American belligerents, which had small numbers of citizens or subjects in the United States, was deemed unnecessary for the time being. As has already been indicated, these conventions were almost identical in terms or effect. In general, they provided that the male citizens or subjects of either contracting country, residing in the other, should, within the periods limited in the convention, enlist or enroll in the forces of their own country, or return to their own country for the purpose of military service, or thereafter be subject to military service and entitled to exemption therefrom, under the laws or regulations in force from time to time in the country in which they remained. In order to have, for administrative purposes, uniform age limits for military service of aliens under all of the conventions, it was provided that the ages for military service in the United States of citizens or subjects of all convention countries should be 20 to 44 years, both inclusive, although these were not the ages for military service in those countries. These ages corresponded approximately to the lowest maximum and the highest minimum military age of the larger belligerent Powers at the time the ages were fixed for the conventions. The age at which American citizens abroad were to be conscripted under the conventions were the ages for the time being prescribed for compulsory military service in the United States. This provision was made elastic in order to take care of any expansion of the military ages in the United States beyond 21 to 30, as subsequently happened.

Under the conventions, the citizens or subjects of the contracting parties within the age limits mentioned were allowed sixty days from the date of the exchange of ratifications in which to enlist or enroll in their own forces, or depart for their own country for the purpose of military service, if they were liable to military service in the country in which they were at the said date. If they were not so liable, then they were allowed thirty days from the date on which liability should accrue in which to enlist, enroll, or depart. Similar periods were allowed after the refusal or expiration of certificates of exemption.

Each government had the right through its diplomatic or other representatives, to issue certificates of exemption from military service to their respective citizens or subjects abroad within the sixty or thirty day periods. Persons holding such certificates were, so long

as the certificates were in force, not liable to military service in the country in which they were.

The foregoing were the main provisions of the conventions. There were minor provisions in respect to facilitating the departure of persons who desired to go home for military service, and in respect to the preservation of nationality notwithstanding military service in a foreign army under the convention.

These conventions were made operative on the date of the exchange of ratifications, and were to remain in force until the expiration of sixty days after either of the contracting parties had given notice of termination to the other. Thereupon the citizens of either country incorporated into the military service of the other under these conventions were to be, as soon as possible, discharged therefrom.

The practical application of these conventions entailed the issuance of regulations in respect to procedure for obtaining certificates of exemption granted by the diplomatic representatives of the contracting parties. For example, in the United States the British Government issued extensive regulations governing the issuance of certificates of exemption by the British Ambassador to British subjects in the military service of the United States. Likewise, the United States prepared regulations for the guidance of the American Ambassador in London in the issuance of certificates of exemption. It was to the interest of the contracting parties not to exempt their citizens or subjects from military service by certificate, unless it was for the good of the common cause to do so. Consequently the regulations of the United States restricted the issuance of certificates of exemption by the American diplomatic representatives in general to Americans abroad who were engaged in an industry or occupation necessary to the prosecution of the war by the United States; who were necessary to the adequate and effective service of the United States abroad; who were officers or seamen employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant of the United States; who had been honorably discharged from the naval or military service of the United States by reason of wounds or other disability incurred in the present war; and who had during the present war been taken prisoners, captured or interned by the enemy while serving in the forces of the United States or the cobelligerents and had been released or exchanged under parole or other agreement not to perform again military service.

As registration in the United States for military service was regarded as enlistment or enrollment within the meaning of the conventions, it was necessary also to provide regulations for the issuance of evidence of such registration, which would be recognized abroad and exempt such registrants for military service under the convention.

The mere fact that these conventions were being negotiated caused thousands of citizens or subjects of cobelligerent countries to enlist or go home for military service in their own forces before the conventions became effective. The negotiations of these conventions not only made available the man power of the cobelligerents that had refused to return home for military service, but they served also to make it available by means of mutual agreement between the United States and foreign countries rather than by the drastic action of conscription without the consent of the countries concerned. Doubtless, had the latter course been followed it could not have been executed without protest on the part of foreign governments that such action was contrary to the practice of nations and at variance with the treatment which the associated governments engaged in the prosecution of a common war should expect of each other.

LESTER H. WOOLSEY.

BRITISH JUSTICE IN PALESTINE

Many blessings follow in the train of a British army of occupation, but in a land where the very fountains of justice as well as the springs of water have long been polluted or rendered inaccessible, none could be more welcome than the introduction of water and justice in abundance. On June 21, 1918, a splendid system of water supply from distant and ancient springs was inaugurated in Jerusalem. And on June 29th a proclamation was issued re-establishing the judicial system in Ottoman territory under occupation by the Egyptian Expeditionary Force. Both of these notable achievements were accomplished without blare of trumpets, though deserving of more than passing notice.

Under Turkish misrule the judicial system was fairly simple and admirable in theory. In practice, justice was badly administered, as a rule, by officials who, being inadequately and irregularly paid,

were not infrequently corrupt. When the Turkish army withdrew, most of these officials withdrew also. The whole administration of justice was badly dislocated, therefore, and remained practically in abeyance for several months, except in the case of certain local magistrates. To remedy this unfortunate situation, the British authorities drafted the services of Major Orme Clarke, on active service with the army in France, formerly a barrister of great promise in London, and, at the time of the outbreak of war with Turkey, judicial adviser to the Turkish Government. In an incredibly brief time, Major Clarke was able by herculean efforts to reorganize this demoralized judicial system in a manner that deserves special comment.

In conformity with the accepted principles and precedents of international law, the chief aim of this reorganization has been to permit the normal processes of justice to function without undue interference with local law and customs by the military authorities. This has been accomplished by restoring the Ottoman judicial system and by rendering it more adaptable and serviceable. There are local magistrates' courts for the trial of misdemeanors as well as for civil and commercial questions of small importance. Permanent courts of first instance for the trial of more important cases not within the competency of the magistrates' courts exist in Jerusalem and Jaffa, while provision is made for the establishment of other special courts in districts where there may be no court of first instance. A Court of Appeal sits in Jerusalem and will also act as a Court of Assize to try serious offences. It is of interest to note that, in accordance with English practice, this court will be sent on circuit so that criminal cases may be heard without compelling the accused and the witnesses to journey to Jerusalem. The religious courts for the adjudication of questions affecting personal status, as, for example, marriage, divorce, inheritance, and guardianship, continue to function as before the military occupation. Moreover, under the benign autocracy of military rule, this simple judicial system will be subject to such checks and emendations by the senior judicial officer as may be required for the better administration of justice.

The law to be applied by these courts, as stated in the proclamation of June 29th, is "the Ottoman law in force at the date of the occupation, with such modifications as may be proper, having regard to international law and to the better administration of occupied territory."

With regard to the juridical status of "foreign subjects" in the occupied territory, the following Rules of Court, issued under date of August 1st by the senior judicial officer, warrant quotation textually quite as much for their excellent draftsmanship as for their particular interest:

1. The expression "foreign subjects" means subjects of any European or American state, and includes corporations constituted under the laws of such states, and religious or charitable bodies or institutions wholly or mainly composed of individuals the subject of such state, but does not include protected subjects.

2. Foreign subjects accused of an offence (other than a contravention) which is within the jurisdiction of a magistrate may claim to be tried by a British magistrate.

3. Foreign subjects accused of an offence which is beyond the jurisdiction of a magistrate may claim that their interrogation during the preliminary investigation should be undertaken, and the question of their release on bail and of their committal for trial should be decided, by a British examining judge. 4. Foreign subjects committed for trial may claim:

(a) In the case of offences triable before a court of first instance, that their trial should take place before a court the composition of which includes at least one British judicial officer.

(b) In the case of offences triable before the Court of Assize, that their trial should take place before a court the composition of which includes a majority of British judicial officers.

5. In civil actions over fifty pounds Egyptian in value, foreign subjects may claim that the final judgment in a court of first instance should be given by a court the composition of which includes at least one British judicial officer.

6. In civil or criminal cases foreign subjects may claim that their appeal should be heard before a court the composition of which includes at least one British judicial officer.

7. Persons claiming to be treated as foreign subjects who do not make their claim either on first appearance or in the first written pleading delivered to the court, whichever be the earlier, shall forfeit their right so to claim. Nevertheless the claim may be made on appeal notwithstanding that it has not been made in first instance.

8. The burden of proof that they are entitled to be treated as foreign subjects shall be upon persons claiming the rights aforesaid.

9. Where any person claims and substantiates his claim to be treated as a foreign subject the court shall be constituted in conformity with the foregoing rules, and, if necessary, the case shall be adjourned to enable this to be done.

It has furthermore been provided that:

When in any action properly brought before the civil courts a question of personal status arises the determination of which is necessary for the purposes