The last word, with reference to the propriety of the conduct of any given State, rests, of course, not with that State; but with its neighbours.

"Securus indicat orbis terrarum." Any Power which fails in the discharge, to the best of its ability, of a generally recognised duty, is likely to find that self-satisfaction is no safeguard against unpleasant consequences.

Professor de Martens would, I am certain, endorse this statement.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, T.E.HOLLAND.
Oxford, May 12 (1905).
NEUTRALS AND THE LAWS OF WAR Sir,--The interesting address by Sir Edward Carson reported in your issue of yesterday will remind many of us of our regret that President Wilson, in Notes complaining of injuries sustained by American citizens, dwelt so slightly upon the violations of international law by which those injuries were brought about.
Sir Edward seems, however, to have made use of certain expressions which might be taken to imply a view of neutral responsibility which can hardly be accepted.

The United States were warned in the address that they will not "by a mere Note maintain the obligations which are put upon them, as parties to international law, which are to prevent breaches of civilisation and to mitigate the horrors of war." Neutrals were spoken of as "the executives of international law," and as alone standing "behind the conventions" (for humanising warfare).

"Abolish," we were told, "the power of neutrals, and you have abolished international law itself." Is this so?
The contract into which a State enters with other States, by adopting the customary laws of war and by ratifying express Conventions dealing with the same subject, obliges it, while remaining neutral, to submit to certain inconveniences resulting from the war, and, when belligerent, to abstain from certain modes of carrying on hostilities.
It is assuredly no term of the contract that the State in question shall sit in judgment upon its co-contractors and forcibly intervene in _rebus inter alios actis_.