. A committee was appointed in 1878 to consider the
subject, and the presentation of its report to the meeting at Brussels
in 1879 was followed by an interesting discussion (see the _Annuaire de
l'Institut_, 1879-80, pp. 351-394). The conclusions ultimately adopted
by the Institut were as follows:--

"1. It would be very useful if the various States would come
to an understanding to declare that destruction of, or injury
to, submarine cables in the high seas is an offence under the
Law of Nations, and to fix precisely the wrongful character
of the acts, and the appropriate penalties. With reference to
the last-mentioned point, the degree of uniformity attainable
must depend on the amount of difference between systems of
criminal legislation. The right of arresting offenders, or
those presumed to be such, might be given to the public
vessels of all nations, under conditions regulated by
treaties, but the right to try them should be reserved to the
national Courts of the vessel arrested.

"2. A submarine-telegraph cable uniting two neutral
territories is inviolable. It is desirable that, when
telegraphic communication must be interrupted in consequence
of war, a belligerent should confine himself to such measures
as are absolutely necessary to prevent the cable from being
used, and that such measures should be discontinued, or that
any damage caused by them, should be repaired as soon as the
cessation of hostilities may permit."

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
T. E. HOLLAND.
Oxford, November 23 (1881).

SUBMARINE CABLES IN TIME OF WAR

Sir,--I venture to think that the question which has been raised as to
the legitimacy of cable-cutting is not so insoluble as most of the
allusions to it might lead one to suppose. It is true that no light is
thrown upon it by the Convention of 1884, which relates exclusively to
time of peace, and was indeed signed by Lord Lyons, on behalf of Great
Britain, only with an express reservation to that effect. Nor are we
helped by the case to which attention was called in your columns some
time since by Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode. Their allusion was
doubtless to the _International_ (L.R. 3 A. and E. 321), which is
irrelevant to the present enquiry. The question is a new one, but,
though covered by no precedent, I cannot doubt that it is covered by
certain well-e