desiring to ascertain what is the truth of justice in this case reach a decision? By what procedure and before what tribunal can that end best be attained?

If recourse to arbitration is a reflection upon national courts, the people of the United States have been strangely obtuse, for nowhere in the world, surely, is greater honor paid to the courts of justice, yet we have embodied in the fundamental law which binds our states together a recognition of the liability of courts to be affected by local sentiment, prejudice, and pressure. We have provided in the third article of the Constitution of the United States that in controversies between states or between citizens of different states the determination of what is just shall not be confined to the courts of justice of either state, but may be brought in the Federal tribunals, selected and empowered by the representatives of both states and of all the states true arbitral tribunals in the method of their creation and the office they perform.

Alexander Hamilton explains this provision in The Federalist in these words:

The reasonableness of the agency of the national courts in cases in which the state tribunals can not be supposed to be impartial, speaks for itself. No man ought certainly to be a judge in his own cause, or in any cause in respect to which he has the slightest interest or bias. This principle has no inconsiderable weight in designating the Federal courts as the proper tribunals for the determination of controversies between different states and their citizens. And it ought to have the same operation in regard to some cases between the citizens of the same state. Claims to lands under grants of different states founded upon adverse pretension of boundary are of this description. The courts of neither of the granting states could be expected to be unbiased. The laws may have even prejudged the question and tried the courts down to decisions in favor of the grant of the state to which they belonged. And where this has not been done it would be natural that judges as men should feel a strong predilection to the claims of their own government.

The whole world owes too much to the Constitution of the United States to think little of its example. Especially the American nations, which have drawn from that great instrument their forms of government and the spirit of their free institutions, must regard with respect the lesson which it teaches.

The proud independent sovereign commonwealths like Virginia and Pennsylvania and New York and Massachusetts, which formed the American Union, revered their judges. They were prepared to give, and did give to their courts a degree of authority over them and over their executives and legislatures without precedent in the history of free government; but they also revered justice; they prized peace and concord and friendship and brotherhood between the states and their citizens. A century and a half of free self-government had brought to them the lessons and the self-restraint of experience. They knew the limitations of good men and the essential conditions of doing justice. In that great cause they allowed no small local jealousies to bar the way. When the ever-recurring question arises between submission of controversies to international arbitration on the one hand and insistence upon the jurisdiction of national tribunals on the other, the nations who look to the framers of the American Constitution as an example of high constructive statesmanship and wisdom, should not fail to find in this judgment, matter to arrest their attention and influence their action.

No court in the world has greater power and independence and honor than the Supreme Court, established under the Constitution of the United States, yet our government, by international agreement, has submitted to international tribunals many cases which could have been, and many cases which already had been, decided by that great court. For example, the cases of the Peterhof, reported in Wallace's Reports, Volume 5; the Dashing Wave (5 Wallace); the Georgia (7 Wallace); the Isabella Thompson (3 Wallace); the Pearl (5 Wallace); the Adela (6 Wallace), had all been decided by the Supreme Court, and they were resubmitted to an international tribunal, which decided them in the same way the court had decided them.

The cases of the Hiawatha (2 Black), the Circassian (2 Wallace), the Springbock (5 Wallace), the Sir William Peel (5 Wallace), the Volant (5 Wallace), the Science (5 Wallace), had all been decided by the Supreme Court, and they were resubmitted to an international tribunal, which decided them adversely to the decisions of the court, and the United States complied with the decisions of the arbitral tribunal.

It is true that the rule is undisputed that where there has been a denial of justice in national courts their decisions are not to be held conclusive, and arbitration or other further action may be called for. Unfortunately it has been necessary often in the past to invoke this rule; but it is an unsatisfactory rule and injurious in its effects. It involves an indictment and trial of the judicial system under which the denial of justice is alleged to have occurred. It involves aspersions upon government, imputations upon high officials, incitement to anger and resentment, and tends to destroy rather than to preserve good feeling and friendship between the nations concerned.

The better rule would be, to avoid the danger of denials of justice, and to prevent the belief that justice has not been done, which must always possess the parties defeated in a tribunal suspected of partiality, by submitting in the first instance to an impartial arbitral tribunal all such cases as are liable to be affected by the considerations I have mentioned.

And the reason of such a rule would require that when such cases have been decided already by national courts, and the impartial justice of the decision is seriously questioned, upon substantial grounds, they should be resubmitted to an arbitral tribunal, not for proof that justice has been denied, but for rehearing upon the merits because self respect and intelligent self-interest forbid a nation to shelter itself behind decisions of its own courts that rest under the imputation of partiality, or to be content with any but the best means and the most sincere effort to learn what is just in order that the nation may do what is just.

ELIHU ROOT.

HOW CHINA ADMINSTRATES HER FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The foreign relations of China may be said to begin with the year 1689, when the first treaty, consisting of six articles, was concluded with Russia at Nerchinsk. Although several embassies from Europe made their way to China by land and sea in the 17th and the 18th centuries, regular diplomatic relations were not established till the spring of 1861, when the diplomatic representatives of Great Britain and France took up their residence in the southeastern part of the inner city of Peking, now known as Legation Street. On the 19th of January, 1861, an Imperial Edict was issued, commanding the formation of a new bureau, named the Tsungli Yamên, for the administration of foreign affairs. By the terms of the Protocol of 1901, the Tsungli Yamên was transformed from a bureau or commission into a regularly constituted ministry or department, taking precedence over the then six other ministries of state, and has since been called the Waiwu Pu, or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The foreign relations of China are administrated very much like those of other nations, by the Waiwu Pu at home and by legations abroad. Under the Tsungli Yamên regime there were no bureaus, but the duties of the Yamên were divided according to the nationality which was involved, a secretary with assistants being in charge of each of the important treaty Powers. Over the secretaries were the ministers of the Yamên, three in number at first and subsequently increased to as many as eleven. The senior minister, or member, was some prince, and the body was spoken of collectively as the Prince and Ministers of the Tsungli Yamên.

As the Waiwu Pu is now organized, there are four bureaus and an office corresponding to that of the chief clerk of the Department of State in the United States. The Bureau of Harmonious Intercourse has charge of treaties, memorials to the Throne from the ministry and from envoys abroad, the appointment of envoys and their staffs, the arrangement of audiences to foreign ministers, the bestowal of

кий

decorations, promotions in the ministry, and local international ques. tions in Peking. A second bureau devotes its attention to questions arising from the engagement of foreign advisers, professors, etc., the emigration of Chinese laborers, the sending of students abroad, etc. Then there is the Bureau of Accounts and Disbursements, and lastly the Bureau of Miscellaneous Affairs (such as boundary questions, foreign travelers, missionary work, etc.). The principal officers of the Waiwu Pu consist of a controller-general (an Imperial prince), two presidents, two vice-presidents, two deputy vice-presidents and two councillors. The two presidents correspond roughly to the secretary and the under secretary of state, the vice-presidents to the assistant secretaries of state, while the deputies and the councillors may be compared to confidential secretaries and the solicitors of the department of state. The controller-general directs the general policy and is consulted only on important questions.

While naturally a large amount of the work is carried on by the exchange of chao-huis ("notes "), two days a week are set apart by the Waiwu Pu for receiving visits from foreign representatives. By the treaty of Nanking, it was stipulated that foreign officials addressing Chinese officials of equal rank should use the form chao-hui

(usually translated " despatch"), but when corresponding with authorities of higher rank than themselves should employ the term shen-ch'en. This implied subordination was abandoned by the terms of the Chefoo Convention, and now the chao-hui is the usual form of communication between Chinese and foreign officials. The chao-hui is very formal, and in place of any signature, the seal of the ministry or bureau is attached. When the correspondence is of a personal or semi-official nature, there may be no signature, but the communication ends with the expression "visiting card is enclosed."

Prince Ch'ing, who was the senior member of the Tsungli Yamên, has been the controller-general of the Waiwu Pu ever since its establishment in 1901. The two presidents are Their Excellencies Na T'ung, who proceeded to Japan as special ambassador in July, 1901, and Liang Tun-yen, an alumnus of Yale University. One of the vice-presidents, His Excellency Lien Fang, and Deputy Vice-President Wu Chung-lien, are well-known French scholars, for some years