« PreviousContinue »
NEUTRAL CONSULS IN WAR.TIME.
The alleged improper treatment—which ranged from manslaughter to isolation—of an Austrian consular officer by the Servian forces in Western Turkey, has formed the occasion of much strong language in the Press. This newspaper campaign appreciably embittered Austro-Servian relations, As we have seen, had they enjoyed the full character of ambassadors, it would not have entitled them to the privileges of ambassadors to Servia. Grotius and Bynkershoek lay this down explicitly, and so does Wicquefort. More recent critics incline to consider ambassadors entitled to an undisturbed transit through the territory of third parties. But no one asserts that an ambassador is to be allowed to remain in the territory of a third power, with the enjoyment of diplomatic privileges, including that of leaving when he feels inclined. The question of the treatment in war of the ambassadors at the enemy's Court has not often arisen. For, except in the case of complete conquest, the Court and the corps diplomatique do not often come under the direct power of the enemy. It arose in the Franco-Prussian war when the U. S. Ambassador (Washburn) desired to send despatches out of Paris through the German lines, and was refused permission, in spite of the protests of the American Government." It indirectly arises in the circumstances of the present war, because of this partial participation of a multitude of consuls in the ambassadorial character. It must, however, be concluded that this quasi-diplomatic status does not in this case improve their position. The invading power is not an Oriental State, but a civilized European country. Consuls in Servia are not, we apprehend, invested with any diplomatic character. Their diplomatic position is a practical necessity when a country such as Turkey is concerned. But its necessity falls to the ground in presence of a fully civilized invader; and the consular character alone remains effective. And that is a character which the invaders are under no obligation to recognize.
* For this illustration we are indebted to Prof. Oppenheim (Int. I law, sect. 390), who nevertheless treats the question of the right of ambassadors as against invaders as an open one.
The conclusion of an armistice is almost always surrounded with considerable difficulty, on account of the position of besieged forces belonging to one side or other. If they are relieved, they are better off than before: if they are not relieved, they are worse off. Armistices usually stipulate for the observance of the status quo during their currency, but besiegers ask nothing better. The suspension of arms under such a condition carries on their siege for them at a minimum of trouble to themselves. If the duration of the armistice is ascertained, it might be possible to allow a corresponding quantity of provisions to be taken in. But if it remains unknown, the only course would be to furnish rations from day to day—and this would involve so much communication between the besiegers and besieged, and the imparting of so much accurate information as to the resources and requirements of the garrison, that it cannot always be a practical possibility.
Yet, if anything like equality of terms is to be observed, some measure of relief must be afforded. When one party to the negotiations, however, is in a position of marked Superiority, it has sometimes been refused, and the war has virtually proceeded in these quarters, by the slow reduction of the resources of the besieged. Continuous pressure is thus exerted on the enemy. It was no doubt for this reason that the German forces before Paris, in November, 1870, declined to make it a term of a proposed armistice that the city should be reprovisioned."
It is of course open to the opposing party to say whether or not they will accept a suspension of hostilities on such terms. *
Morin states that on the occasion of an armistice in 1774, between Turkey and Russia, provisions were admitted into blockaded ports, whilst in 1797, when Lazare Hoche had surrounded Mayence and Ehrenbreitstein, a weekly reprovisionment was allowed during a suspension of hostilities. . On the occasion of the siege of Mantua in 1811, elaborate precautions were taken specifying the amounts of victuals to be taken in, and placing the periodical revictualments at intervals of ten days. So, in 1813, when Napoleon besieged Dantzig, Stettin and Cüstrin. Morin also observes that after Sadowa a revictualment was allowed presque illimitee in the case of a large town like Olmütz, but on a restricted scale for fortresses.” He attempts to found on these instances a general rule making revictualment imperative, and quotes Thiers as insisting to Bismarck on— “ce grand principe des armistices, qui veut que chaque belligérent se trouve, au terme de la suspension des hostilités, dans la meme situation qu'au commencement.” Otherwise, he goes on, “an armistice would be enough to secure the reduction of the strongest fortress existing.” But it seems really to be a matter of bargaining. If the terms are hard, and invoke a progressive weakening of the position, it is for the other side to refuse them. There is . no compulsion to make an armistice. In the case of Adrianople, it was obviously impossible for Turkey to refuse them. The armistice is only local, and does not suspend the active operations of war in every quarter. So long as the Greek army remains actively engaged, all other considerations are of quite minor importance. A power which agreed to negotiate without an entire suspension of arms would hardly be likely to insist on the relief of an individual town. * This was not by the armistice concluded by Moltke (given on
* By the armistice which took place on the capitulation, revictualment was not to take place until the forts surrounding Paris had
been put in the hands of the Germans.— (Sam wer, Vol. 6, p. 629) : 28 Jan., 1871.
WOL. XXXIII. C.L.T.-20
All communications should be addressed “The Editor" Canadian LAw TIMEs, 705 Confederation Life Building, Toronto.
The Editor will be pleased to receive contributions on any subject of legal interest, and will pay for all articles accepted.
REMUNERATION OF CouxTY JUDGES.
At a time when the cost of living is a subject of discussion, owing to the fact that the price of necessities has arisen out of all proportion to the increase of salaries, this is especially the case with professional men. Trades Unions and similar organizations look after the interests of their members, both as to the number of working hours per week and the payment per hour, but although tribute may be given to ability and position, the matter of remuneration is seldom if ever seriously considered. With the public a general impression exists that a Judge or other occupant of any important position receives so large a salary that the question of money is never a matter of concern; but if the manufacturer or man in business actually knew how insignificant the remuneration of the occupants of the Bench, especially those of the County Courts, and the interminable number of hours worked, a just appreciation would be back of the question at present under consideration of the Minister of Justice, namely, a revision of salaries. (Taken from the report of the Inspector of Legal Offices.) “Figures given below will afford some idea of the arduousness of the work performed by County Court Judges, especially in counties in which are situated the large cities, the larger the city the greater the amount of work. “In Toronto, for instance, the County Court Judges for the County of York sit practically continuously. Their work has been greatly increased by the enlargement of the jurisdiction of County Courts by which cases formerly coming up for trial in the High Court are now heard in the County Court, a change which has sensibly decreased the cost of the litigants and has reduced the work of the High Court Judges at least 40%. “The gradual increase in the work of the County Court Judges has been continuous for practically twenty years, while during the whole of that period salaries have remained stationary, no allowance being made either for excess of work or increase in the cost of living owing to changes in economic conditions. a “Adjustment of matters so as to make provision for an adequate remuneration to Judges of the County Court is a matter of vital importance, both to the legal profession and the general public, since efficiency of Judges is one of the bulwarks of our liberty.”
Whole Province 1911 1912
except York. County of York. York. Jury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 92 118 Non-Jury . . . . . . . . . . . 322 231 272 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 452 323 390
In 1911 civil actions in the County of York were within 129 of those tried in the rest of the province, and in 1912 only 62.
GENERAL SESSIONS OF PEACE.
Cous NTY COURT.—1911.
worth, Middlesex, and York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 Number of civil actions tried in balance of counties in Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 117 OR
117 more in Carleton, Middlesex, Wentworth, and York than in remainder of province. GENERAL SESSIONS OF PEACE.-1911. Ottawa–London–Hamilton–Toronto— Trials in Carleton, Middlesex, Wentworth and York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
OR only 30S more in whole province than in these counties.