The insertion of the proviso seems to have been made primarily as a political expedient for obtaining the support of those Senators who did not believe that the law as adopted in 1912 was a violation of the treaty but who opposed the exemption on the ground that it was an unsound economic policy of the government. The adoption of this amendment serves to indicate the substantial doubt in the minds of a great many, if not a probable majority, of the Senators that the exemption of American coastwise vessels from the payment of tolls may not properly be granted by the United States without running counter to the letter and spirit of the treaty. The approval of this amendment by the President after he had asked for repeal without raising the question of treaty interpretation, shows the narrow margin on which he had to rely in getting the bill through the Senate.

The adoption of the proviso seems also to serve notice that the question has been only temporarily postponed and that it may be raised again should another Congress see fit to pursue the policy pursued by the Congress in 1912 of using the Canal as a means of aiding the American merchant marine. Such a contingency will no doubt depend in large measure upon the amount of revenue which the Canal actually produces and the size of the annual bills for maintaining and operating it. Should there be any considerable deficit it is not likely that any future Congress will vote to increase the deficit by relieving the American vessels of their share of the burden. On the other hand, should there be a surplus the question of relieving American vessels from the payment of tolls in this waterway as in all other waterways of the United States may again be raised.

There can be no doubt that the best solution of the question would have been its arbitration at the present time, just as there can be no doubt that if the question is raised again it will have to be submitted to arbitration. It is a purely legal question, involving the interpretation of a treaty, a class of questions universally recognized as being proper subjects for international arbitration and mentioned especially in all arbitration agreements, including the general arbitration treaty of 1908 between the United States and Great Britain, recently renewed for another period of five years.

Arbitration at the present time would have been entirely satisfactory to Great Britain. Her last diplomatic communication on the subject was practically limited to a request for arbitration. Arbitration was also desired by a majority in the Congress of the United States, but in

order to bring about an arbitration in the United States a treaty negotiated by and with the consent of the Senate is necessary, and a majority of the Senate is not sufficient to consent to a treaty. The assent of two-thirds of the Senators is necessary before a treaty may be ratified. by the President of the United States, and it was evident, not only before the repeal was requested by the President, but also after it was practically assured that the bill would be passed, that the consent of two-thirds of the Senators could not be obtained to submit the tolls question to arbitration.

THE EIGHTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SOCIETY

The Eighth Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law was held, according to previous announcement, in Washington at the New Willard Hotel from April 22 to April 25, 1914. The general subject selected by the committee for consideration at the meeting was the Monroe Doctrine. The committee also placed upon the program the subject of the teaching of international law in American institutions of learning, as explained in an editorial comment of the Journal for January last. The codification of international law, which had been included in the program as a third subject for consideration, in anticipation of a report from the Committee on Codification, was not taken up at the meeting because the Committee found it impracticable to render a report at the present time and requested that the committee be continued which request was granted by the Society.

It was considered desirable and convenient to treat the two general subjects to be considered by the meeting separately by dividing the sessions between them and the program was arranged accordingly.

In pursuance of this plan the meeting was opened on Wednesday evening, April 22, 1914, at eight o'clock, by the Honorable Elihu Root, President of the Society, who took as the subject for his presidential address "The Real Monroe Doctrine." He was followed by Mr. Charles Francis Adams, of Boston, who described the origin of the doctrine. The subject was resumed at the session beginning at 2:30 o'clock on the afternoon of Thursday, April 23rd, by a consideration of the statements, interpretations and applications of the Monroe Doctrine and of more or less allied doctrines during three different periods of its history. The period from 1823-1845 was covered by Mr. William R. Manning, Adjunct Professor of Spanish American History in the University of

Texas; from 1845-1870 by Mr. James M. Callahan, Professor and Head of the Department of History and Political Science of the University of West Virginia; from 1870 to the present time by Mr. John H. Latané, Professor and Head of the Department of History in Johns Hopkins University. The subject was continued at the evening session of the same day, at which three papers dealing with the misconceptions and limitations of the Monroe Doctrine were read,-one by the Honorable John W. Foster, formerly Secretary of State of the United States, and Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Society; another by Mr. Leo S. Rowe, Professor of Political Science in the University of Pennsylvania, and the third by Mr. Eugene Wambaugh, Professor of International Law in Harvard Law School. At ten o'clock on the following morning Friday, April 24th, Professor William I. Hull, of Swarthmore College, spoke on a special topic "The Monroe Doctrine: National or International?" He was followed by Mr. Joseph Wheless, of St. Louis, Missouri, who pointed out what countries benefit by the doctrine. Professor Hiram Bingham, of Yale University, then gave the LatinAmerican attitude toward the doctrine. The final session devoted to this subject was held at eight o'clock Friday evening, April 24th. Two papers were read at this meeting, one by the Honorable Charlemagne Tower, formerly American Ambassador to Austria-Hungary, Russia and Germany, entitled "The European attitude toward the Monroe Doctrine," and the other by Professor George H. Blakeslee, of Clark University, who compared the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 with the doctrine of the present day and discussed the question whether the doctrine should continue to be a policy of the United States. The Honorable Charles B. Elliott, who was scheduled to speak on the same subject, was unable on account of illness to be present.

The consideration of the subject of the teaching of International Law was assigned to a conference of teachers of international law, invitations to participate in which were sent out by the President of the Society to leading educational institutions in the United States. Forty-one colleges and universities accepted the invitation and sent representatives to take part in the conference as follows:

Boston University, James F. Colby; Brown University, James C. Dunning; University of California, Orrin K. McMurray; University of Chicago, Ernst Freund; Clark College, George H. Blakeslee; Cornell University, Samuel P. Orth; Dartmouth College, James F. Colby, Frank A. Updyke; Dickinson College, Eugene A. Noble; George Washington

University, Charles Noble Gregory, C. H. Stockton; University of Georgia, H. A. Nix; Hamilton College, Frank H. Wood; Harvard University, Eugene Wambaugh, George G. Wilson; University of Illinois, James W. Garner; Johns Hopkins University, James Brown Scott; University of Kansas, F. H. Hodder; Lafayette College, E. D. Warfield; Lehigh University, John L. Stewart; Louisiana State University, Arthur T. Prescott; University of Michigan, Jesse S. Reeves; University of Minnesota, William A. Schaper; University of Missouri, John D. Lawson; University of Nebraska, Edwin Maxey; College of the City of New York, Walter E. Clark; New York University, F. W. Aymar; Northwestern University, Charles Cheney Hyde; University of Notre Dame, William Hoynes; Oberlin College, Karl F. Geiser; University of Pennsylvania, Leo S. Rowe; University of Pittsburgh, Francis N. Thorpe; Princeton University, Philip Brown; Swarthmore College, William I. Hull; Syracuse University, Earl E. Sperry; University of Texas, William R. Manning; Tufts College, Arthur I. Andrews; Union College, Charles J. Herrick; University of Virginia, Raleigh C. Minor; Washington University, Edward C. Eliot; Western Reserve University, Francis W. Dickey; University of West Virginia, James M. Callahan; University of Wisconsin, Stanley K. Hornbeck; Yale University, Gordon E. Sherman.

The conference was opened by the Honorable Elihu Root on Thursday morning, April 23, 1914, at ten o'clock, with a short but very important address in which he showed his great interest in the subject. At the close of this session His Excellency Mr. da Gama, the Ambassador from Brazil, also addressed the delegates. The following points were placed before the conference for consideration and recommendations:

1. Plans for increasing the facilities for the study of international law; for placing the instruction on a more uniform and scientific basis; and for drawing the line between undergraduate and graduate instruction.

2. The question of requiring a knowledge of the elements of international law for candidates for advanced degrees.

3. The advisability of urging all institutions with graduate courses in law to add a course in international law where not already given.

4. The advisability of calling the attention of the State bar examiners to the importance of requiring some knowledge of the elements of international law in examinations for admission to the bar.

5. The advisability of requesting the American Bar Association, through its appropriate committee, to consider the question of including the study of international law in its recommendations for a deeper and wider training for admission to the bar.

6. The desirability and feasibility of plans for securing the services of professors

of or lecturers on international law to whom can be assigned definite lecture pericds in institutions where international law is not now taught or is inadequately taught— the services to rotate between institutions where they will be acceptable.

7. The advisability of requesting universities which now have summer schools to include among the subjects offered courses on the elements of international law, and, if there be occasion for it, to offer advanced courses of interest and profit for advanced students and instructors.

Each of the foregoing questions was referred to a separate committee, upon which the delegates were appointed according to their expressed preferences. The seven committees were composed as follows:

COMMITTEE No. 1.-William I. Hull, Chairman, Walter E. Clark, Karl F. Geiser, Charles Cheney Hyde, Raleigh C. Minor, Jesse S. Reeves, Leo S. Rowe, William A. Schaper, Gordon E. Sherman, Frank H. Wood. COMMITTEE NO. 2.-George H. Blakeslee, Chairman, James W. Garner, Stanley K. Hornbeck.

COMMITTEE No. 3.-James F. Colby, Chairman, F. H. Hodder, William Hoynes.

COMMITTEE NO. 4.-John D. Lawson, Chairman, Charles J. Herrick, Edwin Maxey, H. A. Nix, Samuel P. Orth.

COMMITTEE NO. 5.-Edward C. Eliot, Chairman, Francis N. Thorpe, Eugene Wambaugh.

COMMITTEE NO. 6.-Philip Brown, Chairman, Arthur I. Andrews, James M. Callahan, Francis W. Dickey, Arthur T. Prescott, E. D. Warfield.

COMMITTEE No. 7.-William R. Manning, Chairman, F. W. Aymar. The committees held a number of sessions and reported their recommendations to the full conference on Friday afternoon, April 24th, and Saturday morning, April 25th. The recommendations were discussed and considered in detail by the entire conference and adopted by it, either as reported by the committees or with modifications or amendments. The resolutions finally presented and adopted read as follows:

RESOLUTION No. 1

Resolved, That the Conference of Teachers of International Law and Related Subjects hereby recommends to the American Society of International Law the appointment of a Standing Committee of the Society on the Study and Teaching of International Law and Related Subjects, upon lines suggested by the recommendations of the Conference.

RESOLUTION No. 2

Resolved, That, in order to increase the facilities for the study of international law,