest parallelism of similar phenomena, both Preventive in duelling and in the history of unrestrained feudal warfare, is to be found in the preventive measures. So far as duelling is concerned, these are well known, and need no lengthy discussion. The analogous development with reference to feudal warfare is characterized by the fact that by the middle of the thirteenth century, especially after the great law of peace of Frederick II. in the year 1235, the right to feudal hostility, which up to that time was absolutely unlimited, was thereafter restricted to cases in which no help was to be expected from the courts, and, therefore, hostilities were not to be begun until after an unsuccessful appeal to the courts. It was the beginning of compulsory arbitration. Not until two hundred and sixty years later, however, in 1495, was the celebrated decree of Eternal Pacification — ewige Landfrieden-issued by Emperor Maximilian the First, in which for the first time no difference was made between permitted and prohibited feuds, Chapter V Remarks of and all private use of force was for the first time characterized as a breach of the peace of the land. It is reported that the Emperor himself was so appalled by the stupendous consequences of this decree that he brooded over it in solitude for two days before signing it. It was, moreover, a little ahead of time. After its promulgation serious feuds continued to rend the Empire, and even the celebrated penal code of the Emperor Charles V., issued in 1532- the so-called Carolina did not dare to draw the necessary consequences of the decree of Maximilian, and in Article 129 made penal only such feuds as were begun without righteous cause. A consideration of these facts should be a sure preventative of undue pessimism, with respect to the further gradual development of the idea of universal peace. The Article under discussion specially applies the provisions of what may be called the gentleman's code of duelling to international relations. The following remarks made by Mr. Holls upon introducing the proposition may serve, to a certain extent, as a commentary. "Permit me to explain briefly the fundamental idea upon which the proposition now submitted to you is based. It was and is, first and foremost, the undeniable fact, that there are and always will be differences between nations and between governments which neither arbitration nor mediation, according to the usual acceptance of the term, are calculated to prevent. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to say that every such controversy must Chapter V necessarily end in hostilities, and although in a case where neither arbitration or mediation seem to be possible remedies, the chances of avoiding a conflict may be characterized as minimal, it is none the less true that in the interests of peace and in the light of experience the attempt should be made, especially if the means proposed are of a nature to be useful even in case peace should after all be broken. I beg most respectfully to observe that the project which is submitted to you affords this means. of a "second." "It is an obvious truth which has found expression Advantages in private life by the institution of seconds or witnesses, in affairs of honor between gentlemen, that at the eve of what may be a fatal encounter, it is best to leave the discussion of the points in controversy to third parties rather than to the principals themselves. The second enjoys the entire confidence of his friend, whose interests he agrees to do his best in defending, until the entire affair may be settled; yet nevertheless, not being directly interested in the controversy, he preserves at all times the liberty of a mutual friend, or even of an arbitrator, but without the slightest responsibility. "In the second place, I would respectfully submit that every institution or custom which may receive the approval of the Peace Conference, having for its a new eleobject the introduction of a new element of delibera- deliberation. tion into the relations between States when the latter have become strained, certainly marks so much prog ress, and may conceivably be of vital importance at a ment of Chapter V Remarks of Question referred to mediating sively. critical moment. As a matter of fact, and even with the new guarantees for peace which may be offered by the international court and the most solemn and formal declarations in favor of mediation and good offices, the negotiations between two States in controversy may arrive at a point when it becomes necessary for the representative of the one to say to the representative of the other, One more step means war.' If the proposition which is hereby submitted to you should be adopted, it will be possible to substitute for this formula another, One step further and we shall be obliged to appoint a second.' These words 6 surely will have a grave significance, and yet it would seem that they will have, beside other advantages, that of producing all the good effects of a threat of war without having the aggressive character of a menace, pure and simple, or of an ultimatum. The amour propre of the two parties will remain inviolate, and yet all will have been said which must be said. "To give to this idea all of its force it is necessary that the question in controversy should be powers exclu- referred during a given time exclusively to the jurisdiction of the mediating Powers. At the same time the word 'exclusively' need not necessarily be taken in the literal sense. The mediating Powers. will represent third parties, and this clause will have for its principal effect the cessation of all direct communication between the interested parties on the subject of the question in dispute. Further diplomatic relations continue undisturbed, with this one |