I think the subcommittee was not in agreement. There was considerable difference in opinion.

Then as to the nature of a court having jurisdiction over this type of offenses, we had only an opportunity merely to look into the matter, and certain divergences of opinion at once disclosed themselves.

The subcommittee is not sufficiently egotistic to think that it labored as a great mountain; it is rather fearful that you will think that only a mouse of result was brought forth. We were considerably impressed with the difficulties of this subject and somewhat overwhelmed with the novelty of the situation. While, in the development of municipal law, very slowly criminal law emerged out of a law involving only private rights and wrongs, in the old days in the development of municipal law, in the days of selfhelp, before criminal law developed, there was a liability both individual and group; but it was not a criminal liability. But with the development of criminal law within the state, the group liability was broken apart and the individual reached, and an analogous development takes place when international law begins to make that same change which took place ages ago in the development of municipal criminal law, for a criminal law must eventually reach the person, the individual, through the group if necessary. It would seem, therefore, that the statement and the provision of the Declaration of Washington opens up the possibility of reaching the person and fastening the criminal fault upon him, notwithstanding the cloak of authority of the group which he represents.

Mr. CHARLES HENRY BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, before adjournment, I would like to remind this audience, those who were not here this morning, of the very appropriate and eloquent remarks which our President made, while presiding over the Committee on Advancement of International Law, in regard to the death of our dear and honored friend, Lord Bryce. I now wish to make a formal motion that the remarks of President Root before the Committee of the Society on the Advancement of International Law, at the meeting of the morning of April 28, in regard to the death of Lord Bryce, shall be transferred to the formal minutes of this meeting, as though they had been made in the meeting of the Society as a whole. I wish to read these resolutions:

Resolved, That the remarks of President Root at the Committee on the Advancement of International Law at its meeting on April 28 be transferred to the minutes of this meeting of the Society as though made thereat.

Resolved, That the American Society of International Law has heard with sincere sorrow of the death of Lord Bryce and that the Secretary be instructed to transmit to Lady Bryce the remarks of Mr. Root, President of the Society, on the subject of Lord Bryce's accomplishments, and to tender her the sincere sympathy of the members of the Society and expression of their appreciation of those high attributes

of character possessed by her illustrious husband, which not only gained for him the respect and admiration, but also the affection of his many friends in the United States, who now unite with his fellow countrymen in mourning the loss of one of the greatest citizens of the English speaking world.

The CHAIRMAN. Ladies and gentlemen: You have heard the resolutions, which have been duly seconded. If there is no discussion, I will now put them, and I will ask for a rising vote.

The resolution was put and the entire membership rose en masse.
The CHAIRMAN. The resolution is unanimously carried.

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I now offer the following resolutions:

Resolved, That the American Society of International Law has heard with deep regret of the death on October 12, 1921, of the Honorable Philander Chase Knox, United States Senator from Pennsylvania and formerly Secretary of State of the United States, and since 1909 one of the Vice Presidents of this Society, and the Secretary be instructed to convey to Mrs. Knox the expression of the sincere sympathy of the members of the Society and of their appreciation of the great service which he has rendered in upholding the principles of international law, and of the great loss which has been sustained in the death of this eminent jurist.

Resolved, That the American Society of International Law has heard with deep regret of the death on May 19, 1921, of the Honorable Edward Douglas White of Louisiana, Chief Justice of the United States and since 1911 one of the Vice Presidents of the Society, and the Secretary be instructed to convey to Mrs. White the expression of the sincere sympathy of the members of the Society and of their appreciation of the services which he has rendered in upholding the principles of international law, and of the great loss that has been sustained in the death of one of the most eminent jurists of this country.

Resolved, That the American Society of International Law has heard with deep regret of the death on May 29, 1921, of General Horace Porter of New York, one of the founders of the Society and one of its Vice Presidents since its organization, and that the Secretary be instructed to convey to the members of his family the expression of sincere sympathy of the members of the Society and of their appreciation of the great services which he rendered as Ambassador of the United States to France and as an ambassadorial delegate to the Second Peace Conference at The Hague in upholding the principles of international law, and of the great loss which has been sustained in his death.

The CHAIRMAN.

You have heard the resolutions in regard to the three deceased Vice-Presidents of the Society. Are the resolutions seconded? Mr. FRANCIS W. AYMAR. I second the resolutions.

Whereupon the presiding officer put the resolutions to a rising vote, and

the members rose en masse.

The CHAIRMAN. They are unanimously carried.

Tomorrow morning at the meeting at ten o'clock there will be a discussion and action by the Society upon the reports of the subcommittees for the advancement of international law. Then there will be a business meeting of the Society and a meeting of the Executive Council.

I would suggest that the Nominating Committee meet for a few minutes at once after adjournment tonight.

Adjournment is now in order. There is no further business, and the meeting is adjourned.

Whereupon the session adjourned at 11.15 o'clock P.M.

FOURTH SESSION

Saturday Morning, April 29, 1922, at 10.30 o'clock a.m.

The Society met at 10.30 o'clock A.M., with Hon. George Gray, a VicePresident and a member of the Executive Committee, presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the Society: I understand that the reports made by the subcommittees on the advancement of international law at the session last evening will be the subject of discussion this morning, and that subject is now before the Society. Action upon the report of Subcommittee No. 1 is now in order.

The CHAIRMAN. Is Dr. Hill present? (After a pause) Is any other member of the subcommittee present who would like to introduce the subject of that report?

Professor GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that Dr. Judson speak for Subcommittee No. 2.

Dr. HARRY PRATT JUDSON. I do not know, Mr. President, what course the Society desires to take, but to bring it before the Society, I move the adoption of the report.

Baron S. A. KORFF. I second the motion.

Professor WILSON. May we have a summary of their conclusions before we vote upon them? I think we may not all be familiar with them.

Dr. JUDSON. The subject is the "Status of Government Vessels," and the recommendations are:

1. Government vessels are those which are owned or requisitioned by or chartered to a government. If a vessel is controlled and directed by a government and employed for public purposes, it is immaterial whether the interest of the government is that of ownership, or is based upon charter or requisition.

2. A government vessel operated by the government for public purposes is immune from foreign judicial process.

3. A government vessel operated by private persons for commercial purposes is not immune from foreign judicial process.

4. A government vessel operated by the government for commercial purposes is immune from foreign judicial process, but injuries committed by such vessel should render the government liable in its own courts.

5. Municipal law determines the liabilities of government vessels in domestic courts.

6. Every government should accord, both by executive action and judicial decision, at least as favorable treatment to the vessels owned or controlled by a friendly foreign government as it accords to those owned or controlled by it.

7. Some convenient method of proof of the governmental character of foreign vessels should be adopted by international agreement.

Those are the recommendations, Mr. Chairman.

Admiral RODGERS. I would like to ask, under what system a government vessel is presumed to run? There are two systems well known to the law of nations. One is the law of the respective countries applying to naval ships, and the other is the law applying to privately owned ships,-municipal law. We have now under the army transport system, and we had until a very short time ago under the naval transport and hospital system, vessels running under the orders and administrative rules of the Navy Department, which did not comply either with naval law or with municipal law. If the master exercised his full powers under the civil law and not in accord with the administrative orders of the War Department or of the Navy Department, he would meet with discharge, and that was sufficient to make good the government's orders, but it did not give the ships any standing in foreign ports. Then the question arises, what would happen if a liner owned by the government, run as a merchantman, enters a foreign neutral port during war. Where would she stand?

The CHAIRMAN. Owned and operated by the government?
Admiral RODGERS: As a liner, like the Shipping Board vessels.

Dr. JUDSON. With your permission, I will ask Mr. Kingsbury, Secretary of our Subcommittee, to answer.

Mr. HOWARD THAYER KINGSBURY. Mr. Chairman, the questions which Admiral Rodgers has just put, were really the basis of the study which this subcommittee undertook to make, and on which it undertook to frame these recommendations. There have grown up in the last few years, particularly since the beginning of the war, this new and somewhat indeterminate class of vessels which are partly government and partly private, and there has been much conflict in the decisions in this country and in England and on the Continent as to what their status would be and how far they were subject to the duties and liabilities of government ships, and how far they were regulated as private ships by municipal law; and it was the task of this subcommittee to try to formulate a body of very simple rules which might assist in reaching some decision on those points.

The lower courts of the United States have held, as was pointed out in the body of the report, that a vessel which was either owned or controlled by a government and which was operating in public service, whether or not a naval vessel, was entitled to the immunities of a government vessel, and could not be made subject to the process of a municipal court. That question has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. I do not think it has been decided by the highest courts in England, and I understand that the decisions in the Continental countries are somewhat conflicting on the subject. So that the field is open for an attempt at formation of rules of international law on the subject. As I say, that was what this sub