y 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_. Its hands are absolutely free. It may remain a
quiescent spectator of evil, or, if strong enough and indignant with the
wrongdoing, may endeavour to abate the mischief by remonstrance, and, in
the last resort, by taking sides against the offender. Let us hope that
at the present crisis the United States may see their way to choosing
the better part.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Oxford, November 28 (1915).

* * * * *

SECTION 2

_The Duties of Neutral States, and the Liabilities of Neutral
Individuals, distinguished_

The duties of neutral States have been classified by the
present writer under the heads, of "Abstention," "Prevention,"
and "Acquiescence." (_Transactions of the British Academy_,
vol. ii, p. 55; reproduced in the _Revue de Droit
International_, the _Revista de Derecho International_, and the
_Marine Rundschau_.) In the three letters which follow, an
attempt is made to point out the confusion which has resulted
from failure to distinguish between the two last-me