á la société internationale son organisation juridique. Pasquale Fiore. R. de dr. int. et de législation comparée, 12:169. Vom Wesen des internationalen Rechtes. Niemeyer. Zeitschrift für Internationales Recht, 20:1. Japan. Epochs of Japan. Joseph H. Longford. Nineteenth Century, 67:711, 866. Le Japon en 1909. Roger Dorient. Q. dipl., 29:530. Pages de l'histoire du Japon. Közö Kijima. R. de dr. int. comparée et de législation comparée, 12:160. Latin America. Los Estados Unidos y los asuntos extracontinentales de la América latina. Pío Ballesteros. España Moderna, 256:49. Maritime law. Seekriegsrecht und Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit. Wehberg. Zeitschrift für das int. privat- und öffentliches Recht, 19:497. Mediation. L'avenir de la médiation. N. Politis. R. générale de dr. int. public, March-April, 1910. Monaco, L'avenir de. Victor Bérard. R. de Paris, April 15, 1910. Morocco. España y Francia en la cueston de Marruecos. Guillermo Rittwagen. R. de deux mondes, 257:163. Nationalisme italien, Le. Maurice Muret. Q. dipl., 29:137 Nationality, law of. La nationalite dans le nouveau droit chinois. Camille La papauté devant le droit international public et privé. Joseph Dubois. R. de dr. int. privé et de dr. pénal int., 37:374. Persia, Our weak policy in. Maurice B. Blake. Nineteenth Century, 67:544. Peru and Bolivia. L'arbitrage de 1909 entre la Bolivie et le Pérou. A. Weiss. R. générale de dr. int. public, March-April, 1910. Prize law. Early prize jurisdiction and prize law in England. Pt. II. R. G. Marsden. English Historical R., 25:243. Rolin-Jaequemyns, Notice sur Gustave. Ernest Nys. R. de dr. int. et de législation comparée, 12:139. Russo-Japanese War. Histoire officielle de la guerre maritime russo-japonaise. Published by the Etat-Major générale de la marine japonaise. R. maritime, 184:505. Why Russia went to war with Japan. I. The story of the Yalu concession. Unsigned. Fortnightly R., N. S., 86:816. Second Hague Conference. Die zweite Haager Friedenskonferenz. Nippold. Zeitschrift für int. privat- und öffentliches Recht, 19:363. Thibet. Le Tueur de Lamas. Turkey. The future of the temporary R., 97:291. Ch. E. Bonin. R. de Paris, April 1, 1910. Ottoman Empire. Ferdinand L. Leipuik. Con The new régime in Turkey: its success and its failure. Proximus. Forum, 43:392. La question du Yémen. Gaston Rouet. Q. dipl., 29:475. The Turkish question. Edwin Maxey. Forum, 43:293. La Turquie et les pays arabes. H. Marchand. Q. dipl., 29:553. W. CLAYTON CARPENTER. THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN REPUBLICS The International Conference of American Republics has assumed a well-defined and dignified position among the great international organizations of the world. Four conferences have met up to the present time. The suspicions and misrepresentations by which the first of these meetings were surrounded, while still occasionally cropping up in the press and among persons who are not entirely well informed, are no longer of any effect among serious publicists. As the general character of the International Union becomes more and more established, many matters that originally led to heated discussion may now be taken for granted and left to a purely academic forum. The work of the conferences of the Union has become specific and definite, its usefulness can no longer be questioned, when it has come to form the main basis of treaty relations and of administrative arrangements among the American republics. But these specific achievements in the development of international law do not exhaust the mission of the Pan-American conferences. They are assisting in the creation of that common mind, that harmonious public opinion, the existence of which will make it possible for America to play in the history of the future that part which accords with the resources and the natural conditions of her countries. mere fact that twenty-one nations differing from each other in customs and traditions as widely as does Brazil from Mexico or the the United States from Paraguay, can meet together in a harmonious body and, realizing a common destiny imposed by natural conditions and a common historic development, set to work to solve specific problems in a practical sense this fact alone is a proof that the Pan-American Union has not been established in vain. The The Fourth International Conference met at Buenos Aires on July 12 under the honorary presidency of the Secretaries of State of the United States and of Argentina, Mr. Philander C. Knox, and Doctor Victorino de la Plaza; and under the active presidency of Dr. Antonio Bermejo, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Argentina; with the Argentinian Minister in Washington, Señor Epifanio Portela, acting as Secretary General. As the year of the Conference coincides with that of the celebration of the centenary of independence in most of the Spanish American countries, the Conference will stand in history as the most notable feature of this commemoration; especially as it gives proof of the fact that the nations of this continent, moved by a common impulse to establish their independence, are still, after a century has passed, acting upon the basis of a common American policy. It is not, however, our purpose in this article to give an account of the sessions of the Conerence or of the celebrations which accompanied these meetings, interesting though this may be, but to deal more specifically with the action of the Conference as affecting or involving international law principles or as creating new administrative arrangements. In accordance with the precedent established at the Conference of Rio de Janeiro, the work of the Conference was based entirely upon a program previously adopted by the Governing Board of the PanAmerican Union in Washington and accepted by the Governments composing the Union. A preliminary program which had been issued about six months before the meeting of the Conference contained a number of subjects which were ultimately omitted by the Governing Board for reasons of convenience and out of deference to the wishes expressed by one or the other American government. The preliminary program is nevertheless interesting as embodying subjects which may be taken up in future discussions. The Governing Board also adopted the rules and regulations which governed the Conference. These rules followed in the main, and in almost every detail, those which had been in force at the Conference of Rio de Janeiro. The provision that the sessions of the Conference were to be secret was, however, omitted, it being left to the Conference itself to determine the matter of admission to its sessions. The rules fixed the number of countries to be represented on the various committees, but the actual number of these committees was settled by the Conference itself; there being altogether fourteen committees, on six of which every delegation was represented. The most notable regulation is that which provides that subjects not included in the program shall not be introduced unless there be a favorable vote of two-thirds of the members. This regulation, in connection with the character of the functions of the Committee on General Welfare, brought about some discussion. There was, however, an almost unanimous feeling among the delegations that it was not desirable that entirely new business should be introduced at all. A country wishing to bring before the Conference any subject may do so by proposing its discussion and asking for its inclusion in the program. As international conferences are not composed of legislators acting to a certain extent sui juris, but of delegates ruled by the instructions of their governments, it is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary that the program of subjects to be discussed should be known beforehand by all the governments, in order that they may study them and give instructions thereon to their representatives. This principle affects the functions of the committee which according to the regulation is to deal with the "general welfare." The nature of these functions has not been entirely clear. Is it to deal only with the immediate welfare of the Conference and its members themselves, taking up questions which affect the convenience of the Conference? Or, going to the other extreme, is it to consider and report upon general business bearing upon the welfare of the entire continent? Accepting the latter view, a delegate of Paraguay argued that every country ought to be represented on this committee, considering that by common accord the congress might modify its program and take up some new subject interesting to all American countries. Later on, another delegate spoke at length upon the desirability of having such a committee which would deal with the broader aspects of American policies. He cited an expression used by Sr. Nabuco in the Conference of 1906 when he spoke of the "committee on the general welfare of the continent," and said that "to it pertain all the measures and plans not dealt with in the program and all ideas of a unanimous character, so to speak, advanced in the interest of our hemisphere." In that conference Sr. Nabuco also said that "the committee on the continental welfare looks after everything not foreseen in regard to the good relations between the Ameri can countries." It is evident that whatever interpretation may be given to the character of this committee, its functions will in the nature of things be more restricted than the name implies. The general welfare of the continent is indeed the subject which the Conference deals with, but it is necessary that the governments should know beforehand what aspects of the general welfare are to be considered, in order that they might form a definite opinion thereon. The aspects so selected will be embodied in the program, and their consideration will be divided among the different committees of the Conference. It is unlikely that a Conference will ever vote the taking up of an entirely new topic which has not been considered by the governments, unless such topic be of very minor importance. Matters of a relatively unimportant nature may from time to time be referred to the general welfare committee, if admitted by a twothirds vote in the Conference; but it is not in accordance with the character and the practice of the International Union to bestow upon such a committee the function of introducing of its own motion. matters which it might deem of general interest, nor was such a practice at all in the mind of Sr. Nabuco when he made the statements cited above. Whenever the question arises as to whether a certain motion constitutes new business, it is proper and in accordance with practice that the question be submitted first to the committee on rules and regulations. Only in cases where there is no doubt as to the subject-matter being included in the terms of the program, but where no special committee has been provided for it, should such business be directly referred to the Committee on General Welfare; unless indeed the introduction of some new matter has been expressly sanctioned by a two-thirds vote. The proper time for the governments to consider what aspects and features of the general welfare of the continent they desire to have discussed, is the period when the program for the Conference is being formed by the Governing Board of the Pan-American Union. In connection with the Fourth Conference some very interesting questions arose as to the rights of a nation which flow from membership in the Union. As the relations between the Governments of Argentina and Bolivia were temporarily strained at the time when the |