to foster ideas of right and justice through slow but constant infusion into the minds and hearts of the peoples, than through diplomatic negotiations not based upon a general, popular feeling.

"When it is understood that the pacifist movement is more general in America than in any other country, and rests either on a religious basis or upon a community of interests and of tendencies worthy of envy, we can best appreciate this new evidence of vigorous progress which has come to us from the other side of the ocean; it puts new life into our hopes and gives fresh impetus to our efforts.

"I take my third illustration from the generosity and foresight of a private individual. You know that a citizen of the great Anglo-Saxon Republic has made over a part of his wealth to the promotion of international peace. He has established an 'Endowment for International Peace,' and found men competent to carry out his generous projects. These men had but just entered into their functions, when they displayed an astonishing activity. The income of the millons which they have agreed to administer has been directed to various agencies for the promotion of the intellectual and moral cause of pacifism. A world library has been established; a collection of all the arbitral awards is in preparation; another collection, including all arbitration treaties from the remotest times to the present day, has been planned, and the creation of an Academy of International Law is under consideration; subventions have been granted to periodical publications in various countries and published in different languages, which make it their object to study international law but whose pecuniary status does not allow the editors to pay honoraria securing them contributions of the highest order, or whose income is not quite sufficient to meet present expenses. The Trustees of the Endowment have gone farther yet. They have entered into close relation with the Institute of International Law, which is to be its adviser in scientific questions, and which has accepted a moderate subsidy to meet the traveling expenses of the members who desire to be present at the sessions of the Institute, occurring in the various capitals of Europe, but who feel that they cannot incur the large expenses of sojourn abroad. Thus the treasures reaped from industry and commerce have been placed at the service, not of war, but of peace."

It is not for us of the western world to question whether the European publicist speaks the language of sober truth or of pardonable exaggeration. The fact that such a man as Professor de Louter believes what he says, and others share his belief, should encourage us to persevere and

to deserve the praise which he so generously lavishes upon us. To be thought worthy is an incentive to worthy actions, and who knows but crediting us with leadership may make us more worthy of leadership.

AMERICAN UNITY

In the Figaro for October 24, 1913, the distinguished statesman, diplomatist and historian, Monsieur Gabriel Hanotaux, Member of the French Academy, took advantage of Mr. Robert Bacon's visit to South America to express himself at length on the subject of American unity. The article is so interesting, so timely and so suggestive that the JOURNAL has translated it from the French and prints it in full, without marring its symmetry and beauty by a word of comment or feeble praise:

Behold the structure conceived by Ferdinand de Lesseps! it is a reality. The Panama Canal has wedded the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The event marks the greatest geographic transformation that could be accomplished on the surface of the globe. We have been its witnesses; yet we can have no adequate idea of its greatness, and give but little thought to the consequences that are likely to follow.

This is generally true of all great human affairs; the living witnesses take only a passing interest in matters at which posterity will gaze in wonder. It is this that makes the writing of history difficult; the present does not grasp the exact proportions of things extending into the future; by a singular slip of memory, the present, if I may venture to say so, is oblivious of the future; and from the mass of rubbish recorded on its pages, the historian finds it difficult to sift the facts worthy to be remembered.

We have even now reason to believe that, paradoxical though it may seem, the main result of the stupendous work-the great divide made in the American hemisphere will be to strengthen its unity. The fact is that the two shores, the Atlantic and the Pacific, were separated by a huge mass of earth stretching across that part of our planet. A gate has been cut through it, and the opposite shores are brought nearer to each other; in their future relations they form, as it were, the four arms of an X, connected by the point of intersection. Communications of every kind are going to be doubled or quadrupled; in consequence, a remarkable growth of unity will take place; America is somehow going to become twice or four times more American than in the past.

This is evidently one of the ideas that keeps the transatlantic master-minds constantly occupied; they have a subconscious prescience of great changes that are to take place; as thinkers and men of action always "at the fore," they bend their energies to finding out how best to steer the course of these impending changes. Are we to remain in ignorance of these powerful agencies-like so many bridges, figuratively speaking-which they are endeavoring to throw across the gulf separating the present from the future?

It will perhaps be opportune at this time to inquire if there is one American people? if there is one American mind? And by this we do not of course mean one North American people, or one North American mind, but one homogeneous people, scattered over the entire continent, and animated by one standard of mind, the American mind. In short, will the course of future American affairs tend toward Pan Americanism? We can readily see that the answer to this question is of vital importance to America itself; in another part of this article I shall show in what way it is of interest to Europe, and especially to France.

There undoubtedly exist peculiar analogies and close resemblances between the various American peoples, even between the descendants of different races, reared under different social systems and speaking different languages. Whether North Americans or South Americans, whether Anglo-Saxon Americans or Latin Americans, it is a fact that in the one and in the other of the Americas, civilization is not an old civilization slowly evolved on the native soil; it is a recent civilization, transplanted ready-made from the old world; in both Americas the autochthonous races are being swept away by the ever rising tide of an emigration to which all European peoples contribute: America is the in globo legatee of all European nations. In consequence, and ever since the proclamation of their independence, all American populations have recognized but one system of government, that of democracy; and living under republican institutions, they have in most cases organized or are tending to organize themselves into confederations of states. These are striking characteristics and remarkable analogies in the progress of intellectual evolution, bringing these peoples into close political kinship, and distinguishing them, at all events, from the European peoples. On the basis of these similarities and the latent processes of unification, some American theorists justify the Monroe doctrine; while others, with greater moderation, evidencing a less exclusive European tendency, are endeavoring to create the agencies that are to assist the nascent American unity to reach its maturity; they are engaged in establishing an Academy, a sort of Institute of the American mind. Inasmuch, however, as the intellectual current on the new continent runs preeminently along juridical lines, this Academy is to devote itself to the study of international law, and in its first stages to deal primarily with Pan American problems. Men like Mr. Elihu Root, Mr. James Brown Scott and Mr. Alejandro Alvarez, hailing from different American nations, have combined to promote this work; and it will be remembered that but recently to Mr. Robert Bacon has been entrusted the high mission to visit South America in order to lay the foundations of the new institution.

It is quite evident, as Mr. Rodriguez Larreta so justly stated, that in its essence, law is one and universal; among civilized nations there is only one international law; but international law has not nearly passed through all the various necessary stages to enable it to leave the field of theory and enter that of practice. The founders of the American International Institute, are looking for practical results. On a basis of absolute equality, they have invited all the Republics to coöperate in the study of problems and in the codification of regulations of particular interest and importance to America. In this way, and beyond the Atlantic, the Institute of International Law, founded by Rolin-Jaequemyns, will find, not a competitor, but a force contributing to the development of international law, with the additional result, that juridical unity will lead to a still higher conception, that of a great, future UNITY.

It is needless to remark that the nations of Europe in general, and France in particular, should take a deep interest in these projects. France, especially, must not remain in ignorance of efforts toward unity exerted in any part of the world. France has at all times been a leader in the movement for unity; eminently centralizing in her tendencies, France is deeply interested in following movements of this nature taking place elsewhere. But there are still more immediate and real considerations; all efforts making for the intellectual unity of America must, in a measure, follow a course influenced by French thought.

This was explained to me recently by the distinguished Chilean, Mr. Alvarez, one of the founders of the Academy, who said: "All matters of common interest to the American continent, and not of special interest to this or to that country, must be reduced to terms of the French language, of the French intellect and French books. When we see a group of people composed of Chileans or Argentines speaking the Spanish language, and still influenced by intellectual currents from Spain, of Brazilians speaking Portuguese, and subject to intellectual currents from Portugal, and of North Americans speaking English, and still influenced by English thought, and we should try to find out what it is that enables them to maintain a certain unity of views and tendencies, we are forced to acknowledge that French ideas, French things and French books create that common basis. This is to some extent shown by the fact that in South America at the present time, seventy-five per cent of all foreign books are French. There is in consequence no better way for France to exert her influence upon the North American mind than by availing herself of this South American medium; it is quite evident, also, that if Americans wish to understand each other perfectly, the best way for them to do so, will be to welcome the intellectual influence of France. On the eve of his departure to fulfill his mission in South America, Mr. Robert Bacon himself stated that before the North American thought receives its exequatur in South America, it must first have passed through the crucible of Paris.

The first effect of this movement for unification which is so peculiarly French has been the choice of the language which is to do service as interpreter of the institution; the French language has been chosen for the reason that in America there is no other universal language. North Americans do not understand Spanish and Portuguese; South Americans but rarely understand English. And so, after a discussion which had developed much opposition, it was decided, in order to obviate utter cacophony, to write and print all books and publications of the Institute in the French language. And, as an almost necessary climax, the headquarters of the bureau are located in Paris.

Not by our own action, but by the force of circumstances, Paris has once more been recognized as the center of intellectual radiation. Does not every one of us realize that it is to our interest, if the mold of this Pan American unity, which some day is destined to reach enormous significance, even though it be not French all through, will nevertheless show the earmarks of French workmanship and French genius?

In the many transformations taking place on the face of the globe, we should remember that when a nation is thrown on its own forces and resources, it counts for little; but we know also the power and development accruing to the nation that knows, at the opportune moment, how to bring to bear its action and influence upon

those creations of lofty purpose built within the realm of the intellect, defying the vicissitudes of time and the onslaughts of the elements.

[Printed in Judicial Decisions, this JOURNAL, p. 158]

As to third parties, or as to individual rights, the title to the Island of Cebu did not vest in the United States until the exchange of ratifications by the signatory parties April 11, 1899. Haver v. Yaker, 9 Wall., 32; Dooley v. United States, 182 U. S., 222-230. It follows that all rights to do business in the port of Cebu remained intact until its occupancy and possession by the United States, February 22, 1899, which rights necessarily included the right to import and sell rice, for rice is not contraband of war, it being classed as food or provision. Wheaton's Int. Law (3rd ed.), pp. 640-642, 654; 7 Moore's Dig. Int. Law, pp. 675692; Hall's Int. Law (4th ed.), pp. 687, 689.

The Court of Claims found in the principal case (45 C. Cls., 339) that the Spanish flag was hauled down and the Spanish forces, civil and military, evacuated the Island of Cebu December 25, 1898, and two days later the so-called republic, of which Aguinaldo was the head, took possession of the island and proceeded to administer its public affairs, maintain a government at Cebu, and collect customs until the 22nd of February following, when possession was surrendered to the United States. At no time prior to February 22, had an officer of the United States, either civil or military, or any armed force of the United States been in the Island of Cebu, nor had the United States been in possession or occupation of the port of Cebu or any part of the island. (Ibid., 344.)

In that condition of things, the payment of duties to the de facto government then in possession of the port of Cebu was lawful and within the doctrine that has been applied and enforced more than once by the United States in its dealings with other nations. The executive order of July 12, 1898, contained an expression of principle universally recognized in international law. "Rights which are founded upon mere force reach their natural limit at the point where the force ceases to be efficient." Hall's Int. Law (5th ed.), p. 448. The executive order did not extend to or apply to ports or places not actually occupied or possessed by the United States. The principal case puts this proposition beyond

1

1 Prepared by Mr. L. T. Michener, of the Washington Bar, of counsel in the case.