Wlieve that the at the rear is the most HEN I say that there are many persons who bepowerful and practical official organization in the world for the preservation of peace among nations, I only repeat what has been written me by eminent statesmen not only of North and South America, but of Europe and Asia. Only recently one of the most influential men in Great Britain volunteered to me the information that, at an informal meeting of the cabinet of his government, one of those present had remarked, with the approval of those within his hearing, that he was confident that if there had been long established in one of the capitals of Europe, like London, Paris, Berlin, or Vienna, a Pan European Union, organized on the same basis and for the same purpose and controlled in the same way as the Pan American Union in Washington, there never would have been a European war!

To those who are not familiar with the actual character of the Pan American Union as an active international office, and to those who have not studied its past and present history and record of achievement, this may seem an extraordinary statement. To those who have watched its work and growth and have studied its relationship to the nations of the western hemisphere, it is in no sense surprising. If any man who is skeptical about this description of the Pan American Union could be present at one of the regular monthly meetings of the governing board of the Pan American Union; if he could listen to the discussions that go on around the governing board table; if he could familiarize himself with the resolutions which that board has passed, and if he could comprehend the vast work for commerce, friendship, good understanding, and practical solidarity among the American nations which the Pan American Union has carried on during the last ten years, then, indeed, he would no longer be skeptical, but enthusiastic, over its usefulness as a great peace factor.

It is certainly an impressive sight to see the plenipotentiaries of twenty-one nations and of one hundred and eighty millions of human beings assembling regularly each month, by international agreement, in the same building, in the same room, and around the same table, discussing with utmost frankness, candor, and kindness. questions and issues that concern the peace and welfare of the western hemisphere. At the head of the table, as chairman ex officio, sits the Secretary of State of the United States, representing that Government in the councils of the Pan American Union. Upon his right is the chair of the Ambassador of Brazil. On the left of the chairman is the Ambassador of Chile, and so on, back and forth around the table, are the chairs of the Ambassadors and Ministers, arranged according to rank. But the Ministers of the smaller countries, like Salvador, Panama, and Uruguay, have just as much to say in the discussions and just as much authority in the voting and conclusions reached as have the Secretary of State of the United States and the Ambassadors of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. For nine years I have been, in my capacity as the executive officer of the Pan American Union, present at these monthly meetings, which take

place regularly from early fall until late spring-in fact, I have not missed more than two or three meetings in this extended period, and I can say that I have never known one to break up with the least discord or unkind feeling. I have, however, known many meetings to discuss frankly most delicate questions, and more than once action has been taken which has had a profound influence upon the peace of the American nations.

This prompts me now to make a statement which may surprise men all over the world who are interested in the cause of peace and who read this publication, but it is so true that I think it should be generally known: it is my honest conviction that if it had not been for the influence of the Pan American Union as an international organization expressed through its governing board, representing all the nations of the western hemisphere, the United States would today be engaged in a long and thankless war with Mexico, and would have thereby alienated the sympathy and support of the other American republics. Supplementary to this, I would add that there is no doubt whatever that the Pan American Union a number of years ago was responsible for the prevention of an international war among the Central American republics which might have been as disastrous to them as the long revolutionary struggle in Mexico has been to that country. It has also indirectly, through its moral influence, stood in the way of possible war complications among several other republics.

What other international organization officially supported and maintained by a large group of nations has any such record as this? Do not these facts alone entitle the Pan American Union to hold a position in the peace movement of the world which should be backed by the grateful sentiment of peace-loving peoples in all nations?

It is generally agreed among peace advocates everywhere that there is no more practical agency for making peace permanent than the development of intimate acquaintance and real friendship among the peoples of different nations. The Pan American Union, through the enormous correspondence it carries on not only in English, but in Spanish and Portuguese, with the governments, countries, peoples, representative institutions, and leading men of the twenty-one American republics; through its monthly illustrated Bulletin, published in English, Spanish, Portuguese, and French, for which there is a greater demand than the supply of copies can meet; through numerous reports, descriptive pamphlets, and a great variety of printed data; through its Columbus Memorial Library, which has an up-to-date practical collection of Americana to the number of thirty-five thousand volumes; through its collection of nearly twenty thousand photographs illustrative of every republic; through its reading room, upon whose tables are the leading publications of each of the American republics; through the splendid inspiration of its beautiful building, which the greatest living French architect has described as "combining beauty and usefulness of purpose more than any other public building in the world for its cost"-through these and many other agencies, I say,

the Pan American Union is today doing a practical work for peace that deserves the interest, encouragement, and even enthusiasm of every person throughout the wide world who wants to see the end of warfare among nations and men.

If what I have written here seems to be in the slightest degree an exaggeration or arouses the question or interest of any person, I hope that he will take advantage of the constantly loose latchstring of the Pan American Union to confirm this story that I have told. Lest, however, someone might draw the conclusion that I was lauding my own work by this review, I want to say, in all frankness and truth, that the wonderful growth of the work and influence of the Pan American Union during the last nine years, or since it was my honor to be called by the vote of the twenty-one American governments to take charge of it and reorganize it, is largely due to the wise direction and splendid support which the executive officers have constantly received not only from the Secretaries of State of the United States, who have been chairman er officio of its governing board, but from the Latin American Ambassadors and Ministers who have so ably represented their countries in Washington during this period. Tribute is also due to an exceptionally strong staff of devoted, able, and loyal men who have aided in the administration of the office of the Pan American Union and who have been sincerely desirous to promote peace, friendship, and commerce among the American nations.

In conclusion, let me emphasize that we are undoubtedly today entering upon a mighty era of Pan American comity as well as Pan American commerce. Following the propaganda of this organization for many years, there has come now a widespread appreciation of Pán

Americanism which is working wonders for the development of a stronger and better understanding among the American nations. The fact that the President of the United States made Pan Americanism the keynote in his first message to the present Congress is evidence of the changed conditions that are upon us. It should, moreover, be pointed out that the silver lining to the great war cloud of Europe has been the development of Pan American solidarity, for probably that mighty struggle has done more than any other international event since the declaration of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 to make the American nations realize their interdependence and the necessity of their standing together for the peace and prosperity of the western hemisphere. Perhaps the most satisfactory development of the present growth of Pan Americanism is the gradual evolution of the Monroe Doctrine into a Pan American doctrine, which will mean that the governments and peoples of Latin America will stand just as strongly, with both their moral and physical forces, for the sovereignty and integrity of the United States, if it shall be attacked by a foreign foe, as the United States will stand for their sovereignty and integrity under the same conditions. This evolution of the Monroe Doctrine into a Pan American doctrine may yet be the most powerful influence for bringing peace out of the present international struggle, and then for preserving peace throughout the world. If all the American nations are banded together by such bonds of mutual interest that they cannot and will not fight each other, they certainly will gain that strength and power by example and influence which will enable them to lead the way to the maintenance of permanent peace among all nations.

HE American Institute of International Law was founded on October 12, 1912, in order to bring into close and intimate touch the publicists and leaders of thought of all the American Republics, and by an exchange of views to agree upon those principles of justice which should control the conduct of nations, just as principles of justice control the relations of individuals and set a standard of conduct applicable alike to individual and State. In order, however, that the principles of international law, based upon principles of justice, may be incorporated in the practice of nations, it is necessary that those principles shall be clearly understood, and that there shall be created a public opinion in their behalf in each of the American Republics, to speak only of the Western Hemisphere. To create this public opinTo create this public opinion, it seems necessary or highly useful to create in each capital of the American Republics a National Society of International Law, to be organized by the publicists of each country interested in the law of nations. A National Society has thus been formed in all the twentyone Republics: Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Salvador, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, United States, Uru

guay, Venezuela, and Haiti. There are therefore twentyone societies of international law, each a center for the study and investigation of questions of international law and the principles of justice, by which they should be settled, each disseminating just principles of international law and creating within each country a public opinion in their behalf.

International law is not the law of any one nation, but of all nations; and as it is therefore made by all, or consented to by all, the co-operation of nations is essential to make or to change it. The National Societies of International Law cannot work in isolation, if they wish to take part in the development of that system of law which is the law of the Society of Nations. They must therefore co-operate, and for this purpose they should have an agency to guide and to correlate their efforts, but which should be both created and controlled by them. The American Institute of International Law is such an agency, composed as it is of 105 members, the National Society of each American Republic recommending five of its own members, who upon election by the Institute become the representatives of the National Society therein. From this standpoint, the Institute is, as it were, a committee of the National Societies to carry

into effect the aims and purposes of these societies and to act as a center of communication with them and to correlate their individual efforts. The American Institute of International Law is thus a permanent body with a changeable membership, depending upon the recommendations of the National Societies. It is not an exclusive body, although it is exclusively composed of the members of the National Societies. It is not a selfperpetuating body, because its members are recruited and proposed by the National Societies. Its members may be regarded as the members of a distinct and separate organization, but only for administrative purposes, as by the constitution and by-laws any member of a National Society becomes of right an associate of the Institute, and as such entitled to take part in its scientific proceedings.

The publicists of the different American countries form voluntary Societies of International Law; they create by their own act the American Institute of International Law; they compose its membership, with the result that the National Societies are federated, as it were, or become branches of the American Institute, and the members of the National Societies other than those selected for the Institute for administrative purposes are associated in all the scientific work of the Institute. The objects, the office, and the function of the American Institute are thus stated in its constitution:

ARTICLE II-Object.

The American Institute of International Law is a scientific, unofficial association. It has for its object. (a) To contribute to the development of international law and to have its general principles accepted by the nations of the American continent;

(b) To encourage the scientific and systematic study of international law, to popularize its principles, to propagate their knowledge in their application to the conduct of international relations;

(c) To contribute to a clearer perception of international rights and duties, and to the formation of a common feeling of international justice among the peoples of the American continent;

(d) To endeavor to secure everywhere pacific action in the settlement of international disputes between the American nations.

ARTICLE III-Office and Function.

The American Institute of International Law aims: (1) To formulate the general principles of international law for the purpose of strengthening the bonds uniting the American peoples among themselves, in order to provide sufficiently for the needs of the American Republics in their mutual as well as their international relations, in such manner as to meet the juridical conscience of the civilized world;

(2) To discuss questions of international law, especially questions that may arise between the American Republics, by endeavoring, as far as possible, to settle them in conformity with the principles of international law generally accepted, or by enlarging and developing these principles in accordance with the implicit or expressed desire of the American Republics, in conformity with the essential principles of right and justice;

(3) To discuss the method after which the general and special principles of international law may be re

duced to codification, and upon the proper occasion to codify certain branches or parts of international law susceptible of codification;

(4) To obtain the general assent to those principles that may have been recognized as in harmony with the needs of the progressive society of modern nations;

(5) To contribute, within the limits of its power and means at its disposal, either to the maintenance of international peace or to the observance of the laws and minimizing the evils of war;

(6) To study the principles of justice on which peace between the nations must rest; to develop these principles so as to meet new conditions that may arise; to provide the means by which these principles may be realized in practice, and the observance of which shall lead to the maintenance of peace;

(7) To contribute to the triumph of the principles of justice and humanity that must govern the relations of the peoples considered as nations, by a scientific and methodic instruction in international law in the American universities and educational institutions, through conferences and addresses of a scientific character upon the questions and problems of international law and international relations, as well as through publications and other suitable means;

(8) To promote the knowledge and union of sentiments between the Republics of the American continent, so as to strengthen the mutual feeling of friendship and of confidence between the citizens of the American Republics.

The hope of the officers and the members of the American Institute is that it may be formally opened, and that it may begin its beneficent career in connection with and under the auspices of the Second Pan-American Scientific Congress. The organization of the Institute will be completed, and the work which it will immediately take up will be agreed upon at this its first session, as it is believed that many members of the Institute will attend the Congress, and will thus be able to participate in the formal opening of the Institute and in its labors.

In an article on the Second Pan-American Scientific Congress, which will shortly appear in the Spanish edition of the World's Work, the following paragraph occurs concerning the services which it is hoped that the American Institute and the National Societies may render in happy and harmonious co-operation:

"The importance of these National Societies and of the American Institute does not consist solely in the fact that through their successful operation international law may be developed so as to satisfy the needs of the American countries in their intercourse one with another. If this were the result, the formation of the societies and of the American Institute would be amply justified; but something more is expected from them. Meeting in the Institute, as they will, and exchanging views will tend to promote individual friendship and understanding of the aims and purposes of the different countries, and the co-operation of the different societies in the development of international law and in the dissemination of its principles among the people will tend to draw closer the bonds of friendship and of good understanding, which, it is hoped, will not be one of the least consequences of the Congress. But even a greater result can be reasonably expected from the successful operation

of the National Societies and of the American Institute of International Law. One society voices but the views of its members, but twenty-one societies and the American Institute, composed of representatives of these twenty-one societies, voice the opinion of a continent, which may not inappropriately be termed the juridical conscience of the Americas. When we bear in mind the fact that forty-four States met in 1907 at The Hague and discussed questions of a common interest during four months and agreed upon matters of importance to all, we note that the American countries lack but a single vote of one-half of all the nations represented at the Second Hague Peace Conference. If questions of international law be carefully and thoroughly studied in each of these twenty-one countries, if its principles be widely disseminated among its peoples, the result will be not merely the drawing together of the Americas upon a common ground through the successful operation of the Societies of International Law and of the Institute, but the nations at large in conference assembled will profit by their labors."

An interested party is likely to be partisan, or at least partial to the object of his interest, whereas the comment of a stranger is likely to be juster, even if less commendatory. For this reason the views of Professor de Louter, a distinguished professor of international law in Holland, are quoted as expressing what may be considered European-that is to say, foreign-appreciation of the services which the American Institute is expected by European publicists to render :

"The gradual coming together of North and South America has called into existence a new agency of pro

gress. The projects for a Pan-American Union which have been discussed for a long time, but never practically realized, have at last led to a definite result within the peaceful field of scholarly pursuits, thanks to the talent and perseverance of two illustrious men from the two halves of the hemisphere. In the course of the past year Dr. James Brown Scott, the distinguished jurisconsult of the United States, and Mr. Alejandro Alvarez, formerly a professor and at present counselor to the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who in June, 1912, had brought to bear a salutary influence at Rio upon the plan of codification, have, after a personal meeting at Washington, founded in the latter place, in October, 1912, The American Institute of International Law. This Institute has for its object: first, to contribute to the development of international law; second, to crystallize the common sentiment for international justice; third, to promote pacific settlement of all international disputes arising between the American countries. This luminous plan was born of the conviction that it is better 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."

A PRAISEWORTHY PATRIOTISM T HE beginning and growth of a state have their romance, tragedy, and mystery. The permanent organization of a people within definite territorial limits, aiming toward justice by a self-imposed system of laws, as the books say, is the state; and, whatever the state, it is an impressive phenomenon. Its function, by means of an independent government and within a territory of its own, is to organize and protect the best good of its people. It transcends the mere judiciary, legislature, administration. It involves all of these and, in addition, the very morality and genius of human organization itself. Historically it represents a strange and unpremeditated struggle of the people toward a better self-protection on the one hand, and toward a community of interests in a common worship on the other. But, more, it is a subtle, silent growth out of the very springs of human nature, occult, racial, unplanned, unconscious, what Plato calls the result of "infinite time." Like all life, states seem to rise because of their victory over forces which tend to destroy. In any event, it is true, as Socrates says in "The Republic," that states have arisen out of the very needs of mankind. And in a sense it is true, as stated by Aristotle, that they constitute the "noblest and highest good."

The passion to serve one's country, founded in loyalties to such conceptions of the state, is patriotism. And that states do survive is due in no small measure to patriotism. Witness the men and women who engage so faithfully and well in unpaid public service; the high intelligence applied to the development of practical philanthropy; and the reawakening in, and the reinterpreting of religious aspiration. These are today very visible and very hopeful facts in American life. The almost frantic appeal to the public schools by the various bureaus, by the peace foundations, by the trade organizations, by thrift organizations, temperance workers, fire underwriters, suffragettes, and others, pathetic from one point of view, is illustrative of the aspiring upbuilding forces within our state.

Never before have so many men and women thought in terms of the social need as now. Even behind the seeming indifference there remains a deep reverence for the state, the passion to serve one's country, that very fine virtue which we call patriotism. Patriotism is seen only in the rough upon our Fourth of July, in our cheap oratory-indeed, anywhere in the open. It is seen better in the man who gladly gives to the assessor a full account of his taxable property. It is seen in every man who lives consistently, actuated by the principle that his religious duty and his patriotic duty are one and the

same.

It is seen whenever we find a man who believes, and lives as if he believes, with Bishop Berkeley, that "where the heart is right there is true patriotism;" or with Virgil, that "the noblest motive is the public good." It is seen in every struggle against Chauvinism, bigotry, intolerance, fanaticism, error. It is seen in every person who has learned, and who lives as if he has learned, the lesson that the state is his great alma mater that what he accomplishes he accomplishes only by its aid.

The affectionate regard for states, characteristic of the Greek and other city-states of the earlier times, is not dead. The effort to develop in America states different from any known before will continue in spite of demagogy and other ills. The progress will go on. We shall continue to reach out for an increased ardent worldliness, a consecrated willingness to toil for the present, but not unmindful of the finer era that is to come. We shall continue to study conditions as they are. We shall apply actual experience to definite needs. We shall co-operate more intelligently, more consistently, more fearlessly. We shall do the best we can to breathe into politics and into public life a true evangelical spirit, because we believe that these things constitute the hope of an advancing democracy; and in doing these things, we shall sense the fine glow of a praiseworthy patriotism.

A LARGER CONCEPTION OF PATRIOTISM

It is true, as said by Chief Justice Marshall, that "no principle of general law is more universally acknowledged than the principle of equality of nations." It is true, as another learned jurist, Lord Stowell, has held, that there is a sense in which "distinctive states are equal and entirely independent." For certain purposes these great principles laid down for the Anglo-Saxon world are very true. There will, therefore, always be ample room and opportunity for patriotic service within the nations.

But states no longer exist alone. They are related endlessly. There is a sense in which states are not and cannot be independent. They cannot completely limit the interchanges of commerce. They cannot set boundaries to the reaches of religion. They cannot stop the transfusion of world ideas or ideals. Indeed, they cannot survive as now they are, without each other. The annihilation of space and time has gone so far, interchanges of production are now so infinite, that injury to one nation constitutes injury to all.

This is not a new conception. International law is the outgrowth of just such limitless international relations. It became necessary long ago for the civilized nations to organize rules binding upon them in their intercourse with one another. The result is that, as the international relations have multiplied, international laws have increased in number and importance. Over six hundred cases have been decided between the United States and foreign nations in accord with international principles of arbitration, friendly composition, or law.

In 1899 twenty-six nations of the world met at The Hague and made laws for themselves, some affecting the conduct of nations in war, others in peace. Indeed, they organized for themselves a court of arbitration which has already settled sixteen international disputes, some of which might have led to war,

But that meeting itself was not a new idea. Many plans for international organization had been proposed long before. Saint Pierre and King Henry IV in France, William Penn, and a number of others, are names associated with plans which received more or less consideration. But, most important of all, in the year 1840 William Ladd, founder of the American Peace Society, proposed:

"1. A congress of ambassadors from all those Christian and civilized nations who should choose to send them, for the purpose of settling the principles of international law by compact and agreement, of the nature of a mutual treaty, and also of devising and promoting plans for the preservation of peace and ameliorating the condition of man.

"2. A court of nations, composed of the most able citizens in the world, to arbitrate or judge such cases as should be brought before it, by the mutual consent of two or more contending nations; thus dividing entirely the diplomatic from the judicial functions, which require such different, not to say opposite, characters in the exercise of their functions." He added: "I consider the congress as the legislature and the court as the judiciary in the government of nations, leaving the functions of the executive with public opinion, the queen of the world.'"

In this remarkable and illuminating essay of 128 pages, Mr. Ladd outlines every essential peace principle thus far acceptable to or discussed by the nations.

In 1907, forty-four of the nations met at The Hague. At this conference laws, some relating again to war, some to peace, were stated, and afterward wrought into the practice of nations. Perhaps most important of all, the conference of 1907 adopted a draft convention for the establishment of a permanent court of justice-in other words, a supreme court of the world. All the nations represented agreed upon this court in principle. The only reason it was not immediately organized and set into motion lay in the fact that the nations could not agree upon the method of appointing the judges. The language of the vau adopted by the conference relative to the matter is important. It reads:

"The conference recommends to the signatory powers the adoption of the annexed draft convention for the creation of a judicial arbitration court, and the bringing it into force as soon as an agreement has been reached respecting the selection of the judges and the constitution of the court."

Referring to this vau, Dr. James Brown Scott, technical delegate to the Second Hague Conference from the United States, says:

"Like the prize court, the court of arbitral justice has not yet been established, but there can be no doubt that one or the other will be constituted, or that a tribunal with the jurisdiction of both will be created and be installed at The Hague at no distant date."

The two great important outstanding facts relative to the two Hague conferences are: (1) They were in reality law-making bodies; (2) the leading nations of the world have officially agreed to the organization of a high court of nations.

It is not especially important that these are the two things pleaded for by the founder of the American Peace Society in 1840. The importance of them lies in the fact that these two great principles are at the basis of the hope in an international peace, because it is these two great agencies, a law-making and law-interpreting body, that are to function ultimately as a substitute for