Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

withstood more than one assault. Mutual distrust reigned at London and St. Petersburg, but as in the case with France, Russia and Great Britain buried their differences and harmony exists where formerly discord blocked the path of progress. The Island Empire of Japan has felt the need of English support and the relations between the two countries have become close and intimate. With Germany alone the future is troubled.

It is not without reason that he has been termed the Peacemaker, for he was neither the cause of dissension at home nor abroad, and his influence was thrown for the cause of peace where war prevailed, and for the maintenance of peace where peace existed. The average man with wide knowledge, generous sympathies, infinite tact and moderation has left a deep impress on the world at large.

From another standpoint, the reign of Edward was remarkable, for he has shown that the king as such is a force at home and the visible bond of union between the United Kingdom and the colonies. George IV brought the crown into contempt; the fourth William did little to raise its prestige, and the retirement of Queen Victoria seemed to suggest that the crown had lost its usefulness in the constitutional system of England. The conduct of Edward as king without overstepping constitutional restraints showed that the crown has not spent its force at home, and that loyalty to a self-respecting and therefore respected king is the bond which binds the self-governing colonies to Great Britain and the empire.

May the son tread in the footsteps of the father, and may his reign make for international righteousness and peace.

FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL

LAW

The American Society of International Law held its Fourth Annual Meeting at Washington, in the New Willard Hotel, April 28–30, 1910. The programme already furnished the members and printed in the January number of the JOURNAL, pages 188-190, was adhered to and, with two exceptions, the papers as announced in the programme were presented and discussed. The Honorable Charles Nagel was prevented by official business from attending the opening session and the Honorable Thomas C. Dawson was unfortunately too ill to be present.

It is not for the Journal as the organ of the Society to pass judgment upon the papers, but it certainly is permissible to state that they were all interesting as weli as scientific and that they are valuable contributions to the various phases of the general question: The Basis of Protertion to Citizens Residing Abroad.

The Programme Committee limited the meeting to a single subject, divided into appropriate headings, in order to give unity and consistence to the Proceedings, in the hope that the papers as a whole would be of value as well as of interest to students of the general and special topic. The volume of Proceedings, which will shortly appear, will show that the expectation was more than justified.

The Society expressed the desire at the Third Annual Meeting that something be done in the way of codifying the laws of peace and the special committee appointed by President Root presented two preliminary reports on the subject of the scope and plan of codification and the history of codification. The two reports will be further considered by the committee during the coming year and a final report will be made at the Fifth Annual Meeting in order to see how far and along what lines the codification of the laws of peace should be undertaken by the Society.

Two incidents of the meeting stand out in bold relief and deserve special mention: the annual address of President Root, and the remarks of the President of the United States to the members of the Society at the White House reception. Senator Root considered carefully and in detail the principles underlying the protection to be accorded to Americans abroad, and insisted that what we demand from others we should cheerfully accord. His address is printed in full in the present number of the JOURNAL, p. 517.

President Taft, who is honorary president of the Society, dealt briefly with the same theme, accentuating the necessity of investing the Federal Government with the powers needed to fulfill the international obligations of the United States.

His remarks follow in: full:

I am very much honored by your coming here: very glad to welcome you here; glad to know that you have an opportunity to devote this time to an avocation instead of a vocation. The remarks of Mr. Root last night were exceedingly interesting to those of us, chiefly Mr. Knox, who are attempting to bring about something practical in the way of a tribunal which shall invite submission hy arbitration. To have an instrument at hand is sometimes a means of inducing its use.

I am personally a little bit more interested in another kind of an instrument that I call to your attention as international lawyers, looking at it from the standpoint of American international Jawyers, and that is that Congress should put in the hands of the Executive the means by which we can perform our national obligations. We should not be obliged to refer those who complain of a breach of those obligations to governors of states and county prosecutors to take up the procedure of vindicating the rights of aliens which have been violated on American soil.

I do not think that any one, however -- I will not say extreme, but however strong his view of the necessity of the preservation of state rights under the Federal Constitution — will deny the power of the government to defend, and protect, and provide procedure for enforcing the rights that are given to aliens under treaties made by the Government of the United States. Therefore, it is no excuse, it seems to me, to any one who is a supporter of the Federal Constitution at all to say that he is in favor of a strict construction of that Constitution and the preservation of state rights, in order to defend his refusal to give the central government the means of enforcing its own promises. If it has a right to make promises, I think it has a right to fulfill them, or at least ought to have power to fulfill them. I can not suppose that the Federal Constitution was drawn by men who proposed to put in the hands of one set of authorities the power to promise and then withhold from them the means of fulfilling them.

Now, gentlemen, that is the thing that rushes into my mind the minute I see international lawyers, because it affects the international responsibilities that I for the time being have to meet. I thank you for coming here. I hope that your visit to the capital will result in something tangible in the way of recommendations that will be followed. I congratulate you on coming to a city like Washington at the time of its greatest beauty to give you new inspiration for the support of the national government.

The Society took appropriate action upon the death of Mr. Justice Brewer, vice-president, and the Honorable William L. Penfield, both founders of the Society and members of the Executive Council.

The Society elected as honorary member Mr. T. M. C. Asser of Holland, Minister of State, Member of the Council of State, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Member of the Institute of International Law, and Corresponding Member of the Institute of France.

All of the officers of the Society were re-elected and the following changes made in order to fill the vacancies created by the deaths of Justice Brewer and Judge Penfield:

Honorable Shelby M. Cullom and Honorable Jacob M. Dickinson were elected vice-presidents

Mr. Jackson H. Ralston of the District of Columbia was elected to the Executive Council to serve until 1912.

The members of the Executive Council elected to serve until 1913 are as follows:

Hon. James B. Angell, Michigan,
Hon. Augustus ( Bacon, Georgia,

Hon. Frank C. Partridge, Vermont,
Mr. A. H. Snow, District of Columbia,
Prof. Leo S. Rowe, Pennsylvania,
F. R. Coudert, Esq., New York,
Everett P. Wheeler, Esq., New York,
Hon. Edwin Denby, Michigan.

Owing to the fact that his duties as Ambassador to Constantinople prevents his attendance at the meetings of the Society at present, Hon. Oscar S. Straus was succeeded as Chairman of the Executive Committee by Hon. John W. Foster.

Mr. George A. Finch was elected Business Manager and Assistant Secretary and Treasurer to succeed Mr. W. Clayton Carpenter who resigned to accept a position on the Agency of the United States in the approaching arbitration between the United States and Venezuela at The Hague.

The following members were elected to the Board of Editors of the JOURNAL for the ensuing year:

James Brown Scott, Editor-in-chief,
C. P. Anderson,
Charles Noble Gregory,
Amos F. Hershey,
Charles Cheney Hyde
George W. Kirchwey,
Robert Lansing,
John Bassett Moore,
George G. Wilson,
Theodore S. Woolsey.

At the annual dinner, held in the New Willard, Saturday night, April 30, 1910, President Root acted as toastmaster, and highly enjoyable and informal addresses were delivered by Hon. Charles Nagel, Dr. James B. Angell, president emeritus of the University of Michigan, Dr. Harry Pratt Judson, president of the University of Chicago, and Mr. Eugene Wambaugh, professor at the Harvard Law School, all members of the Society. President Root made the very comforting announcement that the Society had never solicited funds, that it had never levied an assessment, that it had paid its running expenses for five years, had conducted the JOURNAL as the organ of the Society for the past three years and more, and that it has on hand a balance of some three thousand dollars.

BOUNDARY WATERS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

On the fifth of May last the Secretary of State and the British Ambassador at Washington exchanged ratifications of the treaty of January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain, relating to the use of boundary waters and the settlement of questions along the boundary between the United States and Canada,' which treaty was negotiated by Mr. Root, when Secretary of State, assisted by Mr. Chandler P. Anderson as special counsel for the Department of State.

The purpose of this treaty, as recited in its preamble, is to prevent disputes regarding the use of boundary waters, and to settle all questions which are now pending between the United States and the Dominion of Canada, involving the rights, obligations or interests of either, in relation to the other, or to the inhabitants of the other, along their common frontier, and to make provision for the adjustment and settlement of all such questions as may hereafter arise.

This treaty accomplishes these purposes briefly as follows:

It confers on both countries mutual rights of free navigation in all boundary waters on each side of the line, boundary waters being defined as the waters of the lakes and rivers and connecting waterways along which the international boundary between the United States and Canada extends.

It gives the residents on either side of the boundary the same remedies in the courts of each country, for injuries resulting from diversions or obstructions of water on the other side of the boundary that they would have in the courts of the respective countries if they were residents on different sides of State or Provincial boundaries.

It fixes a limit on the amount of water that may be diverted from Niagara River above the Fails on either side of the boundary for power purposes, following the recommendation of the existing International Waterways Commission as approved by resolutions of Congress.

It agrees on an equitable division of the waters of the Saint Mary and Milk Rivers which are partly in Canada and partly in the State of Montana.

It provides for the establishment of an International Joint Commission with power to decide all questions concerning the use and diversion of boundary waters and establishes a code of principles to be applied by this Commission in all such cases.

1 Printed in the SUPPLEMENT, p. 239.

« AnteriorContinuar »