misunderstandings that so frequently occur between peoples that do not come into close contact, and that the relations of the Americas may henceforth be based upon equality, justice, and a desire for the improvement of all without the sacrifice of the rights and national aspirations of any member of the Western Hemisphere.

The importance of the occasion and Mr. Root's part in bringing it about were admirably set forth by the President in the last paragraphs of his address:

In conclusion, let me speak of another trip, made a couple of years ago by the Secretary of State, Elihu Root the first time in our history the American Secretary of State, during his term of office, left the country to visit certain other nations. Mr. Root made the complete tour of South America, traversed Central America, and afterwards visited Mexico. He was everywhere received with the heartiest greeting, a greeting which deeply touched our people, and I wish to say once more how appreciative we are of the reception tendered him. His voyage was unique in character and in value. It was undertaken only because we citizens of this Republic recognize that our interests are more closely intertwined with the interests of the other peoples of this continent than with those of any other nations. I believe that history will say that though we have had other great Secretaries of State, we have had none greater than Elihu Root; and that though in his high office he has done much for the good of his nation and of mankind, yet that his greatest achievement has been the success which has come as the result of his devoted labor to bring closer together all the republics of the New World, and to unite them in the effort to work valiantly for our common betterment, for the material and moral welfare of all who dwell in the Western Hemisphere.

The address of the Secretary of State follows in full:

Mr. President and Gentlemen:

We are here to lay the corner stone of the building which is to be the home of the International Union of American Republics.

The wise liberality of the Congress of the United States has provided the means for the purchase of this tract of land-five acres in extent — near the White House and the great Executive Departments, bounded on every side by public streets and facing to the east and south upon public parks which it will always be the care of the National Government to render continually more beautiful, in execution of its design to make the national capital an object of national pride and a source of that pleasure which comes to rich and poor alike from the education of taste.

The public spirit and enthusiasm for the good of humanity which have inspired an American citizen, Mr. Andrew Carnegie, in his administration of a great fortune, have led him to devote the adequate and ample sum of three-quarters of a million dollars to the construction of the building.

Into the appropriate adornment and fitting of the edifice will go the contribu

tions of every American Republic, already pledged and, in a great measure, already paid into the fund of the Union.

The International Union for which the building is erected is a voluntary association, the members of which are all the American nations from Cape Horn to the Great Lakes. It had its origin in the first Pan-American Conference held at Washington in 1889, and it has been developed and improved in efficiency under the resolutions of the succeeding conferences in Mexico and Brazil. Its primary object is to break down the barriers of mutual ignorance between the nations of America by collecting and making accessible, furnishing and spreading, information about every country among the people of every other country in the Union, to facilitate and stimulate intercourse, trade, acquaintance, good understanding, fellowship, and sympathy. For this purpose it has established in Washington a Bureau or office under the direction of a Governing Board composed of the official representatives in Washington of all the Republics, and having a Director and Secretary, with a force of assistants and translators and clerks.

The Bureau has established a rapidly increasing library of history, travel, description, statistics, and literature of the American nations. It publishes a Monthly Bulletin of current public events and existing conditions in all the united countries, which is circulated in every country. It carries on an enormous correspondence with every part of both continents, answering the questions of seekers for information about the laws, customs, conditions, opportunities, and personnel of the different countries; and it has become a medium of introduction and guidance for international intercourse.

The Governing Board is also a permanent committee charged with the duty of seeing that the resolutions of each Pan-American Conference are carried out and that suitable preparation is made for the next succeeding conference.

The increasing work of the Bureau has greatly outgrown the facilities of its cramped quarters on Pennsylvania avenue, and now at the close of its second decade and under the influence of the great movement of awakened sympathy between the American Republics, the Union stands upon the threshold of more ample opportunity for the prosecution of its beneficent activity.

Many noble and beautiful public buildings record the achievements and illustrate the impulses of modern civilization. Temples of religion, of patriotism, of learning, of art, of justice, abound; but this structure will stand alone, the first of its kind- a temple dedicated to international friendship. It will be devoted to the diffusion of that international knowledge which dispels national prejudice and liberalizes national judgment. Here will be fostered the growth of that sympathy born of similarity in good impulses and noble purposes, which draws men of different races and countries together into a community of nations, and counteracts the tendency of selfish instincts to array nations against each other as enemies. From this source shall spring mutual helpfulness between all the American republics, so that the best knowledge and experience and courage and hope of every republic shall lend moral power to sustain and strengthen every other in its struggle to work out its problems and to advance the standard of liberty and peace with justice within itself, so that no people in all of these continents, however oppressed and discouraged, however impoverished and torn

by disorder, shall fail to feel that they are not alone in the world, or shall fail to see that for them a better day may dawn, as for others the sun has already risen.

It is too much to expect that there will not be controversies between American nations, to whose desire for harmony we now bear witness; but to every controversy will apply the truth that there are no international controversies so serious that they can not be settled peaceably if both parties really desire peaceable settlement, while there are few causes of dispute so trifling that they can not be made the occasion of war if either party really desires war. The matters in dispute between nations are nothing; the spirit which deals with them is everything.

The graceful courtesy of the twenty republics who have agreed upon the capital of the United States for the home of this International Union, the deep appreciation of that courtesy shown by the American Government and this representative American citizen, and the work to be done within the walls that are to rise on this site, can not fail to be powerful influences toward the creation of a spirit that will solve all disputed questions of the future and preserve the peace of the Western World.

May the structure now begun stand for many generations to come as the visible evidence of mutual respect, esteem, appreciation, and kindly feeling between the people of all the republics; may pleasant memories of hospitality and friendship gather about it, and may all the Americas come to feel that for them this place is home, for it is theirs, the product of a common effort and the instrument of a common purpose.

RECENT ARBITRATION TREATIES CONCLUDED BY THE UNITED STATES

In the Editorial Comment of the April number of this JOURNAL (II, 387) attention was called to the fact that the United States had seriously taken up the problem of arbitration treaties, and that by a happy formula of the compromis clause the objection of the Senate, as well as the technical objection of the foreign powers, seems to have been overcome. As the nature of the compromis was carefully considered, as well as the constitutional and international difficulty, it seems unnecessary to do more than to refer to the editorial in question.

The American Government has not entered into an unrestricted agreement to arbitrate any and all controversies which may rise, but has limited the scope of arbitration to controversies of a legal nature, or differences relating to the interpretation of treaties, thereby excluding any differences of a purely political nature. The reason for this restriction is self-evident; matters of policy are for the Government to determine, and it is not to be supposed that a government will generally and in advance renounce the right to conduct and to control matters of policy.

The interpretation of treaties is purely a judicial question, and therefore susceptible of judicial settlement, and would doubtless have been included within the general submission of claims of a legal nature had they not been expressly specified. Differences of a legal nature may, however, be very far-reaching, and at times involve vital interest, the independence, or the honor of the contracting parties. The treaties therefore expressly exclude questions of this nature from the general treaty. Vital interests may possess a judicial element, but it is highly probable that interests termed "vital" are at bottom political, and as such properly excluded from a general convention. The same may be said of independence, for although the question of the independence of a state may arise in a controversy of a judicial nature, the existence or nonexistence of a state has been and perhaps always will be a question of international politics. Again, the honor of the two contracting states is excluded from the arbitration agreement, and this exclusion seems susceptible of justification for the twofold reason that the expression is so indefinite as to be well-nigh meaningless, and whatever its nature it is clearly not a judicial matter. And finally, the interests of third states are excluded. It may be questioned whether this exclusion is not mere surplusage, because it is as elemental as it is fundamental that a state (as well as a person) can not be bound by an agreement to which it has not been a party.

The omission of vital interests, independence, and the honor of contracting states from a general arbitration agreement has been the subject of great and persistent criticism; yet if the views expressed in the preceding paragraph are just and reasonable, it would seem that there is no basis for criticism, because the arbitration contemplated is concerned solely with the settlement of questions of a legal and therefore judicial nature. If these questions are not judicial, or are not wholly judicial, it does not seem expedient, in the present state of affairs, to submit them to the judgment of a law court. But from another point of view the criticism is ill-founded, because the treaty of arbitration is clearly good o far as it goes, and to that extent deserving of commendation. But a conclusive answer to the objection lies in the fact that these three questions are not excluded from arbitration; for the powers may at any time by a special agreement submit to arbitration a question involving any one or all of the excluded classes. Reference may be made in this connection to the Treaty of Washington of 1871 submitting the Alabama claims to impartial arbitration, as indicative of the practice liable to be

followed when states, mutually respecting each other, are confronted with a difficulty of like or allied nature. In any case, notwithstanding its manifold advantages, arbitration is of recent origin and it is especially wise in matters of statecraft to make haste slowly.

However opinions may differ as to the wisdom or unwisdom of reserving certain matters from the scope of a general arbitration treaty, still all will agree that the negotiation of the treaties is in itself indicative of progress, and it is a subject of congratulation that the Secretary of State has devised a formula simple and easy of application to be understood by the man in the street, and to which no objections of a constitutional nature have been or can be raised. The unfortunate misunderstanding between Senate and Executive has passed away without leaving a trace, and in the recent session of Congress to be more accurate, in the months of February, March, April, and May — the Senate of the United States had presented to it, and approved, no less than twelve arbitration treaties with the following States: France, Switzerland, Mexico, Italy, Great Britain, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Sweden, Japan, and Denmark. These treaties are strikingly similar. For example, they are concluded for a period of five years; they specify the Permanent Court at The Hague as the tribunal for the arbitration of legal - that is to say, judicial questions, and they all exclude from the general agreement to arbitrate questions involving vital interests, independence, and honor of the contracting parties, as well as questions concerning the interests of noncontracting states. They likewise specify that a special agreement shall be concluded "defining clearly the matter in dispute. the scope of the powers of the arbitrators, and the periods to be fixed for the formation of the arbitral tribunal, and the several stages of the procedure." This "special agreement" is the English equivalent for "compromis," and the regulation of this has been the great difficulty not merely in the United States but in foreign countries.

The compromis clause differs somewhat in the treaties, but as far as the United States is concerned there is no variation from the original type which follows: "It is understood that such special agreements on the part of the United States will be made by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." The internal machinery is thus specified and it seems only proper that there be a like specification on the part of the other contracting states, if they so desire. The following quotations show the nature and extent of the specifications in the various treaties: "On the part of France, they will