Page images

in our former attitude on the subject. In this connection it should be noted that, since the fur-seal business has been taken over by the Government and no private interests are now concerned in making a profit out of it, there is no urgent necessity for imposing by legislation stringent limitations upon land killing. Legislation on this subject, therefore, may well be postponed until after the enactment of legislation necessary to give effect to our obligations under this convention.

It must also be remembered that this convention runs for a fixed period of only 15 years and can be terminated at the end of that period by any of the parties, so that it is of the utmost importance that this Government should deal with this subject not only in a way which will satisfy the other parties interested that they are receiving their fair share of the increase of the herd resulting from the cessation of pelagic sealing but also in such a way as to enable this Government to demonstrate that the killing of the surplus male seals on land is not detrimental to the welfare of the herd. It is evident, however, that this question can not fairly be tested if land killing and pelagic sealing are both prohibited at the same time, and it would be most unfortunate if we should lose the opportunity, which is now presented for the first time by virtue of this convention, of demonstrating by the test of actual experience the soundness of the position maintained by us throughout the controversy, and upon the soundness of which depends the permanent solution of this question in the manner provided for in this convention. WM. H. TAFT.

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 14, 1912.


Whether or not diplomatic agents should be recommissioned by the new sovereign, or whether or not the accession of the sovereign be looked upon as an international event, the passing of a President of the United States and the advent of his successor are purely domestic matters and have no necessary effect upon foreign affairs or diplomatic agents of the United States. The nation is one and the same and its diplomatic agents, after as before, represent the nation, not the President by whom they have been appointed, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.

President Taft has been succeeded by President Wilson; the one has become a private citizen; the other chief magistrate, and the latter will in turn give way some years hence to President As it has been

epigrammatically, if not quite accurately, said: President Taft drove up Pennsylvania Avenue with Professor Wilson and in a couple of hours President Wilson drove down Pennsylvania Avenue with Professor Taft.

The question has often been asked: What shall we do with our exPresidents? President Taft has answered this by accepting a professor

ship of international and constitutional law in Yale, of which he is the most conspicuous graduate. Others have retired to private life and have lived in dignified retirement, and have busied themselves but rarely, if at all, with public affairs. Mr. John Quincy Adams entered the lower House of Congress and is best remembered for his services in this body. Mr. Johnson ended a stormy career in the Senate. Mr. Arthur made arrangements to practise law. Mr. Cleveland actually did practise law during the interval between his first and second presidency. Mr. Benjamin Harrison returned to the Bar and represented Venezuela before the Venezuelan Arbitration. Mr. Cleveland after his second presidency retired to Princeton and was associated with its university. Colonel Roosevelt entered journalism. The ex-President is a private citizen, distinguished among his fellows by his former greatness, but still a private citizen.

Mr. Taft has returned neither to the Bar nor to the Bench, but has dignified the profession of teaching by accepting the Kent professorship at Yale. He is to be congratulated upon his choice, and the American people wish him years of usefulness amid new and yet familiar scenes, for he has always been, as now, a loyal and devoted son of Yale.


A recent article in the January and February numbers of the Japanese Review of International Law and Diplomacy makes a peculiar appeal to the sympathy of American readers. Before discussing it, however, it will be of interest to prefix a few words about the Review itself. Founded in 1902 as the organ of Japanese professors, it has entered upon the eleventh year of its existence. With the October, 1912, number, which begins the eleventh volume, it would seem to have entered upon a new and larger career. Previous to this issue it was called the Review of International Law. With the October number it has enlarged its contents so as to include the subject of Diplomacy, and the table of contents, printed in English, enables the reader to note by comparison with previous years that its scope, as well as its contents, is materially enlarged. It appears monthly with the exception of two months during the summer, so that the volume of the year contains ten numbers.

An examination of the table of contents of the last two numbers which have been received (January and February) shows the interesting

subjects treated, but the fact that it is in Japanese makes it, as it were, a sealed book, except for an occasional article which appears in English. The contents of the January number are:

1. Hugo Grotius (an article in Japanese and English, with portrait of Grotius as frontispiece).

2. International Law in Japan.

3. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

4. On the Panama Canal.

5. Great Powers from the point of view of International Law.

6. Notes on European Diplomatic Affairs.

7. On the Bagdad Railway.

8. Notes on American Affairs.

9. Japan and the United States of America, an Instance of the American Protection of Japanese Interests.

Documents, correspondence, etc.

The February number:

1. Life of Richard Zouche (with an excellent portrait of Zouche). 2. On the Conflict of Laws.

3. Great Powers from the point of view of International Law.

4. Conveyance of Passengers and Baggage in the Russo-Japanese Through Communication.

5. Position of U. S. A. in the Panama Canal Zone.

6. Annexation of States, Territories, Authorities and Inhabitants.

7. On the Bagdad Railway.

8. Land-Tenure Bill of the California State Legislature.

9. Notes on American Diplomatic Affairs.

10. Notes on European Diplomatic Affairs.

11. Japan and the United States of America, an Instance of the American Protection of Japanese Interests.

Documents, correspondence, etc.

Clearly this is a journal to be reckoned with, and it is a pity that the language in which it is printed deprives publicists generally of the profit they would no doubt receive from a careful reading and study of its contributions. The editor-in-chief is the well-known Sakuyé Takahashi, professor at the University of Tokyo, associate of the Institute of International Law, and author of the well-known International Law applied to the Russo-Japanese War.

The articles to which the reader's attention is particularly called are those in the January and February, 1913, numbers written by the dis

tinguished editor-in-chief on "Japan and the United States of America." It would be unbecoming in an American to set forth the services which his country rendered to Japan during the recent life-and-death struggle with Russia. It is, however, deeply gratifying to see them appreciated in such glowing terms by the enlightened editor-in-chief, who has visited this country and knows from personal observation the respect in which his country is held and the friendship for it which pervades all classes of our people. Professor Takahashi describes in the two articles what he considers to be a few of the more noteworthy instances in which the diplomatic officers of the United States rendered real and highly appreciated services in enabling Japanese subjects to leave Russian territory during the war. Professor Takahashi considers the present moment as opportune to call attention to these services. In the second paragraph of the first article he says:

At this time it is fitting to bring to light what the United States did for Japanese subjects in protecting them during the said war. This may be done without irritating any country of the world. On the contrary, it may prove how benevolent the United States is, and how righteous she is from the point of view of international law, in protecting the Japanese non-combatants who were in Russian territories and in the districts occupied by the latter.

Again, in a later passage of the first article he says: "Thus nearly all of the subjects in Manchuria returned to Japan under the protection of the United States."


In the second article he quotes an official despatch regarding the action of the United States in helping Japanese subjects to reach Berlin as saying: "Our thanks are especially due to the United States Ambassador to Russia for all his friendly efforts and care, without which none of the refugees would have been able to reach Germany in safety." The concluding paragraphs of this little article are quoted in full: Above are given only a very few of the many instances that might be cited to set forth the great and unceasing efforts exerted by the United States for the protection of Japanese interests during the war. To attempt to enumerate them all, so as to show Japan's indebtedness to the United States, would require volumes; the single instance above given serves well as an illustration.

No judicious reader could possibly glance over these pages without being made aware of the essay's intention, deeper than it may apparently seem, to bring to light the friendly attitude which the United States Government never failed to preserve during the withdrawal of the Japanese subjects who were found in Russian territories and in the land occupied by Russia. It has been an earnest endeavor to make both 1 Revue de Droit International et Diplomatique, Vol. XI, No. 5, p. 5.

the American and Japanese public well acquainted with facts hitherto comparatively little known. Peace among civilized nations must be the pedestal upon which international intercourse is to be placed; and if any two friendly nations breed estrangement, however slight, because of a sensational and groundless misunderstanding, fermented among the uneducated classes, then the more refined and the highly educated should be largely held responsible for the consequences. What perhaps seems a too minute exposure of details illustrative of the Americo-Japanese friendship, surely will not be regarded as casual, when viewed in such a light.2

The spirit which has animated Professor Takahashi is evident from the last quotation, and no greater service can be rendered by the enlightened of both countries than to call attention to the friendly relations which always have existed between Japan and the United States and which do now exist, notwithstanding temporary differences which are given by interested parties an importance which they do not deserve and which is wholly out of keeping with the best interests of the two countries. It is to be expected that from time to time there will be a clash of policies, as differences of opinion always arise in the foreign intercourse of nations, but, if the unbroken friendship between Japan and the United States be borne in mind and if the more refined and highly educated classes do their duty as pointed out to them by Professor Takahashi, and if, furthermore, the responsible officials of both governments are animated by the generous and broad-minded sympathy which pervades Professor Takahashi's article, we need have no fear of the future. Such articles as these should be widely read, for they make for good understanding and international peace. The AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW congratulates the Japanese Review and the changes which have been made and which cannot fail to increase its usefulness and, on behalf of American publicists, the JOURNAL thanks Professor Takahashi and his colleagues for their generous appreciation of the services which the United States was enabled to render to Japan in the trying circumstances of the Russo-Japanese war.



The official announcement that the Honorable John Bassett Moore, professor of international law and diplomacy in Columbia University, has accepted the position of Counselor in the Department of State is an 2 Revue de Droit International et Diplomatique, Vol. XI, No. 5, pp. 8-9.

« PreviousContinue »