there was a law to be observed in war as well as in peace, he wrote his treatise, which has done more to introduce justice into the conscience of nations than the work of any other man. May the re-publication of the treatise turn the thoughts and the minds of men to the principles which he advocated, and may the old work in its new form render a new service to the old cause of justice, to justice as between men. If, unfortunately, the waters of the ocean should sweep over Holland and blot it out forever, it would be immortalized by the work of the man whom the government of that day imprisoned for life when he still honored their country with his presence, and whose dead body was stoned by the people in the streets when it was brought back to Delft for burial. Of a truth "the prophet is not without honor, save in his own country and in his own house." JAMES BROWN SCOTT. RESPECT FOR THE AMERICAN FLAG Among the rights stated by publicists to which nations are entitled is the right to respect, including the right to have their national emblems respected and the respect enforced by penalties if need be. The United States possesses this right as a nation, although adequate steps have not been taken in times past to secure the flag of the United States and the national emblems from desecration. An Act of Congress, approved February 8, 1917, was passed "to prevent and punish the desecration, mutilation, or improper use, within the District of Columbia, of the flag of the United States of America," and the passage of this Act at this time makes brief comment upon the general subject both timely and interesting. This is, however, not the only law on the statute books. In 1905 and in 1907 the question was considered from a different standpoint, and, in allowing trade marks to be registered in the patent office, the flag, national and State emblems were excluded.1 Two years later this Act was amended by the Act of February 2, 1907, and the clause regarding flags and national emblems was retained without change.2 In the American form of government, the United States, speaking of the States as a whole, possesses the powers which have been spe 1 U.S. Statutes at Large, 58 Cong., Vol. 33, Pt. 1, Public Laws, p. 725. cifically or impliedly delegated, and the powers not specifically or impliedly delegated to the United States and not renounced by the States are by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The question might arise as to whether a State of the American Union could pass an Act to prevent and punish the desecration of the flag of the United States, or whether the United States in Congress assembled should alone be able to exercise this as a power impliedly, though not specifically, delegated, or whether both the United States and the States composing the more perfect union. could pass laws on the subject and enforce their observance by appropriate penalties. As many States have passed statutes dealing with this subject, it was to be expected that the question would one day arise, and that the Supreme Court should be called upon to decide it. This happened in the case of Halter v. Nebraska (205 U.S., 34), decided in 1906, and the court declared the State Act constitutional, or declared it not to be unconstitutional. As the opinion of the court is not merely instructive and interesting in itself, but peculiarly timely, when the 3 Laws for the protection of the national flag have been adopted by the states as follows: Alaska. Sess. Laws, 1913, p. 3 Arizona. Sess. Laws, 1913, p. 3; Penal Code, 1913, Sec. 7023 California. Sess. Laws, 1899, p. 46 Nebraska. Rev. Stats. 1913, Sec. 8852 Nevada. Rev. Stats. 1912, Sec. 5603 New Jersey. Sess. Laws, 1904, p. 34 North Dakota. Penal Code, 1905, Oregon. General Laws, 1901, p. 286 Utah. Penal Code, 1907, Sec. 4487 United States is just entering upon a war, the material portion of Mr. Justice Harlan's opinion is quoted: From the earliest periods in the history of the human race, banners, standards and ensigns have been adopted as symbols of the power and history of the peoples who bore them. It is not then remarkable that the American people, acting through the legislative branch of the Government, early in their history, prescribed a flag as symbolical of the existence and sovereignty of the Nation. Indeed, it would have been extraordinary if the Government had started this country upon its marvelous career without giving it a flag to be recognized as the emblem of the American Republic. For that flag every true American has not simply an appreciation but a deep affection. No American, nor any foreign born person who enjoys the privileges of American citizenship, ever looks upon it without taking pride in the fact that he lives under this free Government. Hence, it has often occurred that insults to a flag have been the cause of war, and indignities put upon it, in the presence of those who revere it, have often been resented and sometimes punished on the spot. It may be said that as the flag is an emblem of National sovereignty, it was for Congress alone, by appropriate legislation to prohibit its use for illegitimate purposes. We cannot yield to this view. If Congress has not chosen to legislate on this subject, and if an enactment by it would supersede state laws of like character, it does not follow that in the absence of National legislation the State is without power to act. There are matters which, by legislation, may be brought within the exclusive control of the General Government, but over which, in the absence of National legislation, the State may exert some control in the interest of its own people. For instance, it is well established that in the absence of legislation by Congress a State may, by different methods, improve and protect the navigation of a waterway of the United States wholly within the boundary of such State. So, a State may exert its power to strengthen the bonds of the Union and therefore, to that end, may encourage patriotism and love of country among its people. When, by its legislation, the State encourages a feeling of patriotism towards the Nation, it necessarily encourages a like feeling towards the State. One who loves the Union will love the State in which he resides and love both of the common country and of the State will diminish in proportion as respect for the flag is weakened. Therefore a State will be wanting in care for the well-being of its people if it ignores the fact that they regard the flag as a symbol of their country's power and prestige, and will be impatient if any open disrespect is shown towards it. By the statute in question the State has in substance declared that no one subject to its jurisdiction shall use the flag for purposes of trade and traffic, a purpose wholly foreign to that for which it was provided by the Nation. Such an use tends to degrade and cheapen the flag in the estimation of the people, as well as to defeat the object of maintaining it as an emblem of National power and National honor. And we cannot hold that any privilege of American citizenship or that any right of personal liberty is violated by a state enactment forbidding the flag to be used as an advertisement on a bottle of beer. It is familiar law that even the privileges of citizenship and the rights inhering in personal liberty are subject, in their enjoyment, to such reasonable restraints as may be required for the general good. Nor can we hold that any one has a right of property which is violated by such an enactment as the one in question. If it be said that there is a right of property in the tangible thing upon which a representation of the flag has been placed, the answer is that such representation which, in itself, cannot belong, as property, to an individual — has been placed on such a thing in violation of law and subject to the power of Government to prohibit its use for purposes of advertisement. Looking then at the provision relating to the placing of representations of the flag upon articles of merchandise for purposes of advertising, we are of opinion that those who enacted the statute knew, what is known of all, that to every true American the flag is the symbol of the Nation's power, the emblem of freedom in its truest, best sense. It is not extravagant to say that to all lovers of the country it signifies government resting on the consent of the governed; liberty regulated by law; the protection of the weak against the strong; security against the exercise of arbitrary power; and absolute safety for free institutions against foreign aggression. As the statute in question evidently had its origin in a purpose to cultivate a feeling of patriotism among the people of Nebraska, we are unwilling to adjudge that in legislation for that purpose the State erred in duty or has infringed the constitutional right of anyone. On the contrary, it may reasonably be affirmed that a duty rests upon each State in every legal way to encourage its people to love the Union with which the State is indissolubly connected.. ... JAMES BROWN SCOTT. THE DANISH WEST INDIES On March 31, 1917, the transfer of the Danish West Indies from Denmark to the United States took place by the payment of the purchase price to Denmark by the United States, the transfer of physical possession of the Islands from Danish to American officials and the replacing of the Danish flag by that of the United States. An outline of the treaty of cession and of the previous efforts of the United States to acquire the islands appeared in this JOURNAL for October, 1916, page 853. The official text of the treaty is now printed in the Supplement to this number of the JOURNAL, page 53. In advising and consenting to the ratification of the treaty, the Senate of the United States, in order to bring the convention clearly within the Constitutional powers of the United States with respect to church establishment and freedom of religion, stipulated that the convention shall not be taken or construed as "imposing any trust upon the United States with respect to any funds belonging to the Danish National Church in the Danish West Indian Islands, or in which the said church may have an interest, nor as imposing upon the United States any duty or responsibility with respect to the management of any property belonging to said church, beyond protecting said church in the possession and use of church property as stated in said convention, in the same manner and to the same extent only as other churches shall be protected in the possession and use of their several properties." This stipulation was incorporated in an exchange of notes on January 3, 1917, between the Secretary of State and the Danish Minister, which notes are also printed in the Supplement. The motives which have actuated the United States in its efforts to acquire the islands, now crowned with success, are too well known to require any extended comment. The present views of the United States on this subject were succinctly placed before Congress at its last session by Secretary of State Lansing in recommending the appropriation of the purchase money so as to carry out the treaty now in force. Mr. Lansing said: This convention is responsive to the conviction of both governments, as well as of the people of the islands, that the Danish West Indies should belong to the United States. This conviction, as is well known, has been manifested in earlier treaties for the transfer of these islands to the United States. Without entering upon any extended historical review of the negotiations of these earlier treaties, it may be pointed out that the first negotiations for the purchase of the islands were initiated by Secretary Seward during the administration of President Lincoln and before the close of the Civil War, culminating in the convention signed at Copenhagen October, 24, 1867, during the administration of President Johnson, for the cession of the Islands of St. Thomas and St. John. It is the opinion of students of this subject that this convention was brought about through the conviction of the United States, gained by its naval operations during the Civil War, of the need of a naval coaling supply and repair station in the Caribbean Sea in order that the United States might be placed on a footing with other great Powers owning islands in those waters. This conviction, no doubt, was strengthened by the fact that the United States emerged from that war as a maritime Power to whom a good harbor and depot in the West Indies had become a matter of so great importance, if not of necessity, that the United States could not wish to see the Danish West Indies fall into the hands of another Power. Although the plebiscite in St. Thomas and St. John held under the treaty of 1867 was overwhelmingly in favor of the cession, and the treaty was promptly approved by the Danish Rigsdag and ratified and signed by the King, and although the period for ratification was extended from time to time to April 14, 1870, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations took no action until March 24, 1870, when Senator Sumner reported it adversely and the Senate acquiesced in that opinion. Prior to the Spanish War overtures were again made for the cession of the islands - this time initiated by the Danish Government. During the Spanish War the question of the purchase of the islands was further agitated. Concurrently with the discussion of the Isthmian Canal and the protection of the islands obtained from Spain, a second treaty for the purchase of the Danish West Indies was signed at |