consideration polar discoveries disconnected with land, unless we are prepared to insist that a different law obtains in the arctic regions. and that icebergs and ice-floes may not only be acquired but pass title to adjoining land. It is true that the discovery of rivers gives title to the lands washed by them, but that is because of the necessary and close connection between the land and the water, and the evident intent of the discoverers to annex the land, using the water only as a means of identification. Discovery of unoccupied land may be wholly irrespective of subsequent occupation, or it may be with intent to occupy. In the centuries immediately following the discovery of America, title was claimed by mere discovery, and the early charters of some of our states bear out the statement that little or no limit was placed upon the title so acquired provided the power felt itself strong enough to enforce the claim, however exaggerated it might be. While international law does not seek to undo the past, it gives no countenance whatever to the claim that mere discovery alone and by itself vests title. At most discovery creates a presumption, an inchoate right, which followed by occupation ripens into title. The time within which occupation should follow depends necessarily upon the circumstances of each particular case; but while discovery may give priority to the discoverer, and permit him to reduce the discovery to possession by actual occupation, a failure to occupy, within what may be considered in view of all the circumstances a reasonable time, will undoubtedly be regarded as a renunciation of the original priority and the right springing from it. In the next place, discovery within the contemplation of international law, is a political or sovereign act, and to be the source of right should be made by a navigator duly commissioned by the authority of the state in whose behalf he acts. It is not asserted that a sovereign could not subsequently ratify the act of one in its employ, although he was not specifically commissioned for the specific act, but the intent of the sovereign should be manifested either at the time or subsequently in unmistakeable terms so that the act of the individual becomes the act of the state. Discoveries due to private initiative do not of themselves convey rights, for as a private citizen or a commercial company which he repre sents is not a sovereign body neither he nor it, through him, can acquire the incidents of sovereignty. It would appear therefore that private expeditions do not acquire title to the land discovered either for themselves or for the country of which they happen to be the subjects or citizens, a fact recognized by the Dominion of Canada which is said to have recently fitted out an expedition formally to take possession of the islands in the Arctic Ocean adjoining the Dominion of Canada. Discovery within the arctic regions has undoubtedly vested title, but that is because the expeditions were under state control and discovery was followed not merely by a claim of sovereignty but reduced by actual possession to title. Thus Iceland and Greenland have been and are Danish colonies. The territory watered by Hudson Bay passed into possession of Great Britain and was administered as British territory by British officials until it was incorporated in 1870 into the Dominion of Canada. The discovery of Tasmania and Australia are examples not exceptions to the general rule, and Great Britain claims sovereignty over these territories not by discovery but by effectual occupation. The unsatisfactory working of the claim that discovery vests title has led to a solemn agreement of the powers interested in Africa that occupation should follow discovery in order to vest title, and that even the intent to occupy should be notified, thereby reducing to the minimum the possibility of international controversy arising out of the efforts of over-zealous explorers and settlers. There is, however, great difficulty in applying the present theory and practice of discovery and occupation to the arctic regions even supposing that the general principles can be considered as universally accepted, for arctic expeditions are usually voyages of discovery in which there is no present or future intent to annex the territory actually discovered. They are undertaken with a scientific not with a political intent, although it would be eminently proper for an expedition to be fitted out under the control of a state official for the express purpose of annexing any and all lands to be discovered. Supposing that Dr. Cook reached the north pole it is difficult to see how the United States acquires any title to the polar regions, and even supposing that Commander Peary, an officer of the United States navy, had been specifically detailed to reach the pole, his expedition was it would seem one of adventure and scientific discovery not undertaken for the purpose of extending the sovereignty of the United States to the polar regions. The justness and applicability of these observations will appear more clearly by a brief consideration of the Spitzbergen archipelago. Various nationalities have vied with each other in discovering and making known Spitzbergen. From the date of its discovery by Barents, its circumnavigation by Carlsen (1863), and its scientific exploration by Nordenskiöld, the claim of Norway and Sweden to sovereignty over the island has been urged, but this met in 1871 with the outspoken opposition of Russia, and in 1872 the two governments agreed formally that the region should remain as it had been, no man's land (terra nullius). The recent separation of Norway from Sweden has added a further element of complication, because the subjects of Norway claim a peculiar and preponderating interest in the islands by reason of the fact that the Norwegians may be said to be the only people who resort to them in considerable numbers. Certain coal-fields in the islands are worked by a British corporation, and an American company is at present exploiting coal in Spitzbergen. Therefore if Spitzbergen, notwithstanding discovery, occupation and the assumption of sovereignty by Sweden, is considered no man's land, it must be by reason of the fact that the voyages of discovery and the explorations made in the islands during the past two centuries were scientific, undertaken without the intent of passing title. To remedy this state of affairs, to protect the interests of various nationalities in Spitzbergen, and to secure life and property by the administration of justice, Norway has recently called an international conference of the powers interested in Spitzbergen to meet at Christiania (1910) in order to establish a system of administration, without, however, appropriating the islands to any one of the participating powers or changing the status as terra nullius. would therefore appear that arctic discovery as such vests no title, and that the arctic regions, except and in so far as they have been occupied, are in the condition of Spitzbergen, that is to say, no man's land. JAMES BROWN SCOTT. It BOARD OF EDITORS OF THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY, State University of Iowa. DAVID J. HILL, Berlin, European Editor. GEORGE W. KIRCHWEY, Columbia University. JOHN BASSETT MOORE, Columbia University. Editor in Chief JAMES BROWN SCOTT, George Washington University. Business Manager W. CLAYTON CARPENTER, P. O. Box 226, Washington, D. C. LAWYER-SECRETARIES OF FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES The appointment of the Honorable Philander Chase Knox as Secretary of State is a subject of congratulation to those who believe that legal training and active practice at the bar or experience upon the bench are either essential to, or the best preparation for the conduct of the foreign relations of the United States. A successful business career to which is added experience in public life no doubt enables a secretary to administer his office acceptably; a knowledge of foreign relations, a high sense of justice, a willingness to see both sides of the question, and to weigh the comparative advantage and disadvantage of a proposed policy go far to settle satisfactorily a controversy; and grace and ease in discussion and skill in handling an antagonist will enable their fortunate possessor to uphold the dignity of his office and safeguard the interests of his country. But when we consider that a legal question is frequently involved in the simplest diplomatic transaction, it is at once seen how useful a legal training must be in the negotiator, and if we consider that the foreign relations of nations are based upon international law and that the socalled law of nations is at once the source and the measure of international right and duty, we are forced to the conclusion that a knowledge of international law as a system, and a training in legal procedure and interpretation are wellnigh indispensable to the secretary of state. Whatever doubts there may be as to the legal nature of international law and its position in our system of jurisprudence are set at rest by the practice of the United States and the decisions of its Supreme Court which has declared international law to form an integral part of our law (Paquette Habana, 1899, 175 U. S. 677). The foreign policy of the United States must be in accordance with the laws of the United States, and as international law is an integral part of our jurisprudence, recognized and applied as such by the courts of the country in any and every case involving a question of international law, it follows that the foreign policy of the United States in so far as it involves a question of law, rather than courtesy and comity, must be based upon international law, and it needs no argument to assert that the secretary of state who has had legal training and experience possesses an incalculable advantage over the layman, who has to rely and act upon the advice of a subordinate who does not and can not well have the experience, the mental attainments, and equipment of his chief. It is often made a matter of reproach or criticism that our secretaries of state have not had diplomatic experience, and that they have not always been interested in matters of foreign policy before their appointment; but the fact is overlooked that where diplomatic experience and familiarity with foreign questions are lacking, the secretary has had a legal training which enables him readily to grasp the controversy, to separate it into its component parts and apply to it, with ease and certainty, the proper and controlling principle of law. The principles of international law are few in number, though their application is various, and a lawyer readily applies them to the concrete case. The lawyer's attitude is perforce different from the layman's, and, it is submitted, superior. No better or more telling illustration of the superiority of the technical to the lay mind can be found than that afforded by the negotiation of the treaty of 1783 in which Jay and Dr. Franklin took part. Great Britain wished to treat with the colonies as such and grant in the treaty of peace, their independence. Dr. Franklin was willing to |