leagues actually organized by Philip II in 337 B.C. and by some of his successors on the Macedonian throne in the following century.

The first half of the fourth century B.C. witnessed the bankruptcy of the city-state as a sovereign power. The whole Greek world was in a constant turmoil of foreign and civil warfare. The jealous rivalries of the various states had so weakened their resources and created such intense hatred amongst them that the decadent power of Persia could dictate the terms of a national peace for Hellas. Revolution and counter-revolution marked the internal life of the cities; pirates infested the Ægean Sea; trade languished, and its decline heightened the general economic distress. As a remedy for these conditions, Plato and Aristotle advocated the complete isolation of the polis, but Isocrates caught the vision of a Pan-Hellenic union.

This union was to take the form of a symmachia for war against Persia, a project which he thought could afford a basis for common action acceptable to all Greeks. The immediate aim of such a war would be the occupation of Asia Minor, which would open up a new field for colonization and relieve the overpopulation of Hellas. But the league was to accomplish more than that. It was to act as a guardian of the peace in Greece itself, to preserve the independence of the separate states, to police the seas, and to put an end to the interminable class and party warfare. At first Isocrates looked to his native city of Athens to take the lead in forming his projected alliance, but finding that his appeals to his fellow-citizens met with no response, he finally addressed himself to Philip II of Macedon, who was actually destined to accomplish the unification of Greece.9

The Pan-Hellenic league which Philip organized in 337 B.C. betrays the influence of the ideas of Isocrates. The Greek states south of Thermopyla (except Sparta) and the insular allies of Athens were formed into a league for the preservation of peace in Hellas, the maintenance of the independence of its members in the enjoyment of their existing constitutions, the suppression of violent revolutions within the cities, and the defence of private property. The enforcement of these conditions was entrusted to a "common council of the Hellenes," which met at the Isthmus of Corinth and in which each member of the league had a representative. The league as a whole concluded a symmachia with Philip, whereby he received the right to command its forces on land and sea; the military obligations of the cities were definitely stated, but no tribute was imposed upon them. This creation of Philip's was not a Macedonian empire but a military alliance under Macedonian hegemony.10 The PanHellenic union was dissolved by Alexander in 324 B.C. when he issued 9 J. Kessler, Isokrates und die panhellenische Idee. 10 Beloch, Griechische Geschichte, ii, pp. 572 ff.

his demand for deification by the cities of Greece and thus proclaimed his intention to rule over the Greeks as an absolute monarch.

However, in the latter part of the third century another Hellenic league, which bears little resemblance to that of 337 B.C., was organized under Macedonian hegemony. This was the alliance which Antigonus Doson formed about 223 B.C. between Macedon and the federal states of the Thessalians, Boeotians, Epirotes, Phocians, Acarnanians, and Achæans, to which were afterward added Sparta and other states. The alliance rested upon treaties concluded by the individual states with Macedon, which respected the independence of these states, but placed certain restrictions upon their right of negotiation with outside Powers. The policy of the league was determined by a council presided over by the Macedonian king, but its decisions required the ratification of the individual states before becoming binding upon them. Obviously this league was nothing but a loose symmachia: its importance lies in the fact that it embraced all the important states of the Greek peninsula with the exception of the Etolians.11

Finally, we come to the federal states. These interstate associations are distinguished from the leagues and alliances by the fact that they gave rise to new states, characterized by a federal citizenship, alongside of which the citizenships of the several associated communities still existed. They were what the Greeks termed sympolities in contrast to the symmachies, where no new state was created. The cities united in the federal states remained locally autonomous; the rights and obligations of each were identical. On the basis of the federal citizenship, the federal organs of government were established-assembly, council and magistrates, modeled upon the institutions of the city-states. The federal state, through these federal institutions, had complete control of foreign affairs, including the right to make war and peace, the control of military forces, the right of legislation in federal matters, of jurisdiction in crimes against itself, the power to settle disputes among the federated states, the sole right of coinage, and the power to deal directly with federal citizens and not merely through the medium of their respective city-states."

12

Such federal states were characteristic of political life in the peninsula of Greece from the fourth century B.C. This development was due to the growing realization that the isolated city-state was doomed to count for little or nothing in the political world. This was particularly true after the rise of Macedon under Philip II and the conquests of Alexander. From that time onward the territorial states dominated the situation.

In nearly every case the federal states arose on an ethnic basis, that is to say, they were associations of cities or rural states belonging to the 11 Polybius, iv, 9 and 15; Niccolini, La Confederazione Achæa, pp. 55 ff.

12 Upon the whole question of the Greek federal states I have followed Swoboda, op. cit., pp. 208 ff.

same ethnos. This is shown in the adoption of the ethnic name to designate the federal citizens, e.g., Boeotians or Achæans. At times indeed the term ethnos itself was officially employed in the title of the federal state, although a more usual term was that of koinon, which we might translate commonwealth. Later in their history many of these federal unions admitted communities of a different ethnic group to membership upon an equal footing with the old members, but in such cases the new citizens received the ethnic name of the group to which they were admitted. The true federal states of the fourth and third centuries B.C. were preceded in most cases by loose associations of their component city-states, either in the form of religious leagues, military alliances, or even confederations which were not true federal states. An example of the latter is to be found in the Baotian Confederation which lasted from 447 to 386 B.c.18 The most famous of these federal states were the Achæan and Etolian Confederations, which unfortunately are more usually known by the misleading name of leagues. The former of these two states owed its importance to the statecraft of Aratus of Sicyon, who induced it to embark upon a policy of expansion and opposition to Macedon which eventually brought it to include almost the whole of the Peloponnesus and even some states beyond the Isthmus.

It remains for us to consider which, if any, of these types of association among the states of ancient Greece may be considered as a forerunner of the League of Nations. The League of Nations, as I interpret its constitution,1 is a voluntary association of self-governing states for the purpose of promoting international peace and security. To this end these states agree to avoid secret preparations for war and to attempt to settle their disputes by arbitration before resorting to the verdict of arms. They also agree to respect and defend the territorial integrity and existing political independence of the members of the League.

Bearing these points in mind, I think that we shall find it exceedingly difficult to discover on Greek soil traces of any associations of states based upon the fundamental ideas of the League of Nations. The amphictyonies and other religious leagues had an entirely different basis and object. The federal states differed both in object and in organization. They are the historical antecedents of the United States of America, the Dominion of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Union of South Africa, but not of the League of Nations. Perhaps we may say that there is a closer approach to the aims and constitution of the latter in the PanHellenic program of Isocrates and the Hellenic League organized by Philip II of Macedon. Here, however, the qualification must be made that while this program and this league aimed to secure the preservation 13 The constitution of this confederation has come to light through the recent discovery of the Oxyrhynchus Hellenica, q. v.

14 See the prelude to the Covenant of the League of Nations, and article 1, ibid.

of peace in Hellas, they were organized also with a view to war against non-Greek states. Regarding the principle of arbitration, adopted by the League of Nations for the adjustment of international differences, we have noticed that it was employed very extensively by the Greeks but never under an organization such as that of this league.15

In conclusion, a study of the Greek leagues reveals the fact that the more important of them were only created and held together under the leadership of one state more powerful than the rest. The question suggests itself: Will the League of Nations fail unless some one powerful state or group of states is made responsible for the enforcement of its terms and has coercive power over the remaining members?

15 See M. N. Tod, International Arbitration amongst the Greeks. Oxford, 1913.

seen.

ENEMY GOODS AND HOUSE OF TRADE

BY THOMAS BATY, LL.D., D.C.L.

Part II.*

THE TROIS FRÈRES (Stewart, V, Adm. Cases, N.S. 1). The continued adherence of the British courts to the doctrine of a locus pœnitentiæ, even for persons domiciled in a country which becomes an enemy, is here A Frenchman became naturalized in the United States and traded there. Ultimately, however, he left, with all his books and papers, on a French ship for France, intending to remain there permanently. War supervening between France and Britain, the ship put about, with the intention of returning to America. But she was taken by the British, and the trader's effects seized as prize. Liberty was given him to establish, by affidavit, the total abandonment of his intention of going to France.

THE VIRGINIE (Feb. 7, 1804, 5 C. Rob. 98). Mr. Lapierre was a native of France, and carried on business in New York. Being on a visit of some ten months to (French) San Domingo, he shipped goods there from Bordeaux, and returned to America. There seems to be nothing to show a domicile, and not much to argue a house of trade, in San Domingo. Yet the property was condemned.

Stowell laid decisive stress on Mr. Lapierre's political allegiance; far more, I think, than it could bear. The judgment almost amounts to asserting that, where the allegiance and temporary residence are the same, any business with the country of that allegiance will be liable to involve confiscation. "The native character easily reverts," says Stowell, "and it requires fewer circumstances to constitute domicil in the case of a native subject, than to impress the native character on one who is originally of another country." Yes, but the early return to New York should have negatived the animus manendi; and Stowell really admits it when he says: "Had the shipment been made for America, his asserted place of abode, it might have . . . afforded a presumption that he was in St. Domingo only for temporary purposes. But the fact of his early departure not only afforded that presumption, but practically proved it. It is probable that a fuller report would have shown that there was no real and substantial business proved to have been carried on by Mr. Lapierre in America; *The first part of this article appeared in this JOURNAL for April, 1921, pp. 198

231.

384