The Second Peace Conference of The Hague.... The Integrity of China and the "Open Door" The Northeastern Fisheries Question... Secretary Root's Visit to Mexico.... The Regulation of Immigration and the Doctrine of Expatriation. Johnson v. Browne... ..1022 In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Young John Allen.. .1029 1039 La Proprieta Privata Nelle Guerre Marittime Secondo Il Diritto Inter- 1052 .1056 ..1061 Report of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Lake Mohonk Confer- .1062 ANNOUNCEMENT issue of the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL cover the year 1906. Hereafter each number will deal ncipally with the quarter immediately preceding the It is therefore expected that the size of the JOURNAL ed in proportion, but the space devoted to the leading emain approximately the same. JAMES BROWN SCOTT, Managing Editor. THE NEED OF POPULAR UNDERSTANDING OF INTERNATIONAL LAW The increase of popular control over national conduct, which marks the political development of our time, makes it constantly more important that the great body of the people in each country should have a just conception of their international rights and duties. Governments do not make war nowadays unless assured of general and hearty support among their people; and it sometimes happens that governments are driven into war against their will by the pressure of strong popular feeling. It is not uncommon to see two governments striving in the most conciliatory and patient way to settle some matter of difference peaceably, while a large part of the people in both countries maintain an uncompromising and belligerent attitude, insisting upon the extreme and uttermost view of their own rights in a way which, if it were to control national action, would render peaceable settlement impossible. One of the chief obstacles to the peaceable adjustment of international controversies is the fact that the negotiator or arbitrator who yields any part of the extreme claims of his own country and concedes the reasonableness of any argument of the other side is quite likely to be violently condemned by great numbers of his own countrymen who have never taken the pains to make themselves familiar with the merits of the controversy or have considered only the arguments on their own side. Sixty-four years have passed since the northeastern boundary between the United States and Canada was settled by the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842; yet to this day there are many people on our side of the line who condemn Mr. Webster for sacrificing our rights, and many people on the Canadian side of the line who blame Lord Ashburton for sacrificing their rights, in that treaty. Both sets of objectors cannot be right; it seems a fair inference that neither of them is right; yet both Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton had to endure reproach and obloquy as the price of agreeing upon a settlement which has been worth to the peace and prosperity of each |