accept the protocol because the adoption of the licensing system was thus postponed.

The agreement thus failed to make any provision for the suppression of opium smoking which, indeed, the Advisory Committee did not appear to contemplate. Neither did it include the proposal made by the Chinese delegate that fiscal considerations should not prejudice the character of anti-opium measures and that to this end revenues derived from opium should be "wholly devoted to measures for the prevention of the acquiring of the vice of smoking opium, for the humanitarian care and treatment of addicts, for the general social and economic betterment of the classes of the people who are especially addicted."

By December 13, the date fixed for the signature of this agreement, only the representative of India had signed. The British representative stated that he had been instructed to ask for an adjournment in that his Government might examine the proposal of the United States to submit the question to the Second Conference. The French delegate also said he was not in a position to sign. The President thereupon adjourned the conference sine die.

RELATION OF FIRST TO SECOND CONFERENCE

Meanwhile the Second Conference had been convened on November 17. On November 22, the United States reserved the right to bring before the Second Conference anything included on its program. On December 11,-just before the adjournment of the First Conference-the American delegation submitted this motion: "On behalf of the delegation of the United States of America, I hereby present for the consideration of the conference Chap. II of the suggestions of the United States of America, and move that the proposals contained in this chapter 1Cf. p. 84. Minutes, 17th Meeting.

'On December 12, it was announced that Mr. Campbell, the Indian delegate, would withdraw from the conferences, to take up his duties with the Greek Refugees Commission. Mr. J. C. Walton was now appointed in addition to Harold Clayton, O. D. C. 14, p. 4.

"It is understood that these instructions came from Mr. Chamberlain as a result of a telegram of M. Zahle, the chairman of the Second Conference, to the Council of the League of Nations then meeting in Rome.

be referred by the conference to an appropriate committee for consideration."

Chap. II of these suggestions provided that the imports of raw opium for the purpose of making prepared opium should be reduced by 10% annually for 10 years, thus doing away with the importation of opium for smoking purposes.

The opium-smoking powers, France, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal and Great Britain, opposed this motion of the United States on the ground that the Second Conference was incompetent to deal with the question of smoking because that was being considered by the First Conference. The delegate from the Netherlands said that the proposal of the United States would declare "null and void the result reached by another conference." 2 As this was a critical question, a motion was carried to adjourn its decision until the following Tuesday, December 16, 1924. At this latter date, the President of the conference proposed the adjournment of the plenary sessions until January 12 (a proposal which had been made earlier because of the impossibility of finishing up before Christmas) when the American proposal should be the first order of business. Meanwhile the subcommittees should continue at work. This motion was adopted.

THE CECIL PROPOSAL

The Second Conference did not begin work until January 19, 1925, on account of an accident to the Marquess of Salisbury, who had in the interim been appointed chief British delegate. His place was taken by Viscount Cecil. In a lengthy speech before the 19th plenary meeting, Viscount Cecil, after reviewing the different uses of opium, pointed out the grave difficulties created by the smuggling of opium out of China. "The British Government feel very strongly that as long as that amount of opium is being produced . . . to forbid opium smoking in the British Far East Dominions either immediately or in a period of years would merely be to put so much extra profit into the pockets of those who at present are smuggling opium into those territories." The advice of colonial administrators was unanimous upon this point. He then quoted from a document written by Bishop 10. D. C. 66. Minutes, 14th Plenary Meeting, December 12, p. 12.

Brent before his departure on December 7 to the United States, entitled "An Appeal to My Colleagues," which criticised the work of the First Conference,' but which also stated that some reasonable offer of a cooperative character from neighboring territories which are, in greater or less degree, dependent upon Chinese residents in them for labor, would be an encouragement and a part solution of the problem. "For instance, that they would move pari passu with China in the matter of suppression, whether by immediate prohibition or graduated stages, from the moment the Chinese Government was in a position to take effective action. . . .”

Following out this suggestion made by an American representative, Viscount Cecil read this declaration of the British Government:

1. His Majesty's Government undertake that opium smoking shall be abolished in the British Far Eastern territories in which such smoking is temporarily authorized within a period of not more than fifteen years from the date on which the effective execution of the measures taken by China to suppress the growth of the opium poppy has reached such a stage as to remove the danger of opium smuggling from China into those territories.

The question whether or not such growth had stopped should be decided by a commission appointed by the Council of the League. When the fifteen-year period should start to run, smoking by new smokers should be forbidden, although temporary measures should take care of existing addicts. Viscount Cecil stated that this plan was regarded as a practical solution by Sir John Jordan, the English assessor on the Advisory Committee, who had been so critical of British opium policy.2

Moreover, if any government questioned the good faith of the British Government in making this proposal, Viscount Cecil proposed that a League commission should go to these territories

'In order that the full text of this document may be read, it is printed in appendix XI, p. 159. Bishop Brent stopped in London on his way to the United States, following which there was a change in the British delegation and policy. 'Minutes, 19th Plenary Meeting. The French delegate also said that the French Government would undertake the complete abolition of opium smoking within fifteen years after states bordering on Indo-China had effected a considerable reduction in poppy growing, provided that this reduction be brought about within two years.

where smoking continued to see if the British proposal could be improved upon. The British Government was disposed to carry out whatever measures this commission should recommend. But he wanted again to emphasize that the real question before the conference was not smoking but drug addiction. Delegates of other countries reiterated their belief that smuggling made the adoption of the American proposal impossible. While M. Sugimura, the Japanese delegate, was theoretically in favor of the American plan, he asked for "definite explanations and effective guaranties" as to the methods by which the powers should obtain the radical and complete abolition proposed by the United States within ten years. The American plan was silent as to the system of registration and indefinite as to whether smoking by inveterate addicts should be immediately abolished.1

At the 20th meeting, Mr. Porter of the American delegation said, "I rise to ask for the last time for a hearing. . . . It is not our purpose to suggest the methods by which the traffic should be suppressed."2 All he asked was that the obligations accepted by the powers in the 1912 convention should be carried out. He then moved that the consideration of the American suggestions in regard to smoking be referred to a committee. It was the view of the United States that the conference could decide this question of competence by majority vote. Mr. Porter did not approve of the Cecil declaration. The United States, which had already fulfilled its obligations under the Convention of 1912, had the right to insist that the other Governments should take steps to fulfil theirs, and that they should not by supplementary agreements weaken the Hague convention so as to release themselves directly or indirectly from the fulfillment of these obligations. "To our astonishment we find years after the obligation to suppress the traffic in prepared opium was undertaken that we are asked to give our assent to a proposal that the powers concerned shall not immediately take steps to prevent new 1Cƒ. appendix XI, p. 144.

This attitude should be compared with the statement of Dr. Hamilton Wright of the American delegation at the conference of 1912 who said, "It seemed to the American delegation that the conference should not only declare that such and such a thing should be done, but that it should also provide those necessary articles by which the Governments represented would be able to execute any convention arrived at, and to detect any infraction of such a convention." Summary of Minutes, cited, p. 64.

recruits entering the ranks of opium smoking, but that such steps shall not be taken until the occurrence of an event as uncertain and as indefinite as the time when homicide, burglary, larceny and smuggling shall cease." The United States was opposed to any commission to ascertain whether the powers shall at some future time undertake to perform obligations which they had promised solemnly to carry out more than ten years before. Mr. Porter continued, "Irrespective of any change. in conditions or circumstances since the ratification of the convention, the performance of obligations by the contracting nations falls squarely within the generally accepted principle of international as well as municipal law, that nations or individuals, as the case may be, who solemnly undertake in an agreement to perform an obligation are presumed to know, and if necessary to anticipate, any difficulties which, subsequently arising, may stand in the way of the successful accomplishment of the purpose for which the agreement was concluded. This generally accepted principle needs no argument in its support." However, recognizing the difficulties involved, Mr. Porter was willing to increase the period in which opium imports should stop from 10 to 15 years; likewise, he wished "to leave entirely to the various Governments concerned the question of internal measures to be adopted by them in carrying out the obligation undertaken." Dr. Sze, of China, also objected to the Cecil declaration on the ground that it would convert an absolute into a conditional obligation, thus weakening the 1912 convention. He urged the acceptance of the American proposal, stating that "selfish interests" prevented action. The representative of the Irish Free State also supported the proposition of the United States; he criticised the composition of the Advisory Committee on the ground that it was dominated by opium producing states.3

In reply to these statements, Viscount Cecil stated that some regard must be paid to practical considerations. The sole reason for criticising the American proposal was that it could not accom'It should be pointed out, however, that the 1912 convention entered into force for most of these countries on January 10, 1920. Cf. p. 57.

"Despite the finality of this statement, it entirely ignores the doctrine in international law of rebus sic stantibus. For a summary of opinion as to this doctrine, cf. C. G. Fenwick, International Law, 1924, p. 344 ff.

3 Minutes, 21st Meeting.