that would engender ill feeling between the two peoples." To this Sr. Alfaro replied that the Government of Panama was animated by a desire to maintain amicable relations, and that anti-American propaganda and the movement for the erection of a Coto monument would not receive sanction from the Government.

By and large, however, the attitude of the United States in this dispute has been the subject of much favorable comment throughout Latin-America. It has been so much the habit among certain groups to fear North American aggression and to look upon the Panama Canal as a mere advanced post for North American imperialism, that the stand of our State Department came rather as a surprise, particularly in view of the Hay-Varilla treaty, by which the United States made definite guarantees to Panama, and also in view of the large United Fruit interests on the Panama-Costa Rican boundary. Secretary Hughes' note of May 2 amazed these elements. Where they had expected us to be partial to Panama, we opposed her actions. These elements were dumbfounded. They had nothing to say. If we had decided to back up Panama, there would have been numerous frantic cries of "selfish interference," and mention would have been made editorially of "the avaricious Yanqui;" they would have said that we were simply grabbing more territory under the cover of and in the name of the Republic of Panama; they would have talked again about Santo Domingo, and Haiti, and 1903, and said we considered the Loubet and White documents as "mere scraps of paper." Now the result has been quite different. When Secretary Hughes said, in his note of August 22:

In view of the fact that the United States, as friendly mediator, regards as just the claims of Costa Rica to the lawful possession of the territory on the Pacific, awarded to her by President Loubet, it cannot, because of its special treaty relations to Panama, permit a renewal of hostilities by Panama against Costa Rica by reason of Costa Rica's taking peaceful possession of that territory

he not only refused to be swayed from his conceptions of justice by our connections with and interests in Panama, but even insisted that Panama should not engage in a war whose outcome might conceivably involve further complications, mixing the rights and wrongs of this case with our standing obligation to protect Panama herself. In addition, he illustrated once more, as American diplomats have repeatedly done, that a great nation can negotiate for justice instead of merely for selfish advantages, as indeed England finally learned with respect to our Mexican policy.

Yet, perhaps the most interesting reaction of all is that found on the editorial page of The Star and Herald of Panama City, a newspaper which of late has contained much sharp criticism of American policy:

The United States has been, and is, a most loyal friend of our nation, and her diplomats have tried to obtain a just solution of our affair. From any point of view it would have been better for the United States to have given us the decision in the boundary dispute. The contested belt of land, if under our jurisdiction, would have constituted a better guarantee for the Washington Government than it would if placed under the control of Costa Rica. In our opinion the United States has proceeded in this case with a point of view which is believed to be just The last word has been spoken, but we should not permit ourselves to proceed passionately. Let us think of the future of the country above everything else. Above all, let us not compromise that future by an act of madness.

INTERNATIONAL NOTES

Editor's Note: The period from May 15 to November 15, 1921 is covered in the following notes. The editor wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Professor Walter B. Pitkin, of Columbia University, in preparing the notes on the Far East, of Dr. Charles H. Levermore for help in the section on the League of Nations, and of Miss Elizabeth Hugus and Miss Mary Walsh in assembling the material.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Assembly

The Second Assembly of the League of Nations was in session at Geneva from September 5 to October 5, 1921. Forty-two out of the forty-eight Member States sent delegates. The six states not represented were the Argentine, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Peru and Salvador. Three new States were admitted during the session: Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, making the total membership of the League fifty-one. The question of the admission of Hungary was postponed to the next Assembly. The four non-permanent members of the Council in 1921, Spain, Brazil, Belgium and China, were reelected for another year.

The organization of the Assembly was effected within fortyeight hours. The twenty-three items on the Agenda were divided amongst six main Committees. With each nation represented on each of these Committees, the Assembly was really divided into six plenary gatherings, open to the public, where the preliminary study of many items could be proceeded with almost simultaneously.

The first days of the session were filled with the discussion of the Report of the Council for the previous year. The most important definite action of the Assembly was the election, with the concurrence of the Council, of the judges of the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Assembly then approved the organization and work of the technical organizations on Communications and Transit, Finance and Economics, and Health; suggested certain important amendments to the Covenant; admitted three new Members to the League; approved the organization of the Secretariat and Labor Office and the Budget for 1922; and studied at length, and in some cases made detailed resolutions concerning reduction of armaments, mandates, the PolishLithuanian dispute, the Bolivian-Chilean dispute, the appeal of Austria regarding Article 267 of the Treaty of St. Germain, the status of Albania, Armenia, and Eastern Galicia, as well as the Russian famine, the suppression of the traffic in opium and in women and children, and the deportations in Asia Minor.

The suggestions for amending the Covenant were as follows: (1) that Article 26 should be changed to specify a three-fourths

majority of the Assembly, including all Council members, as necessary for the approval of any amendment to the Covenant; (2) that a series of amendments or additions to Article 16 should be adopted, describing methods of procedure in applying the economic blockade (pending ratification by Member States, these amendments are recommended to the Council and to Member States as rules for guidance); (3) that Article 6 should be amended so as to revise the allocation of expenses among the Members of the League; (4) that to Article 4 should be added a sentence empowering the Assembly to fix by a two-thirds majority the rules governing elections of non-permanent members of the Council. The proposal of the Canadian Delegation for striking out Article 10 was postponed to the next session of the Assembly. In view of the absence of the Argentine Delegation, decision on the Argentine amendment was postponed until the principle contained in its proposal could be accepted.

The Assembly asked the Council to appoint a commission of three to visit Albania and report on the execution of the decision of the Allied and Associated Powers as soon as it is given.

The Assembly approved an elaborate report from the Advisory Committee on the Traffic in Opium, looking toward an effective regulation of contraband trade, and favored an invitation to all States to sign or ratify the Opium Convention of 1912 as soon as possible. The Assembly recommended that dangerous drugs of whatever origin be included in the further investigations of the Advisory Committee.

The Assembly approved a draft Convention on the Traffic in Women and Children, prepared by a Conference held at Geneva in June, under the auspices of a League Commission, and urged Member States to sign it. This Convention amplifies the previous Conventions of 1904 and 1910. During and after the Assembly eighteen States signed it.

In connection with the deportation of women and children in Turkey and Asia Minor, the Assembly decided that the League of Nations should name and maintain a Commissioner at Constantinople, who with the aid of a mixed board should deal with the reclamation of the women and children who have been detained in Mohammedan households.

The Assembly requested the Council to appoint a committee of twelve members to consider and report in 1922 upon a possible "International Organization of Intellectual Work."

In regard to the reduction of armaments, the Assembly decided to forward to the governments a second time the recommendation that they agree not to exceed for the two following financial years the sum total of expenditure for the Military, Naval and Air Services of the budget then in question; authorized a statistical investigation into the armaments of 1913 and 1921; authorized an international conference on the evil consequences of the private manufacture of arms; decided to appeal to all States to ratify the Arms Traffic Convention; and decided to ask the Mixed

Commission to consider whether or not an appeal should be addressed to all scientific men to publish their discoveries in the hope of rendering their use improbable by making them public property. A careful study was made of the Report of the Temporary Mixed Commission on Armaments, resulting in approval of the proposal that the Temporary Commission be charged with the duty of preparing a policy for the limitation of armaments.

Council

The 13th session of the Council was held at Geneva from June 17 to 28, 1921, when, in addition to the eight States on the Council, eight other States having special interest, as well as the Saar Valley, Danzig and the Aaland Islands, were represented. In accordance with the recommendations of the Assembly for greater publicity of Council proceedings, five sessions were held in public. The Council made a definite pronouncement on the solution of the Aaland Islands dispute (see Finland). The Polish-Lithuanian dispute was raised before the Council in the presence of the representatives of the two parties, and approval of the preliminary basis for discussion prepared by M. Hymans during the previous negotiations at Brussels was pronounced (see Poland). The question of Albania's boundary was not discussed, owing to the fact that the Council of Ambassadors had it under consideration, but the Council of the League recommended to all parties concerned careful abstention from any action which would interfere with negotiations and declared that the question would remain one to which vigilant attention would be given. Similar recommendations were addressed to Austria and Jugoslavia on the subject of the dispute regarding the liquidation of certain properties of Austrian nationals in Jugoslavia. The Council received a report on the financial relief of Austria, and approved the measures taken by the Financial Committee of the League. A series of detailed provisions were adopted regarding the defense of Danzig, and the necessity for Poland to have free access to the sea through the port was unanimously recognized. Postponement a second time of final decision on the "A" and "B" mandates was approved, in the hope that a complete agreement could be reached between the Principal Allied Powers and the United States before the meeting of the Assembly. The Council also considered a number of questions regarding the organization of the League. It made certain substitute appointments to the Armaments Commission, called to meet July 16, further defined the status of International Bureaux, approved the Resolutions of the Barcelona Conference, recommended the addition of a Danubian State to the Advisory Transit Committee, selected the twelve members of the Provisional Health Organization, and approved the budget for 1922 and also the new system of allocation of League expenses. As regards social questions, the Council approved the report of the Opium Commission and recommended for consideration the possibility of extending the campaign against opium to include