(Sect. 5.) And be it further enacted, That the said Secretary shall cause a seal of office to be made for the said department, of such device as the President of the United States shall approve, and all copies of records, and papers, in the said office, authenticated under the said seal, shall be evidence equally as the original record, or paper.

(Sect. 6.) And be it further enacted, That there shall be paid to the Secretary, for the use of the United States, the following fees of office, by the persons requiring the services to be performed, except when they are performed for any officer of the United States, in a matter relating to the duties of his office, to wit; For making out and authenticating copies of records, ten cents for each sheet containing one hundred words; for authenticating a copy of a record, or paper, under seal of office, twenty five cents.

(Sect. 7.) And be it further enacted, That the said Secretary shall, forthwith after his appointment, be entitled to have the custody and charge of the said seal of the United States, and also of all books, records, and papers, remaining in the office of the late Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled; and such of the said books, records, and papers, as may appertain to the Treasury department, or War department, shall be delivered over to the principal officers in the said departments, respectively, as the President of the United States shall direct. (Approved September 15, 1789.) 13

This act was supplemented by the following which was presented in the House September 18 and concurred in by the Senate on the same day:

Resolved. That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to procure, from time to time, such of the statutes of the several states as may not be in his office.

(Approved, September 23, 1789.) 14

In the meantime, the question of the compensation of the heads of Departments had been fixed by the act approved September 11, 1789, at $3,500 per annum for the Secretary and $800 for the Chief Clerk and such clerks as might be necessary at not more than $500 each.15

Early in June, 1789, while the old Department of Foreign Affairs still existed, Washington wrote to John Jay, asking for "some informal communication from the office of Secretary for Foreign

Affairs; "16 and during the fifty days of existence of the new Department of Foreign Affairs he continued to act as Secretary. He acted as Secretary of State, also, until Thomas Jefferson took control in February of the ensuing year.

The records intended for the Department Charles Thomson had had in his keeping as long as the old Congress lasted; but they were, upon his resignation, delivered to Roger Alden by order of Washington. "You will be pleased, Sir," Washington wrote Thomson July 24, to deliver the Books, Records and Papers of the late Congress -the Great Seal of the federal Union and the Seal of the Ad

mirality, to Mr. Roger Alden, the late Deputy Secretary of Congress, who is requested to take charge of them until further directions shall be given." 17

Information of the law authorizing the new Executive Department of Foreign Affairs was conveyed by the President to the governors of the several States July 5, and September 21 they were informed of the passage of the act making it the Department of State. A few days later Jay was nominated to be Chief Justice and Thomas Jefferson to be Secretary of State, and both were commissioned September 26.

Jay accepted at once, but continued to discharge the duties of Secretary of State for some months. Under date of October 13, Washington informed Jefferson of his appointment, and added that "Mr. Jay had been so obliging as to continue his good offices." Mr. Alden, he said, had the state papers and Mr. Remsen those relating immediately to foreign affairs.18

When this letter was written, Jefferson had not yet returned to America from his mission to France. Upon his arrival Jay wrote to him, December 12, congratulating him upon his appointment and recommending to him favorably "the Young gentlemen in the office." 19 Jefferson accepted the office in the following letter to

the President:

16 Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, III, 369.

17 Department of State MS. archives.

18 Department of State MS. archives.

19 Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, III, 381.

Monticello Feb. 14, 1790

Sir

I have duly received the letter of the 21st of January with which you have honored me, and no longer hesitate to undertake the office to which you are pleased to call me. Your desire that I should come on as quickly as possible is a sufficient reason for me to postpone every matter of business, however pressing, which admits postponement. Still it will be the close of the ensuing week before I can get away, & then I shall have to go by the way of Richmond, which will lengthen my road. I shall not fail however to go on with all the dispatch possible nor to satisfy you, I hope, when I shall have the honor of seeing you at New York, that the circumstances which prevent my immediate departure, are not under my controul. I have now that of being with sentiments of the most perfect respect & attachment, Sir

Your most obedient & most humble servant

The President of the U. S.20

TH. JEFFERSON.

Shortly afterwards he assumed office, the records were turned over to him, and the Department of State was fairly started in its

career.

GAILLARD HUNT.

[The next section will be The New Department.]

20 Department of State MS. archives.

BOARD OF EDITORS OF THE AMERICAN JOURNAL

OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY, State University of Iowa.

ROBERT LANSING, Watertown, N. Y.

JOHN BASSETT MOORE, Columbia University.
WILLIAM W. MORROW, San Francisco, Cal.

LEO S. ROWE, University of Pennsylvania.
OSCAR S. STRAUS, Washington, D. C.
GEORGE G. WILSON, Brown University.
THEODORE S. WOOLSEY, Yale University.

DAVID J. HILL, The Hague, European Editor.

Managing Editor,

JAMES BROWN SCOTT, George Washington University.

EDITORIAL COMMENT

THE SECOND ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

The second annual meeting of the American Society of International Law was held at Washington, D. C., on April 24 and 25, at the New Willard Hotel, and was largely attended by members of the Society. The meeting was called to order on Friday, April 24, at 10 o'clock, by the president of the Society, the Hon. Elihu Root, who, after a brief address of welcome in which he set forth the aims of the Society and the progress made in the past year, delivered an address on The Sanction of International Law." As this number of the JOURNAL contains the address in full it is unnecessary to quote any passages from it. It should be said, however, that aside from its intrinsic merits the address. was important for the reason that his professional experience enabled the president to speak with peculiar authority on the sanction of municipal and international law. A lifetime spent in the court room necessarily familiarized him with the necessity and the form of sanction present in municipal law, and his position as Secretary of State enabled him—indeed, in a large measure required him to analyze the sanc

tion supposed to exist in international law, and to set it forth clearly and precisely. The fact that the speaker, as a result of professional practice and experience, finds the ultimate sanction of municipal law and international law to be the same namely, the public opinion of the community, whether it be national or international goes far to meet the objection of the theorist who, without professional experience, fails to find the sanction which the man of affairs discovers without difficulty and everywhere existing.

The first topic for discussion, "Should the violation of treaties be made a Federal offense?" was admirably treated in a carefully prepared paper by ex-Senator Turner, of Washington, who expressed the belief that the violation of treaties should be made a Federal offense and that an act of Congress to carry out the provisions of a treaty and penalizing their violation would be as constitutional as it is wise and expedient. The Hon. George Gray, of Delaware, and the Hon. Swagar Sherley, of Kentucky, took an active part in the discussion of the paper, as did also Frederick R. Coudert, of the New York bar. Judge Gray felt that a Federal act might interfere with the reserved rights of the States, whereas Mr. Sherley expressed the view that the act would not only be proper in itself, but that it would not improperly interfere with the doctrine of State rights. Mr. Coudert, while treating the subject from a more general and less technical standpoint, concurred with the views expressed in the leading paper. It will be noted that Senator Turner's treatment was not merely academic but practical, for at the conclusion of his paper he proposed two drafts of a bill which in his opinion would adequately meet the difficulties of the case.

In the afternoon session Prof. Paul S. Reinsch, of the University of Wisconsin, read a careful paper on the question, "How far should loans raised in neutral nations for the use of belligerents be considered a violation of neutrality?" The Hon. Oscar S. Straus, who presided at the session, and who has made himself in recent years the most conspicuous champion of the affirmative, dealt with the subject at length in his opening address. The subject was so carefully treated by the two speakers as to leave little room for discussion or comment; for Mr. Reinsch's paper, while outlining the question, called attention to the advantages and difficulties with such impartiality and detail as to preclude the presentation of individual views or preferences.

The evening session began at 8 o'clock, with the Hon. George Gray in the chair. The topic of the evening was "Arbitration at the Second