If such services were rendered without contract, undoubtedly under these decisions, the case would have to be brought in personam in the Admiralty Court, but if a contract had been made the courts holding that in such cases the services were not salvage services, the action could certainly be brought at common law if the party so elected.

If the reasoning of these two cases is applied to the supposed case of the vessel stranded on the coast, and she were rescued without danger to the workmen and the vessel employed in the work, it would not be a salvage service and no lien would lie against the salved vessel, but it cannot be that the court intended these two cases to imply that the law goes quite so far as to say that in every case, even in a harbor, where a vessel is rescued, no lien attaches for the work, for if an unknown vessel is sunk in a harbor and is raised without the slightest danger to the workmen, they at the time not knowing to whom she belongs, they would only have an action in rem.

Note: The cases cited below are not meant, in every instance, to fully support the text, but should be read for a thorough understanding of the subject.

De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gallison, 398-421-2.

Insurance Company v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1.

The Susan, I Sprague, 499.

The Ida L. Howard, 1 Low. page 2.

Marvin on Wreck and Salvage, page 127, Sec. 118.

Parson's Shipping and Admiralty, Vol. 2. Pages 260-267-292.

Ship Versailles, 1 Curtis, page 360.

The Independence, 2 Curtis, 350-57.

The Louisa Jane, 2 Low. 302.

1Merritt & Chapman Derrick & Wrecking Co. v. Morris & Cummings Dredging Co., 137 Fed. R. C. C. A., 2nd Cir., page 780.

The Paul L. Bleakley, 146 Fed. R. D. C. 570.

James D. Dewell, Jr.

PRACTICE OF THE LEARNED PROFESSIONS.

In taking an inventory of the acts of the Second Pan-American Conference to promote intercommunication between the American Republics, we must not leave out of account those proceedings which dealt with the question of interchange of ideas. For means which facilitate the spread of ideas of government and facts of science are quite as destructive of provincialism, narrowness and bigotry as are means which facilitate the interchange of products. It is, therefore, fortunate that the conference did not confine its attention entirely to means for promoting commerce, that it should have considered also the best methods of giving to each State the benefit of the ideas of the other. Nor is it strange that it should have considered that one of the surest ways for bringing about a community of ideas is by making it easy for each to come into close contact with some of the best thinkers of the other. While no one would claim that the members of the learned professions have a monopoly of the ideas of a country, it must, in fairness, be admitted that they are among its ablest and most progressive thinkers.

The original draft of a convention on this subject was presented by the Chilean delegation. It read as follows:

ARTICLE I. The citizens of any of the republics signing the present convention, may freely exercise the profession for which they may be duly authorized by diploma or title granted by a competent national authority, even if such authority should not be of their native country, in any of the territories of the other nations, provided that such diploma or title complies with the regulations established in Articles 2 and 4, and that the laws of the country, in which it is desired to practice the profession, do not require the practitioner to be a citizen.

The certificate of preparatory and higher studies, issued by any of the countries, parties to this convention, in favor of citizens, of one of their number, shall have in all the rest of the contracting countries, the same effect as that authorized by the laws of the republic of their origin.

ARTICLE 2. Each one of the contracting parties, reserves, however, the right to require the citizens of another country who may present diplomas or titles of physician or any other profession related to surgery or medicine, including that of pharmacy, that they submit themselves to a previous general examination in the branch of the profession which the respective title or diploma authorizes to practice, in such a manner as may be determined by each government.

ARTICLE 3. Each one of the contracting parties shall give official notice to the others, regarding the universities and educational institutions of the signatory

countries whose titles and diplomas are considered valid for the practice of the professions, the subject of this convention, in its own territory.

ARTICLE 4. The diploma, title or certificate, of preparatory or higher studies, duly authenticated, and the certificate of identification of the person, given by the respective diplomatic or consular agent accredited to the country which has issued these documents, shall be sufficient evidence to meet the requirements contemplated by this convention, whenever they have been registered in the department of foreign relations of the country in which it is desired to practice the profession, which department shall inform accordingly the proper authorities of the country in which the respective title may have been issued.

ARTICLE 5. The present convention shall remain in force indefinitely, but any of the high contracting parties may cause it to be abrogated, in so far as such country is concerned, one year after having given the proper notice to the other contracting parties.

It shall not be an indispensable condition for the enforcement of this convention that it shall be ratified simultaneously by all the signatory nations. The country approving it shall communicate such approval to the other States through diplomatic channels and such proceedings shall answer the purpose of an exchange of ratifications. Actos y Documentos, Sess., Nov. 29, page 4. The purpose of the proposed convention is stated by its sponsors in the following terms:

To place the scientific men of all these nations in contact with each other; to facilitate in each country the professional practice of knowledge acquired in different schools; and to open, throughout the entire extent of the territories which compose the contracting nations, a field of action for the intellectual activity of those who, enlightened by special studies, desire to work for honorable gain outside of their native land—these are the advantages beyond disCussion, universally understood, and constitute an inspiration for a long time cherished by all the countries of America.

But though it may be well to favor the realization of these beneficial objects, by adopting prudent measures, still it does not appear advisable to grant them such absolute liberty as might prove adverse to the end desired. The proper protection of the populations over which the constituted authorities have the duty to watch, requires, on the contrary, a restriction of this liberty in such measure as is demanded by the high consideration of caution, and, it may be said, of police vigilance, the importance of which cannot be disregarded in domestic or international legislation. Debates and Resolutions, page 222, A. y D. Sess., Nov. 29, page 3.

This project and the reasons given in support of it were such that they were accepted by the Committee on Practice of the Learned Professions and Literary Relations, consisting of the following members: A. Blest Gana, M. Garcia Merou and M. Sanchez Marmol.

Discussion upon this report was opened by Mr. Pepper, who called attention to the fact that the granting of diplomas in the United States was not under the control of national authority, the universities being all under the control of the States or private corporations, and asked if it would not be possible to change the wording to "competent national authority of the State or other

authority," otherwise the United States would be excluded from the benefits of the convention. Mr. Gana suggested that this difficulty could be obviated by the United States furnishing a list of universities accepted by it. On the face of it, this suggestion would seem to solve the difficulty, but as it was not made in the form of an amendment there was nothing officially before the conference but the original report.

Mr. Gil Fortoul, delegate from Venezuela, requested that the American delegation state whether or not "when the universities of the States confer a title or diploma, these are immediately, and by the sole fact, accepted throughout the Union." To which Mr. Pepper replied that they might or might not be; that as each State made its own laws regulating such matters, "other States do not necessarily recognize diplomas issued in any certain State." This called forth the response from Mr. Fortoul "that if they were not recognized throughout the Union they ought not to be recognized by other republics, in other words, that they ought not to be accorded a recognition outside of the United States which they did not receive within it." Debates and Resolutions, page 225.

Mr. Arriago then raised the question whether or not, if the United States entered into a treaty according recognition to the diplomas of other States, it would be obligatory in all the States of the Union to recognize said diplomas. He said: "I have understood, from the words just uttered by the Honorable Mr. Pepper, that in these matters the States of the Union are sovereign. I doubt, therefore, if a treaty approved by the American Senate could be made effective in a State in a matter concerning its exclusive competency. And if if were so, that is to say, if this treaty approved by the Senate of the United States were not obligatory upon the various States, which have the right to legislate with respect to the professions, the result would be that, even after celebrating this convention, those States could not be forced to respect it while other nations would, and consequently the diplomas issued in other countries would have no effect in the United States." Debates and Resolutions, page 225.

This is precisely the question raised in our recent controversy with Japan over the exclusion of Japanese children from the public schools of San Francisco in the face of a treaty providing for most favored nation treatment, notwithstanding there was no at. tempt to exclude British, German or French children. It reveals one of the awkward uncertainties as the extent of our treatymaking power. Hence it is unfortunate that the Japanese case was compromised, rather than getting a decision of the United

States Supreme Court upon this point. It would seem highly desirable that we know to a certainty whether or not the Federal Government can make and enforce treaties upon questions of this nature.

To my mind there is no question that when by the constitution the treaty-making power was given to the Federal Government, without limitations, it was intended to give to it the same extent of power to make treaties as that possessed by other nations. There being no evidence to the contrary, it is fair to suppose the words "power to make treaties" were used in their ordinary sense. Nor is there any doubt that at that time the ordinary sense in which these words were used would include the power to make a treaty and to enforce it, even though its provision might be distasteful to the local subdivisions of the State. I cannot share the opinion of those who hold that the Federal Government has no power to make treaties regulating matters over which it has not power to legislate, or in other words, that it may not make treaties regulating affairs, concerning which the legislation is entrusted to the States. To me it does not seem inconsistent that the States might regulate for local purposes and the Federal Government for international purposes and if there is a clash it is not the treaty, which, under the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land," must give way, but the local authority.

I find this view in accord with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the early case of Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dallas, 199. In this case a British subject sued a citizen of Virginia on a debt contracted prior to the Revolution. The latter pleaded the law of Virginia confiscating the debt. Against this defense the former set up the Treaty of 1783 which provided that "creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value ir sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted." The impediment in this case was the law of Virginia confiscating the debt. Hence it was necessary for the Supreme Court to pass upon the question of the right of the Federal Government to annul by treaty the laws of a State with reference to the collection of debts—a subject over which the power of legislation is for most purposes entrusted to the States. It was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States reversing the Circuit Court for the district of Virginia, that the Treaty of 1783 rendered null the statute of Virginia inconsistent with it. That the matter of the collection of debts was a subject over which the State of Virginia had a right to legislate there can be no doubt. In this case it was said by Justice Chase: "But, it is asked, did the