has certainly been no decision of the Supreme Court to this effect; nor is there reason to believe that the Court, in view of its traditional attitude towards "political questions," would ever wish to limit the freedom of action of the President in the protection of the foreign rights and interests of the nation. It will be recalled that President Grant's intervention in Santo Domingo aroused violent criticism. Senator Sumner, in 1871, with the eloquent support of Senator Schurz, introduced a resolution denying the right of the President to employ the Navy "without the authority of Congress in acts of hostility against a friendly foreign nation, or in belligerent intervention in the affairs of a foreign nation." Senator Harlan by an appeal to numerous historical precedents effectively showed that it would be unwarranted to impose embarrassing restraints on the power of the President to protect national rights and interests in foreign lands.3

The most serious criticism against American intervention in Haiti and in Santo Domingo is not against the methods employed or the alleged violation of the Constitution, but against the right of any intervention under international law. There would appear to exist a considerable group of theorists who deny absolutely the right of one nation to intervene in the affairs of another.

It is undoubtedly true that the international law publicists are in substantial accord in denying the right of intervention. They recognize that the rights of independence, sovereignty, and equality of nations compel them to observe the strict obligation of non-intervention. While this is true theoretically, it is obviously at variance with precedents and that general usage on which the law of nations is based. It is not difficult to demonstrate that intervention is not merely tolerated, but fully justified, in certain instances, as a proper means of redress for offences against humanity and justice. If no intervention, either collective, under a mandate, by right of treaty, or for the protection of citizens from outrage, or for the expiation of crimes, were to be permitted; if the claims of humanity and justice were to be ignored, civilization would sink to lower levels: international society would soon fall into chaos. As a matter of fact, the international law publicists, while insisting on the abstract principle of non-intervention, are constrained to concede such important concrete exceptions that the result is to concede the right of selfredress when other remedies are unavailing. Mr. Ellery C. Stowell in the preface to his admirable work on Intervention in International Law has soundly observed that: "Intervention in the relations between states is, it will be seen, the rightful use of force or the reliance thereon to constrain obedience to international law." And Oppenheim also adds: "there are interventions which take place by right, and there are others which, although they do not take place by right, are nevertheless admitted by the Law of Nations, and are excused in spite of the violation of the Personality of the respective States which they involve."4

'See Corwin, op. cit., page 158.

4

♦ International Law, Vol. I, p. 222, 3d edition.

It is not to be believed that, though the signers of the protest above referred to consider American intervention in Haiti and Santo Domingo as violations of international law, they are oblivious to the needs of these unfortunate nations. They can hardly be understood to enunciate the cynical doctrine that every nation should be free to go to perdition in its own way. They are doubtless aware of the opinion held by many competent observers that, distasteful as American intervention has been to patriots of these republics, they would view with alarm the immediate withdrawal of the troops and officials of the United States. It is true that some of these critics would appear to impute the basest of motives to American intervention, namely, the desire for naval bases or for financial and commercial exploitation. Such critics present no proofs for these accusations and are therefore not entitled to serious consideration. Those other critics, however, who honestly consider intervention of any kind as "clear violations" of international law and of the Constitution of the United States are entitled to every possible consideration. It is to be hoped that they will not permit their abstract theories to obscure the necessity of practical measures of help to the peoples of Haiti and Santo Domingo to enjoy the blessings of law and order, and to be able adequately to meet all their international obligations. A descent respect for the opinions of others should constrain them to attach especial significance to the repeated warnings of Presidents Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, and Harding against the dangers of diplomatic complications in the strategic waters of the Caribbean Sea. The statement of policy by Secretary Hughes made on April 29, 1922, to the delegation which presented the protest already cited, should be accepted in the utmost good faith by all fair-minded men:

This Government is proceeding in this matter at this time in the desire to secure, in the first place, an effective co-ordination of the action which is being taken in connection with administration, so that difficulties which have existed in the past may be removed. It is also considering all that is essential for the tranquility and well being of the people of Haiti, and, of course, we are most desirous that the military occupation shall end as soon as it can properly end.

PHILIP MARSHALL BROWN.

THE REVISTA DE DERECHO INTERNACIONAL

For the past ten years a Spanish translation has been made of the American Journal of International Law. The success with which it has met has led to the conclusion that there is a demand in the Spanish-American Republics for a journal in Spanish. It is believed, however, that a journal appearing in the Spanish language, edited by a Spanish-speaking publicist and published in one of the Spanish-American countries, would more adequately meet the demand of which the Spanish translation of the American Journal of International Law has demonstrated the existence. Indeed, there are now two American journals of International Law appearing in Spanish;

one, the Revista Mexicana de Derecho Internacional, published in Mexico City, the capital of the Republic of Mexico, since March, 1919, and the Revista Argentina de Derecho Internacional, published since September, 1920, in the City of Buenos Aires, the capital of the Republic of Argentina. It has, therefore, been decided that with the completion of the tenth year, the Spanish translation of the American Journal of International Law should be discontinued, and that it should be replaced by the Revista de Derecho Internacional, a quarterly periodical to be composed of original articles edited by the distinguished publicist, Dr. Antonio S. de Bustamante y Sirven, and to be published in the City of Habana, the capital of the Republic of Cuba.

It has further been decided that it should appear as the organ of the American Institute of International Law, which suspended its sessions during the war, in which the United States and some of the Latin-American Republics were involved, and which will shortly resume its activities, just as the Institute of International Law suspended its meetings during the war and has already held one official session.

The Revista de Derecho Internacional will be independent of the Spanish edition of the American Journal of International Law which it succeeds. It will, however, in one respect resemble the American Journal of International Law, in that it will be the organ of the American Institute just as the English Journal is the organ of the American Society of International Law. There is another point of resemblance. Stress will be laid upon International Law as it is understood and applied in the American Republics. It will, like the American Journal, be a journal of International Law, not of politics. It will have a more fortunate effect than the American Journal. It will appeal to the publicists of 18 American Republics speaking the language in which it appears, and it is hoped that Spanish publicists will, from time to time, honor its pages with their contributions. Edited by Dr. Bustamante it is sure to be worthy of the subject which it professes. Appearing in the Spanish language and in a Latin-American atmosphere, it will assuredly set forth and embody the views and aspirations of Spanish-speaking publicists. It will, it is hoped, find favor in the sight of Spanish-American publicists, serving as a convenient means of communication, and interpreting the enlightened views of the Spanish-speaking world to the world at large.

The Board of Editors of the American Journal of International Law welcomes the entry of the Revista de Derecho Internacional into the field of foreign relations, wishes it the greatest of success and influence in its exposition of the principles of International Law as a guide to the conduct of nations; for, notwithstanding the differences of language and the national traditions, Americans one and all, stand for the principles of justice expressed in rules of law, which shall control the conduct of nations in the future, as they have the actions of individuals in the past and the present. JAMES BROWN SCOTT.

CURRENT NOTES

THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

The Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law was held, according to the program sent to the members and printed in the last number of the Journal, pages 274-275, at Washington, April 27-29, 1922.

The Honorable Elihu Root, President of the Society, opened the meeting on the evening of April 27 with a carefully prepared address on the subject of "International Law at the Arms Conference", in which he reviewed the general nature of the Conference work as a whole. Speaking of the FourPower Treaty, concluded between Great Britain, France, Japan and the United States, he said:

I doubt if any formal treaty ever accomplished so much by doing so little. It provided that we should all respect rights, which we were bound to do already, and that if controversy arose about the Pacific islands (it was quite immaterial what islands), the parties should get together and talk it over, which was the very thing they were then doing in Washington. The consent of the Senate was not necessary to such an agreement. It merely arranged for following an ordinary form of diplomatic intercourse. The President had done the same thing at Algeciras and at The Hague and at the Conference of London without asking the consent of the Senate, and the Senate had ratified the conclusions reached at those conferences. It was important, however, that the Senate should give its approval in this case because the instrument was a formal certificate to all the people of Japan and all the people of the United States and all the civilized Powers that the parties to the treaty had abandoned their mutual distrust and had ceased to think about war with each other and had resumed relations of genuine friendship.

Mr. Root then described the work of the Conference in removing further causes of irritation incident to the contacts of Western civilization with the peculiar and widely different civilization of China and other Oriental countries. "It is difficult to determine", he said, just how far China and the other countries "have been admitted to the family of nations who are entitled to the benefits and subject to the obligations of international law”, and, after pointing out that the conditions out of which China's present difficulties have arisen were created in the early years when China was unable to comply with the rules of international law and her relations with other Powers could only be governed by "the moral right to be treated fairly and decently and her obligation was a moral obligation to treat others in the same way",

Mr. Root said, "It is also clear that the continuance of the same inability to perform international obligations has down to the present time prevented the full admission of China to the circle of states governed by international law, notwithstanding her inclusion in diplomatic conferences and regular diplomatic intercourse".

He reviewed the treaty relations between China and the Western countries and the action of the Conference at Washington with relation to the subjects covered by these treaties. Referring to the Washington treaties and resolu

tions, Mr. Root said:

Any one examining the treaties and resolutions will find that they uniformly sought a double object, first, to relieve the limitations and inconveniences flowing from the old conventional relations as far as was then practicable under the existing governmental conditions in China, and second, to afford to all sections and parties of the Chinese people a helpful incentive to unite in the establishment of an effective and stable government by making specific provisions under which such a government, competent to perform its national duties, will be the means of bringing China into the full possession of the rights and liberties assured by international law to the members of the family of nations, just as Japan has been brought into that family.

In concluding this section of his address, Mr. Root paid the following tribute to the Chinese people:

Personally I am a believer in the coming of that event. It will be a long difficult process, for it requires the new education of more than four hundred million people, but I look to the future of that industrious, kindly, peaceable people, with their inveterate respect for individual and family rights, not as a yellow peril, but as a great reinforcement to, the power of ordered liberty upon the domination of which the future of our civilization depends.

Mr. Root then gave a detailed explanation of the objects and purposes of the treaty relating to submarines, which he described as "an appeal to the public opinion of mankind to establish and maintain a fundamental rule of morals applied to international conduct in the form of a rule of international law". "We are all familiar", he said, "with the assertion that international law is not really law because it has no sanction. That is only a half truth and therefore misleading. The real sanction of international law comes from the punishing power of public opinion, a power which has been growing with great rapidity in recent years and bids fair to grow still more rapidly with the increased public participation in the conduct of foreign affairs." He continued:

I have no doubt that the provision of this treaty which serves to put such acts as the sinking of the Lusitania in the same class as piracy correctly registers and formally declares the deliberate opinion of the civilized world outside of Germany and of many people in Germany, and that this formal solemn declaration of the criminal quality of the