If a country learns that its subjects are placed in a foreign state in an inferior position to the subjects of other foreign states there resident, then a remedy for this inequitable inferior position is due him.

It is I believe but justice to say that there is no claim and no evidence that Mexico has thus discriminated between aliens. But as the interests of our nationals are large, those interests have suffered largely.

Nor is there direct evidence of confiscation pure and simple. Heavy burdens have been placed by the policy and the legislation of Mexico upon foreign capital which may prove too grievous to be borne. Whether such burdens are tantamount to confiscation, while judicial protection is wanting, whether therefore protection from our own government is due, is a difficult question, which must be determined by the circumstances of each case and the animus shown by local authority.

That Mexico should drive out foreign capital and hinder her own development by burdens of many kinds too heavy to be borne is unjust and foolish, but it is not illegal in the eye of international law. For we must always remember that Mexico is a sovereign State. We must either respect her sovereignty or deny it, placing her in the category of countries which are so devoid of political organization and civilized status that they can be dealt with only by force. We cannot mix the two.

T. S. WOOLSEY.

LANDING AND OPERATION OF SUBMARINE CABLES IN THE UNITED STATES

By an Act of Congress, approved May 27, 1921,1 license from the President of the United States is required for landing and operating submarine cables connecting the United States with a foreign country, and in general, such submarine cables are placed under administrative control. This is consistent with the established policy of the United States, particularly since 1869, though occasionally there have been official rulings which were not in complete accord with this policy.

The landing of submarine cables was particularly brought to the attention of the authorities of the United States through the attempt, by the Western Union Telegraph Company, to land at Miami Beach, Florida, without full governmental authorization, a cable connecting with British lines. There is much material upon this matter, such as official correspondence, hearings before the Senate, and court proceedings. Such correspondence as the following shows something of the situation:

1 Printed in the Supplement to this JOURNAL, p. 35.

MIAMI, FLA., August 24, 1920.

ADMIRAL E. A. ANDERSON,

United States Navy,
Miami, Fla.

DEAR SIR:

The following message has just been received by me from General Traffic Manager Blonheim, New York, with a request that I submit the same to you:

"Acting under the usual form of permit from the War Department, which type of permit has always been sufficient for laying cables in inland waters, we have assembled the labor and materials at Miami and are dredging the trenches at the draws. To delay this work entails unnecessary expense for labor and may render it necessary to redredge, and in the circumstances we should be allowed to proceed. "This new route between Miami Beach and Miami is much needed for our Key West connection irrespective of what may be the final decision about the Barbados cable."'

Will you kindly reply at your earliest convenience?

Referring to your letter of this date I have to inform you that the Navy Department has taken up the question of running the cable between Miami and Miami Beach with the State Department. I will be informed of the decision. Pending such information my orders will not permit the running of this cable.

A dispatch from the Navy Department, received this date, directs me not to permit the laying of the cable between Miami and Miami Beach until instructions are received.

Respectfully,

E. A. ANDERSON,
Rear Admiral, United States Navy.

The Navy Department, thus called upon to prevent landing, carried out instructions.

The Courts were asked to issue an injunction enjoining the Secretary of the Navy from preventing the landing of the cable. The latter passed through the lower courts up to the Supreme Court where the case was pending when the Act of Congress was passed.

This law placing administrative control of the cable landing in the hands of the Executive is in conformity to long practice. Authority to withhold or revoke the license on just ground is retained, while vested interests are protected. There is also provision for initiating procedure

by the Government itself, and the Act is extended to all territory under the jurisdiction of the United States.

The law of May 27, 1921, embodies the accepted principle of the right of a state to exercise jurisdiction within its own boundaries. GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON.

THE RESOLUTION OF THE CONFERENCE ON LIMITATION OF ARMAMENT RESPECTING EXTRATERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN CHINA

Every friend of China must experience gratification in the Resolution of the Conference on Limitation of Armament, December 10, 1921, dealing with extraterritorial jurisdiction in that country. In its preamble that Resolution takes note of the various treaties whereby the United States and Great Britain and Japan have within a score of years agreed to aid China in judicial reforms with a view to ultimate relinquishment of extraterritorial rights. It announces the sympathetic disposition of the assembled Powers towards the aspirations of China respecting jurisdictional and political and administrative freedom; it emphasizes the circumstance that appropriate action depends upon "the ascertainment and appreciation of complicated states of fact in regard to the laws and the judicial system and the methods of judicial administration of China" which the Conference is not in a position to determine. It is accordingly resolved:

That the governments of the Powers above named shall establish a commission (to which each of such governments shall appoint one member) to inquire into the present practice of extraterritorial jurisdiction in China and into the laws and the judicial system and the methods of judicial administration of China, with a view to reporting to the governments of the several Powers above named their findings of fact in regard to these matters and their recommendations as to such means as they may find suitable to improve the existing conditions of the administration of justice in China and to assist and farther the efforts of the Chinese government to effect such legislation and judicial reforms as would warrant the several Powers in relinquishing, either progressively or otherwise, their respective rights of extraterritoriality.

It is declared that such Commission, to be constituted within three months after the adjournment of the Conference, is to be instructed (in accordance with detailed arrangements to be agreed upon) to submit its

1See also in this connection Act of March 23, 1874, Chap. 62, 18 Stat. 23, contemplating the relinquishment of the exercise of judicial functions by American officials in certain countries upon receipt by the President of satisfactory information that there were organized therein local courts on a basis likely to secure to citizens of the United States the same impartial justice which they then enjoyed by virtue of the exercise of judicial functions by American officers.

report and recommendations within one year after the first meeting of the Commission. Each of the Powers retains the right to accept or reject all or any portion of the recommendation of the Commission; but in no case is its acceptance of any portion thereof either directly or indirectly to be dependent on the granting by China of any special concession, favor, benefit or immunity, whether political or economic. Provision is also made for the adherence to the Resolution of non-signatory Powers having by treaty extraterritorial privileges in China, upon specified notice of their accession thereto. An additional Resolution adverts to China's satisfaction in the sympathetic disposition of the Powers assembled, and to its declared intention to appoint a representative to sit with the Commission as a member thereof, and to China's freedom to accept or reject any recommendations of that body; and it announces, furthermore, the readiness of China to cooperate in the work of the Commission and to afford it every possible facility for the accomplishment of its tasks.

It seems worth while to take note of a few considerations which must and doubtless will be reckoned with by the Commission in undertaking to formulate practical constructive plans.

Heretofore, in arrangements for the relinquishment of extraterritorial jurisdiction, the establishment and operation of judicial reforms have been regarded as a condition precedent to the surrender of jurisdictional rights. Thus President McKinley, in his message of December 5, 1899, dwelt at length upon the achievement of such reforms by Japan prior to the operation August 4, 1899, of its treaty with the United States of November 22, 1894, contemplating the relinquishment of extraterritorial jurisdiction." The annex to the recent treaty between the United States and Siam of December 16, 1920, also gave heed to that principle. In the present case it may be assumed that the Commission will make earnest endeavor to advise or devise such judicial reforms as are deemed essential to enable Chinese courts to bear well the burdens to be imposed by any transfer of jurisdiction to them.

There are, however, certain other considerations which although indirectly related to the matter of judicial reform, appear to have a distinct bearing upon the solution of the complicated problem involved. Attention is briefly called to a few of them.

The Republic of China asserts dominion over a vast area wherein its claims of sovereignty are undisputed by foreign states. Its population is thus spread over a wide territory within relatively small parts of which

2U. S. For. Rel. 1899, XXIV.

U. S. Treaty Series, No. 655. It may be observed that this treaty was proclaimed by President Harding, October 21, 1921.

The Treaty of Sèvres of August 10, 1920, did not appear to contemplate any relinquishment by the Powers of extraterritorial privileges in Turkey, but rather a plan looking to the modification or reform of the Capitulary system there prevailing. See Art. 136, Supplement of this Journal, XV, 179, 207-208 (July, 1921).

there is contact with the western world or with the civilization produced by it. The situation in this regard differs sharply from that which has ever confronted either Japan or Siam. In certain parts of China there is believed to remain much difficulty (apart from any of a purely legal or constitutional aspect) in protecting foreign life and property from injustices begotten of ignorance or passion. States avowing attachment to the principles of western civilization have experienced a like difficulty when possessed of extensive territories. Mexico has always been face to face with it. Less than fifty years ago the United States found itself, in the circumstances of the particular case, either unable or unwilling to protect numerous Chinamen in Wyoming against wholesale mob violence. Thus, in the case of China, the question arises as to what should be the territorial limits within which extraterritorial jurisdiction may wisely and ultimately be relinquished. If those limits should not be co-extensive with the territory under the flag of the Chinese Republic, there still remains the problem as to whether they should be extended to all places open to foreign trade or residence, or to foreign missionary enterprise; or whether the opening by Chinese authority of any place to any form of foreign life should simultaneously operate to clothe Chinese tribunals with fresh rights of jurisdiction therein; or whether some other principle should indicate the geographical bounds within which a transfer should be effected. Obviously the fitness of any Chinese courts, especially those of first instance, to adjudicate with respect to foreigners would seem to be dependent in large degree upon the location of the forum in a community in close contact with western life by reason of the number of the aliens there residing. The Commission may possibly, therefore, reach the conclusion that, at the appropriate time, the yielding of jurisdiction to Chinese tribunals should generally follow a scheme of geographical progression, limited at first to zones or areas wherein conditions are acknowledged to be most favorable for the successful operation of the transfer.

Experiments in the exercise of Chinese jurisdiction over foreigners are likely to be most fruitful in cases where the consequences of a denial or miscarriage of justice serve to expose to the smallest degree of harm the alien litigants involved. Thus jurisdiction in civil matters (under a code sharply distinguishing civil from criminal procedure, and preventing the imposition of criminal penalties in cases arising from tort or contract) may be deemed worthy of relinquishment prior or preliminary to the surrender of jurisdiction over criminal cases. Again, distinctions according to the nature of offenses may suggest a reasonable theory or method of giving up jurisdiction in criminal matters. Thus it may be deemed expedient at the outset to test Chinese magistrates sitting as criminal judges with adjudications over offenses regarded (at least in America or England) as misdemeanors, before yielding jurisdiction in cases where the offense possesses the character of a crime, and would in consequence, according to