'THERE have not been wanting writers who have declared that there is no such thing as international law. But these usually base their statement upon restricted definition of the term. In one sense it is perhaps as incorrect to talk of international law as it is of the laws of nature. But in a wider sense it is hardly conceivable that any intelligent person should ever imagine that the law of the conservation of energy, for example, goes on all fours with that which fines an inebriate, neither would he expect that regulations and rules which govern the action of Great Powers in their collective capacity should be as simple in their nature and application as those which pertain to the police. But both may rightly be called laws, since both are rules for the determination of conduct. That relating to the regulation of the intercourse of States relies fur its sanction on the usages which, having grown up, have been recognised as more or less binding, that which governs individual action being based on the fiat of an autocrat or the functions of a legislature.
Like all other things, international law has been subject to evolution. The simple has givea place to the complex and the complex to the more involved. In the early days of Statehood the only relationships recognised were those of blood. The outlander of these days who feels aggrieved at not being given the franchise or some other privilege reserved for the native-born should read his Greek history and learn what were the disabilities of the stranger in the palmy days of Pericles. To us the word "exile" has lost meaning. While we exile ourselves, not willingly alone, bug gladly, there could scarcely befall a
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.