as to present to the whole world a formidable solidarity of peoples determined to maintain their independence against arbitrary aggression. Founded upon the same fundamental principles, with the same general theory of the State as the protector of human rights, the American countries are in a favorable position to attain such solidarity.

It is easy to point out obstacles to such union; as, for example, differences of race, language, and tradition, and especially the different degrees of progress toward the full realization of the constitutional ideal. To these are to be added the differences of nature and character. The Anglo-Saxon, blunt, direct, forceful, egoistic, and sometimes arrogant; the Latin, suave, reserved, generous in his impulses, polished in his manners, fond of discussion, and considerate of formulas-how are we ever to reconcile these disparities?

IV.

I have no ready-made answer to this question, but I have the feeling that a deeper sense of real fraternity between the peoples of the American countries would be of inestimable benefit to all of them. A great French philosopher has truly said, "Une nation est une amitie." But if a nation is a friendship, why not a friendship of nations? In truth, our friendships are not merely territorial. They depend on sympathy and mutual understanding. The frequent reminder of what is common to us all, joined with a continued effort for mutual comprehension, will no doubt help to make us friends. But the really decisive thing is the clear perception that justice, regardless of size and power, is the only firm foundation for Pan American fraternity. For this it is essential that there be a profound consciousness on the part of all the American peoples that their welfare is closely bound up with their international duties and responsibilities.

Just how these ideas are to be made impressive among the people is a problem to be solved by each State according to its own methods and circumstarces. The press, the school, the congress, the messages of the executives to the legislative bodies, are all proper, and may prove to be effective means of creating this impression and of giving it influence and permanence. Of necessity, it must be a growth, and it will require time. As a rule, men are guided by the results of their experience. Every kindly and generous act, every sincere manifestation of fairness, of interest, and of sympathy will simplify and abbreviate the task. It is, perhaps, not too much to hope that, without any formal federation or the slightest suppression of nationality, it may be possible to reach such unanimity in the acceptance of principles, and such union in action for the common good, as to present a solid phalanx of self-governed States, united in the firm determination to eliminate the use of force, and to establish the permanent reign of law, in their relations with one another and with the rest of the world.

There is one word that it seems appropriate to address at this time to the people of the United States. We are, as regards the representatives of different races, the most cosmopolitan of all in our feelings toward the individuals who come to dwell permanently among us. We are less so in our estimate of the capacities, the motives, and the possibilities of those with whom we are not brought into direct personal contact. In this we are, perhaps, not peculiar. It is, possibly, natural to underestimate and misunderstand the stranger, and especially those who represent a different type of civilization.

One reason for this may be that we do not fully appreciate the difficulties created by local circumstances, such as age-long traditions, climate, resources,

and antecedent social conditions. We are perhaps not entirely exempt from a certain provincialism of mind. We need to enlarge our sympathies and to make earnest effort for better comprehension. We might be more tolerant of customs other than our own, more catholic in matters of taste and preference, and recognize more fully the fact that we have no right to impose our methods upon those to whom they are strange or objectionable. In short, we should do well to widen our horizon, and to lay the main stress upon what is pertinent to our common humanity.

Personally I have had some reason to know how much to expect from the representatives of other American countries. I recall with special satisfaction the display of talent and accomplishment on the part of the Latin-Americans at the second conference at The Hague. It was a first experience for all of us in a really universal congress. In personal culture, in cosmopolitan spirit, in ready eloquence, in diplomatic skill, in sound and thorough knowledge of international law, and in all the amenities of intercourse, many of our Latin brethren shone brilliantly; and it was a surprise to Europeans to discover that even the smallest American States possess jurists and statesmen of eminent ability.

In truth, so far as international morals and amenities are concerned, including appreciation of the duties and responsibilities of the State in its foreign relations, there is no cause for the countries of America to be ashamed of the record of the past, especially of the recent past, when compared with the States of Europe. In fact, the Pan American international gatherings have shown a progressive spirit, a regard for principles of justice, and a readiness to promote them, of which the American countries may well be proud. Wrongs there may have been; but the disposition to trace them to their true origin, to remedy their causes, and to provide for a more worthy future have been conspicuous; while some of the South American countries have, by their efforts for reconciliation, set a noble example and furnished an inspiration to the whole world.

We may therefore look forward, not only with hope but with confidence, to a future that rests in the hands of the people of the American countries. Happily for them, they are the creators of their own destinies.

ADDRESS.

By JACOB GOULD SCHURMAN,

President Cornell University.

Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen, it is my misfortune to have missed a large portion of the address, admirable and eloquent as far as I heard it, to which you have just listened from Dr. Hill. I may perhaps be permitted to say in that connection that the cause of my absence from the meeting at the beginning was that a diplomatic representative of the Old World was explaining to me that international law had gone, and I was, in my humble way, trying to rebut that assumption. But I heard the address of Professor Garner,1 and I am exceedingly glad that he came on after Dr. Hill, and I should have been delighted to assign to him the time on the program which I suppose I can claim. His address was exceedingly instructive. I think all will bear witness to that statement, whether they come from North America or South America.

1 Printed, p. 101 of this volume.

I do not think that international law has gone, or is on the way of going, in consequence of this war. Undoubtedly its position in the world has been weakened for the time being. I do not know of any war in which so large a number of the controlling powers of the world have been engaged as in the present war. It has, therefore, devolved upon neutrals, more weakened in numbers than ever before in the history of the world, to maintain and assert international law. And because the disproportion between belligerents and neutrals is so much greater than at any previous time, their task has been harder than ever before. And yet, as Professor Garner has pointed out, all the belligerents are anxious to satisfy the neutral opinion of the world; and they appeal, if not to the literal rules, at any rate to the established and recognized principles of international law. So much homage, at any rate, they pay to it; and I am so far from sharing the opinion of my diplomatic friend from Europe that I look forward to an immensely increased interest in international law, to a more hopeful study of it than ever before after this war is over.

Force, Mr. Chairman, has obviously and conspicuously broken down as a means for the maintenance of right relations between the governments of the world. That fact will be recognized by the belligerents themselves after this war is over. However much the advocates of peace and the champions of arbitration have been scouted and criticised in the past, I venture to predict that in the future the populations in those belligerent countries will turn with a new spirit of hopefulness to the peaceful means of adjudicating their differences which are provided within the framework of international law. I am far from pessimistic or despondent about the future of international law. I believe that the generation now on the stage is going to see more interest in it and more faith in it than any other generation has ever had.

In our own country I think there has been an obvious increase of interest in the study of international law. You have to bear in mind, when you speak of our colleges and universities, that our universities are made up, generally speaking, of a collection of schools, liberal, professional, and technical, and that in many of these departments, as, for instance, engineering and agriculture, it would be quite inappropriate to prescribe international law. When therefore, you hear that thousands of students are enrolled in any of our larger universities-and I speak, sir, from personal knowledge on this subjectyou must remember and always keep in mind that there are very large groups of students in whose curricula it would be absolutely impossible to prescribe it. But where international law is left an optional subject, as it is in many of our larger universities and only tens or hundreds are taking international law, I know there has been an increase both in the enrollment of students and in the interest these students take in the subject during these recent years. The war itself has manifestly quickened that interest. It provides definite and important problems, which are reported from time to time in the newspapers, by means of which the student's interest can be vitally enlisted in many of the fundamental principles of international law.

The good teacher, it is said, begins with the known and works gradually to the unknown. The good teacher begins with subjects in which the student is directly interested and gradually works out to a larger field. My point is that this war has brought international law home to the American people and has quickened the interest of the people, and notably the interest of students in the subject. Furthermore, while law has ordinarily been the avenue by which the larger number of men in this country have entered public service, and while, therefore, I fully agree with the views expressed by Professor

Garner that lawyers should be required more and more to study international law, you must recognize that a new professional course is establishing itself at our universities naturally leading to the public service, in which in many cases international law is already a required subject. I refer, ladies and gentlemen, to the subject of commerce. Schools of commerce are now beginning to spread in the universities of this country and pretty nearly everywhere they have gone international law is a required subject. That represents a distinct gain. I mean that we enlist a new profession. We count on the profession of law. We have a right to it, and the South Americans have shown how students of law may also be required to master the principles of international law. But, in addition to that, we are going to have soon in this country a new profession, which, without very much effort, naturally takes to international law. I think the majority of students in our schools of commerce would study it even if it were not prescribed, because they would see the great advantage of it.

Finally, Mr. Chairman (for I am going to speak within the 10 minutes assigned to me), I think it will be found that this country itself by multiplying its international relations is going to quicken the interest of its people in international law. I quite agree with Professor Garner that it is useless to expect that everybody in a population numbered by tens of millions and hundreds of millions will master or even know anything about the elements of international law. But the more intelligent portions of the community who interest themselves in public questions will be compelled in the future, in consequence of the multipication of our relations with foreign powers, to give more attention than they have ever done before to questions of international law. These questions are practical questions concerning our relations with foreign powers. The time has gone by when the United States of America can live to itself. It is not merely theoretically a member of the family of nations. We are living in an age in which that membership is being actualized. And my point is that as the threads and filaments which bind the United States to all the other nations of the world are multiplied, as the work of diplomacy increases, new questions of international law will come up, or old questions in new relations, and the intelligent portion of the American people who interest themselves in public affairs will, of necessity, be compelled to consider them and not a few seriously to study them.

Hence, Mr. Chairman, I not only differ from my friend, with whom I have been spending a large part of the afternoon, respecting the outlook for international law per se, believing as I do that there has never been a generation since international law came into the world which will be so much interested in it as the generation now appearing on the stage and taking control of things in this country, but I differ from him, and perhaps from some others in this audience, in my belief that the interest in the subject is increasing in this country, and is bound to increase, owing to our changed historical conditions. In making these statements, I am at any rate, in part-that is, so far as I am speaking of students-basing my remarks not on conjecture, but on actual experience. And I may say before taking my seat that at Cornell University, where international law is an entirely elective subject, the class is one of the largest in the university, and it is composed not only of students from the college of liberal arts but of students from the professional schools, including not merely law, but also engineering, agriculture, and other scientific voca

THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE COUNTRIES OF AMERICA AND THE MEANS BY WHICH IT CAN BE MADE MORE EFFECTIVE.

By JAMES W. GARNER,

Professor of Political Science, University of Illinois.

I. IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

If my remarks were intended solely for this gathering it would be superfluous for me to dwell upon the importance of international law in the educational system of a country in which public opinion is to a large extent the controlling factor in the determination of foreign policies. It may be safely assumed that no argument is necessary to convince this body of specialists of the value of a well-informed and correctly-instructed public opinion in respect to the international rights and obligations of States, and of the citizens thereof, in their mutual dealings with one another.

In order, however, that the study of international law may be given the recognition which its increasing importance requires in the educational system of the United States in particular, a change of attitude is necessary on the part of those who are responsible for the determination of the curricula of the colleges and universities, as well as on the part of those upon whom rests the responsibility for determining the standards and formulating the policies of international conduct. It is for those rather than for you that my preliminary remarks are primarily intended.

Mr. Elihu Root, a man whose name I can not mention in this connection without remarking that he has been, in a sense, the foremost American advocate of international law as a body of rules with effective sanctions; a man who, as Secretary of State and Senator of the United States, set for his countrymen the highest standards of international conduct and who has probably done more than any other man in recent years to raise the level of respect in this country for international law and the obligations which it imposes, pointed out in his first annual address as president of the American Society of International Law, with his usual lucidity and forcefulness, the need of a popular understanding of the fundamental principles of international law if control of national conduct is to rest, as it seems destined to do, in the last analysis with the people.' Mr. Root called attention to the fact that the foreign policies of Governments to-day, especially when they involve the making of war, are determined largely in obedience to the demands of popular feeling, and that 'cases have not been lacking in which Governments, striving to settle their controversies in the spirit of conciliation and without resort to extreme measures, have been driven into war to satisfy the demands of an uncompromising, uninformed, and belligerent public opinion.

"The more clearly the people of a country understand their own international rights," he said, "the less likely they are to take extreme and extravagant views of their rights and the less likely they are to be ready to fight for something to which they are not really entitled. The more clearly and universally the people of a country realize the international obligations and duties of their

1 A national conference of teachers of international law held at Washington in April, 1914, upon my motion, adopted a resolution recommending that Senator Root's address be reprinted and copies sent to all teachers of political science, history, political economy, and sociology throughout the country, together with a letter calling their attention to the importance of a wider popular knowledge of international law and of the desirability of making provision in the colleges and law schools for courses in this subject where they are not already offered.

68436-17-VOL VII- -8