mation of opinion. Therefore, the Board was composed of a representative from the State and of two representatives from the Navy Department. On behalf of the Department of State, Mr. James Brown Scott was appointed, and on behalf of the Navy Department Captain, now Rear-Admiral, Harry S. Knapp, and Captain, now Rear-Admiral, James H. Oliver. There was but one change in the membership of the Board during the two years and a half of its existence, due to the fact that Captain Knapp was appointed to command the Pennsylvania, and Captain William B. Fletcher was, on December 29, 1916, designated by the Navy Department to succeed. Captain Knapp.

This is not the place, and the undersigned is not the person, to examine the opinions of the Board or to express an opinion as to their value or lack of value. An enumeration of the more important questions referred to the Board will show the nature and the extent of its labors, and the letter of the Secretary of State dissolving the Board, after the United States had ceased to be neutral, will sufficiently indicate his opinion as to the importance of its services.

Among the subjects referred to and considered by the Board were the following: Supplying of coal to belligerent warships and merchant vessels; use of the Panama Canal by belligerents; entry into and departure from neutral ports of armed merchant vessels and their treatment therein; removal of enemy subjects from American ships; belligerent use of American radio stations; the status of Government owned vessels engaged in commerce; the sale of belligerent ships during war; the status of transports and tank steamers under Government charter; the status of the Declaration of London; unneutral service by American vessels; the purchase of German merchant ships by neutrals; the conversion of merchant vessels into warships; the transit of war materials through neutral territory; the application of the twenty-four-hour rule; Orders in Council relating to blockade and contraband; the internment of belligerent warships; supplies and repairs for belligerent warships; aircraft and the laws of the air; the sale of submarines by neutral citizens to belligerent Governments; war zones; the status of belligerent merchant vessels in neutral ports; the sale of hydro-aëroplanes; the sale of munitions of war; use of neutral flags as a ruse de guerre; retaliatory measures adopted by belligerents; various questions relating to contraband of war; the right of angary; the torpedoing of merchant vessels; the

status of the treaty of 1828 between Prussia and the United States; German Prize Court decisions; rights of American claimants before enemy prize courts; sale of motor boats by neutrals to belligerents; enlistments in enemy armies upon American territory; censorship of mails; the right of blockade; censorship of wireless and cable messages; raising of war loans by belligerents in the United States; manufacturing of coins for belligerents; transit of enemy troops through neutral territory; visit and search; hovering of belligerent cruisers near American ports; enemy restrictions on trade; status of commercial belligerent submarines; visits of belligerent warships to neutral ports; treatment to be accorded submarine war vessels in neutral ports; enemy intrigues in neutral countries; treatment of neutrals in enemy countries; status of vessels chartered, leased or requisitioned by belligerent Governments.

The letter of the Secretary of State, dissolving the Board, to which reference has been made, follows:

In view of the declaration of the existence of war between the United States and the Imperial German Government made by Congress on April 6th last, it appears unnecessary to continue the Joint State and Navy Neutrality Board for the consideration of questions arising out of the European War while the United States was a neutral. I therefore suggest that the Board be disbanded, and that a copy of this letter be sent to each of the members thereof for his information.

Allow me to add that, in my estimation, the work of the Board as an advisory body has been of the highest order, and that, while it has not always been expedient to follow the recommendations of the Board, its well-considered opinions have been of very great assistance to the Department in formulating the policies which it has announced and pursued during the period of American neutrality. I desire, therefore, to express to the Board my deep appreciation of the splendid service rendered and the unstinted time and labor given by each member to his Government during one of the most critical periods of the history of the United States.

The opinions of the Board, in many cases elaborate and in all instances supported by authority, were advisory and, in the nature of things, considered the law rather than questions of policy. They covered a large field and will one day be interesting as showing the questions which the Government considered of more than passing importance in the days of its neutrality.

JAMES BROWN SCOTT.

MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AND POSTPONEMENT OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SOCIETY

In the absence abroad of the Chairman and several members of the Committee on the Annual Meeting of the Society, the question of holding a meeting this year was considered by the Executive Committee of the Society at its meeting on March 10th, last. After careful consideration, the Executive Committee decided that, in view of the international situation then existing, it was not advisable to hold an annual meeting of the Society this year at the usual time. The President was, however, requested to call a meeting of the Executive Council instead for the transaction of such business and such other action as the Council might decide upon. President Root accordingly called a meeting of the Council in Washington on April 17, 1919. There were present: Mr. Elihu Root, Mr. Charles Noble Gregory, Dr. David Jayne Hill, Mr. Charles Cheney Hyde, Professor John H. Latanè, Mr. Jackson H. Ralston, Mr. Alpheus Henry Snow, Admiral Charles H. Stockton and Professor George G. Wilson. The reports of officers and committees were received, and the Council formally approved, upon motion, the action of the Executive Committee in postponing for the present the annual meeting of the Society. All officers and committees and the Board of Editors of the JOURNAL were continued until the next meeting of the Society.

After disposing of a few items of miscellaneous business of a routine nature, the Council discussed the international situation, with especial reference to the proposed Covenant of the League of Nations from the point of view of international law. There was a general feeling of regret that the covenant had not given due recognition to international law as the rule of decision in the proposed international arrangements for settling disputes between nations and had apparently overlooked the importance of making provision for its further development and conventional application. Upon the conclusion of an interesting discussion along these lines and consideration as to what action the Council might appropriately take to give proper expression to its view, the following resolution was unanimously adopted.

Resolved, That the Executive Council of the American Society of International Law urges upon the Conference of Paris the adoption of a provision by

which there shall be called a general conference of the Powers to meet not less than two years or more than five years after the signing of this convention for the purpose of reviewing the condition of international law, and of agreeing upon and stating in authoritative form the principles and rules thereof; and that thereafter regular conferences for that purpose shall be called and held at stated times.

This resolution was promptly on the same day cabled to the American Peace Delegation at Paris through the Department of State.

Before it adjourned, the Council directed that the minutes of its meeting of last year, at which an interesting discussion of the international situation also took place, and the minutes of the present meeting be printed and distributed to the members of the Society. These minutes are now in course of preparation and will be published within a short time. They will be accompanied by the lists of officers, members and committees which usually appear in the annual proceedings. It is expected that the small volume containing these minutes and other material will be suitable for binding and may take the place of the usual volume of annual proceedings of the Society. GEO. A. FINCH.

CURRENT NOTES

ERRORS IN THE ORDINARY VERSIONS OF THE TREATY OF BREST-LITOVSK

In the version of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, as first telegraphed to this country, it was stated that Batum, Kars, and Erivan were to be given up by Russia to Turkey. Apparently the first telegrams twisted "Ardahan" into "Erdehan," from which it was easy to guess "Erivan," since the latter, having the advantage of being a government instead of a mere district or sub-division of a government, as Ardahan is, has a much more conspicuous place in the atlas. This is the version that ran through the newspapers in this country, was duly copied by many scholarly publications1 and even appeared in those sponsored by the National Board for Historical Service. In fact, it is constantly coming up again to impose itself upon the unwary student or teacher.

To the uninitiated, it might seem quite unimportant as to which of these divisions was given up by Russia. To most of us in this country, these divisions were but names, without real meaning, unless our study of events in the last two Russo-Turkish wars had given us a nodding acquaintance with Batum and Kars. Scarcely one out of a million in this country had noted Erivan, or cared enough about it to investigate its importance. Three little frontier provinces of some slight value economically and strategically perhaps, but still of not sufficient importance to cause any serious consideration-why should one worry as to which three, out of the many small divisions of the Caucasus region, were lost by Russia, and, as the treaty itself carefully states, ceded to their own people for their self-determination.

The corrected version of the treaty was perhaps a month in reachContributed by Professor Arthur I. Andrews, of Tufts College.

1 Shapiro, Modern and Contemporary European History, pp. 747, 748. McKinley, Collected Materials, p. 98.

Current History, April, 1918, p. 54.

American Association for International Conciliation, Documents, 1918, p. 422. American Political Science Review, November, 1918, p. 706.

2 Brest-Litovsk Treaty, Article IV, in the London Times (English translation of German text) March 6, 1918, pp. 5, 6; German text in the Reichsanzeiger, June 11, 1918.