subject to the statutes and jurisdiction of the Navy." The Proclamation of the President of the United States of April 26 recited the desirability of the war being "conducted upon principles in harmony with the present views of nations, and sanctioned by their recent practice," and that it "has already been announced that the policy of the Government will not be to resort to privateering, but to adhere to the rules of the Declaration of Paris," and goes on to adopt rules 2, 3, and 4 of the Declaration.
Ten years afterwards, viz.

on January 18, 1908, Spain signified "her entire and definitive adhesion to the four clauses contained in the Declaration," undertaking scrupulously to conduct herself accordingly.

Mexico followed suit on February 13, 1909.

The United States are therefore now the only important Power which has not formally bound itself not to employ privateers.

It seems unlikely that privateers, in the old sense of the term, will be much heard of in the future, though many questions may arise as to "volunteer navies" and subsidised liners, such as those touched upon in the last section, with reference to captures made by the _Malacca_; possibly also as to ships "converted" on the High Seas.
OUR MERCANTILE MARINE IN WAR TIME Sir,--There can be no doubt that serious loss would be occasioned to British commerce by a war between the United States and Spain in which either of those Powers should exercise its right of employing privateers or of confiscating enemy goods in neutral bottoms.
Before, however, adopting the measures recommended, with a view to the prevention of this loss, by Sir George Baden-Powell in your issue of this morning, it would be desirable to enquire how far they would be in accordance with international law, and what would be the net amount of the relief which they would afford.
It is hardly necessary to say that non-compliance with the provisions of the Declaration of Paris by a non-signatory carries with it none of the consequences of a breach of the law of nations.