edicts taking these steps were issued on the 12th of February. Thus the success of the conference was assured.

The Chinese love for compromise was a most potent factor making possible this success; another factor was the fear of foreign aggression. Both parties felt strongly that should two separate governments be established, one northern and one southern, foreign interference might be invited; that China's only hope of preserving her integrity lay in presenting a united front to the Powers.

It should be remarked that foreign life and property have throughout the disturbances been scrupulously respected by both factions. Foreign interference, however, would likely have united the factions and made the movement anti-foreign. Though no anti-foreign feeling manifested itself, yet in view of the seriousness of the disturbances and their general character, the American Minister at Peking was instructed at his discretion to advise his nationals in the affected districts to concentrate at such centers as were easily accessible to foreign troops or foreign menof-war. Practically all Americans in the interior have during the progress of the disturbances assembled at these central points. The United States Asiatic Fleet, consisting of a score of vessels, several of which had consignments of marines on board, have rendered efficient service in affording all possible protection to American life and property in the coast cities and riverine ports in the interior. The permanent Legation Guard at Peking, composed of a company of marines, was increased early in October soon after the inception of the disturbances to over three hundred, which number was later raised to about five hundred. American marines have also been landed at several ports, often at the request of the native authorities and then only for brief periods.

It is of interest to note that the American Government, recognizing the obligations connected with the rights secured by the protocol of 1901, consented to join the other leading Powers signatory thereto in maintaining an international force of troops to keep open the railway from Peking to the sea. Accordingly, on January 9, 1912, orders were issued. for the despatch of five hundred troops from Manila to north China, and on March 6th seven hundred additional troops from the same source were ordered there. This last consignment was to assist in preserving order in Tientsin and in the possible military occupation of the railway. These measures were acquiesced in by the Chinese Government.

In a note of February 3d, in reply to an inquiry from the German. Government, Secretary of State Knox declared for the maintenance of

China's territorial integrity, reiterated the policy of non-interference, except by concerted action of the interested Powers, and proposed that the Powers should extend the principle of neutrality also to loans. It is reported that the British and German Governments have stated that the substance of the note is quite in accord with their own attitude, and that Japan and Russia also concurred in the policy of common action for the protection of the common interests in China during the present crisis. With reference to loans to the contending parties, it might be added that the repeated attempts of both the imperialists and the revolutionaries to negotiate loans with foreign bankers ended in failure, owing to the early decision reached by the governments concerned, and that the latter's attitude of strict neutrality precluded them from favoring their nationals rendering financial assistance to either faction.

It

Yuan Shih Kai was on February 15th unanimously elected Provisional President of the Republic of China by the Nanking assembly. Tong Shao-yi proceeded to Peking as envoy to convey to Yuan the notification of his election and to invite him to go to Nanking, which was at that time fixed as the provisional capital. The draft of the provisional constitution was adopted by the assembly, under which the provisional president is empowered to appoint a premier and form a cabinet. is understood that after the creation of a permanent parliament that body will draft and adopt a final constitution. The resignations of Sun Yat Sen and his cabinet were accepted by the Nanking assembly to take effect on the inauguration of Yuan Shih Kai, which took place in Peking on March 10th. Tong Shao-yi, nominated by Yuan as premier, was confirmed by the Nanking assembly. A cabinet has since been named.

The concurrent resolution, introduced by Representative Sulzer of New York and passed by the House of Representatives on February 29th and by the Senate on April 13th, may be regarded as a mark of the traditional sympathy and confidence of the American people, expressed through the popular branch of Congress, with the new order of things in China. By the terms of this resolution the American people congratulated the Chinese people on their assumption of the powers, duties and responsibilities of self-government and expressed the confident hope that in the adoption and maintenance of a republican form of government the rights, liberties and happiness of the Chinese people would be secure and the progress of the country assured. This action was, of course, quite distinct from the executive act of recognition of the Republic of China, which will doubtless take place in due time in

accordance with the usual standards established by international law. Meanwhile, the United States has along with the other Powers entered automatically into informal relations with the de facto provisional government pending the establishment of such ultimate government as may be adopted.

Absolutism in China has received its death blow; and the new government, dedicated to the liberty, welfare and happiness of its nationals, and committed to stand for progress and reform, will, it is hoped and believed, worthily represent the great Chinese people.

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ROCCA V. THOMPSON

1

On February 19, 1912, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Salvatore L. Rocca v. George F. Thompson (in the matter of the estate of Guiseppe Ghio, deceased), affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of California that the public administrator, under the law of California, is entitled to letters of administration on the estate of an Italian citizen, dying and leaving an estate in California, in preference to the Consul General of Italy. The Italian consul based his claim to the right of administration upon the clause in Article XVII of the treaty of May 8, 1878, between the United States and Italy, providing that the respective consular representatives of the two contracting parties shall enjoy "all the rights, prerogatives, immunities and privileges which are or may hereafter be granted to the officers of the same grade, of the most-favored nation." By virtue of this clause the consul claimed the same rights as are enjoyed by consuls of the Argentine Republic under Article IX of the treaty between that country and the United States concluded on July 27, 1853. This article provides that, in case a citizen of either contracting party shall die intestate in the territories of the other, the consul of the nation to whom the deceased belonged "shall have the right to intervene in the possession, administration and judicial liquidation of the estate of the deceased, conformably with the laws of the country, for the benefit of the creditors and legal heirs." Two distinct questions were therefore before the court: First, was the Italian consul entitled by virtue of the mostfavored-nation clause of the Italian treaty to the same rights as are enjoyed by the Argentine consul under the treaty of 1853? Second,

1 Printed in Judicial Decisions, p. 535.

2 See for decision of the Supreme Court of California, this JOURNAL, Vol. 4, No. 3, p. 727; 157 Cal. 552.

did the Argentine consul enjoy under the terms of the treaty the right claimed by the Italian consul?

The surrogate of Westchester county, New York (In re Fattosini's Estate, 67 N. Y. Supp. 1119, and In re Lobrasciano's Estate, 77 N. Y. Supp. 1040), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York (In re Scutella's Estate, 129 N. Y. Supp. 20), and the Supreme Court of Alabama (Carpigiani v. Hall, 55 So. Rep. 248), had decided in favor of the Italian consul in cases arising in these States. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts had taken the same view as to the right of a Russian consul under the most-favored-nation clause of the Russian treaty. (In re Wyman, 191 Mass. 276.) The surrogate of New York county (In re Logiorato's Estate, 69 N. Y. Supp. 507) and the Supreme Court of Louisiana (Lanfear v. Ritchie, 9 La. Ann. 96) had expressed a different view. In none of these cases does it appear that the right of the Italian consul to claim, by virtue of the most-favored-nation clause, any right or privilege enjoyed by the Argentine consuls under the treaty of 1853, was questioned. In the Rocca case this right was questioned by counsel for the public administrator. It was urged that Article IX of the Argentine treaty was based upon reciprocity, in which the rights. enjoyed by the Argentine consuls were given for and in consideration. of valuable rights granted by the Argentine Republic to consuls of the United States; that these rights thus conferred on the Argentine consuls did not pass, automatically and without an exact equivalent, to the consuls of a third Power by virtue of the most-favored-nation clause; that if the contention of the Italian consul were accepted, the right to administer the estates of aliens dying intestate in this country would, in large measure at least, in view of the many most-favored-nation clauses. in this respect in our treaties with foreign Powers, pass to foreign consuls, in preference to the public administrator, resident heirs and next of kin, as generally provided for in the laws of the States, regardless of the fact whether the same privilege was or was not enjoyed by the consular officers of the United States in the countries claiming the right. The rule of construction of the most-favored-nation clause applied in the case of Whitney v. Robertson (124 U. S. 190), in respect of special concessions in import duties, based upon valuable considerations, was invoked. The Supreme Court, however, did not find it necessary to pass. upon this interesting question and expressly excepted it from the decision. The court found that even the terms of the Argentine treaty, "the right to intervene in the possession, administration and judicial

liquidation of the estate of the deceased conformably with the laws of the country," do not give to the consul the right to original administration of the estate, to the exclusion of one authorized by local law to administer; that the sole right conferred, whether in the possession, the administration or the judicial liquidation of an estate, is that of "intervention," and this conformably with the laws of the country. Intervention presupposes a proceeding already instituted. words of the court are:

The concluding

Our conclusion then is that, if it should be conceded for this purpose that the most-favored-nation clause in the Italian treaty carries the provisions of the Argentine treaty to the consuls of the Italian Government in the respect contended for (a question unnecessary to decide in this case), yet there was no purpose in the Argentine treaty to take away from the States the right of local administration provided by their laws, upon the estates of deceased citizens of a foreign country, and to commit the same to the consuls of such foreign nation, to the exclusion of those entitled to administer as provided by the local laws of the State within which such foreigner resides and leaves property at the time of decease.

The State courts, in the decisions above cited upholding the right of the consul under the treaty to administer, regardless of State laws to the contrary, necessarily decided that the stipulation was within the treatymaking power of the President and Senate. The Supreme Court, in view of the interpretation placed upon the terms of the treaty, was not called upon to decide this question.

MEXICO

For many years Mexico was justly pointed to as a Latin-American country which, by bitter experience with revolutions, had learned to appreciate the blessings of law and order. This state of affairs was due apparently to one man, Porfirio Diaz, under whose continuous presidency from 1884 to 1911 Mexico assumed an enviable position among the family of nations. It can not be denied that Diaz governed as a dictator, and that his government was emphatically a one-man's government, but there are times when a nation needs a strong guiding hand, and one man is better than none, or a coterie of aspiring, but mediocre, politicians. General Diaz would have done well to prepare his people for self-government, and, under his guidance, to train them in its difficulties and responsibilities. His failure to do so was perhaps his greatest mistake, as it was in large measure the cause of his downfall. It is indeed true