ses to listen to an argument
based on the historical origin of the statute. The English bench,
sticking more closely to the letter of the law, allows also an extensive
or restrictive interpretation thereof much more seldom than the
continental judiciary does.

[1] It seems impossible to find any single English phrase which gives
the meaning of _Materialien_ in this context. In the _Materialien_ of a
statute is comprised everything officially put on record concerning it
between the time the draftsman undertakes to draft the measure and the
time it is placed on the statute-book. For instance, the commentary
which a draftsman on the Continent always adds to his draft, giving the
reasons for the provisions of the Bill; the discussions in Parliament
about the Bill; and the like.--TRANSLATOR.

[Sidenote: Controverted interpretation of the Declaration of London an
example.]

48. A good illustration of the factors under consideration was furnished
by the movement in England against the ratification of the Declaration
of London, and the discussion evoked thereby in the press and in
Parliament. It was asserted that many rules of the Declaration were so
indefinitely framed as to lie open, castle and keep, to the arbitrary
inroads of a belligerent interpreter. And when the advocates of
ratification pointed to the official 'General Report presented to the
Naval Conference by its Drafting Committee', which gave a satisfying
solution to the issues raised, the answer came that neither a
belligerent nor the International Prize Court would be bound by the
interpretation of the Declaration contained in this General Report. It
was asserted that the ratification of the Declaration would refer only
to the text itself, and that the General Report, not being thereby
ratified, would not be binding; only by express extension of the
ratification to the General Report could the latter bind.

Continental jurisprudence, if my conception of it be correct, would
stand shaking its head at the whole of this discussion. It would ask how
there could be any talk of ratifying a report, ratification having only
to do with agreements. And as regards the question of the binding
character of the General Report, there might indeed be some objection on
the Continent to the epithet 'binding', but, on the other hand, there
would be no doubt that the interpretation of the Declaration given in
the Report must be accepted on all sides. The Report