tend to alter, nor can it alter the law of nations." This question has given rise to much comment, but it is true in all respects whatsoever, that an Act of Parliament has no extraterritorial jurisdiction so far as foreign nations are concerned. It may command all persons owing allegiance to Great Britain, but it cannot command those who do not owe allegiance. So far as British subjects are concerned, an Act of Parliament creates law within British jurisdiction. Beyond British jurisdiction, the Act of Parliament is simply null and void and of no effect whatever, as impotent as an Act of Congress in the United States which would attempt to visit and search foreign vessels beyond the three mile limit, without the consent of the nation to which those foreign vessels belong. By treaty this may be done, but not by Act of Congress without treaty agreement or consent.

There was a sixth article of the Declaration of Rights and Duties of Nations which Secretary Hughes did not quote in his approval of the declaration, as it was not material to his purpose. It is fundamental to ours. Its acceptance will tend to clear up doubt and misconceptions:

International law is at one and the same time both national and international: national in the sense that it is the law of the land and applicable as such to the decision of all questions involving its principles; international in the sense that it is the law of the society of nations and applicable as such to all questions between and among the members of the society of nations involving its principles.13

This is merely a codification of existing practice. It is only a restatement of Lord Mansfield's opinion, and it is not inconsistent with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Paquete Habana. The article would, however, render it too clear for argument that an executive or legislative act or judicial decision of any country merely has the force of law within its territory and that the rights of other nations, and therefore the duties of other nations, are unaffected by an executive or legislative act or judicial decision of any country, however powerful it may be, unless in accordance with the recognized law of nations.

In the statements which I have had the honor to make, I have dwelt upon general principles. I have not sought to enter into details, believing that if general principles are well understood, the details will take care of themselves, and that an agreement upon general principles will enable the American republics to draft a code for their guidance, which will be of service to all nations accepting the general principles, although there may be here and there an occasional special practice due to geographical situation or local or social conditions.

The Americans have special interests, but these special interests must be brought under general principles of law. All the nations of the Old World are wiser than any one nation. The twenty-one American republics are

13 The American Institute of International Law. Its Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Nations (Washington, 1916), p. 88.

wiser than any one of their members, and the opinion of the entire world is stronger and more persuasive than that of the strongest of nations. When the first American republic declared its independence, it was "with a decent respect to the opinions of mankind." When the twenty-one American republics, through their accredited representatives, achieve the codification of international law, they will, of necessity, "show a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."

Let me quote, in concluding this portion of the remarks which I have had the honor of making in this distinguished presence, the language of Joseph Story, a North American judge and author, equally distinguished in the domain of public and private international law:

Now the law of nations may be deduced, first, from the general principles of right and justice, applied to the concerns of individuals, and thence to the relations and duties of nations; or, secondly, in things indifferent or questionable, from the customary observances and recognitions of civilized nations; or, lastly from the conventional or positive law, that regulates the intercourse between states. What, therefore, the law of nations is, does not rest upon mere theory, but may be considered, as modified by practice, or ascertained by the treaties of nations at different periods. It does not follow, therefore, that because a principle cannot be found settled by the consent or practice of nations at one time, it is to be concluded, that at no subsequent period the principle can be considered as incorporated into the public code of nations. Nor is it to be admitted, that no principle belongs to the law of nations, which is not universally recognized, as such, by all civilized communities, or even by those constituting, what may be called, the Christian states of Europe.14

If the distinguished publicist had stopped here, his language would have applied to the past and to fields admittedly within the domain of present practice. He does not stop here. He brings within the possibility of law the future as well as the past:

But I think it may be unequivocally affirmed, that every doctrine, that may be fairly deduced by correct reasoning from the rights and duties of nations, and the nature of moral obligation, may theoretically be said to exist in the law of nations; and unless it be relaxed or waived by the consent of nations, which may be evidenced by their general practice and customs, it may be enforced by a court of justice, whenever it arises in judgment. And I may go farther and say, that no practice whatsoever can obliterate the fundamental distinction between right and wrong, and that every nation is at liberty to apply to another the correct principle, whenever both nations by their public acts recede from such practice, and admit the injustice or cruelty of it.15

It will not have escaped notice that I have drawn upon the theory and practice of the English-speaking countries, as it does not become me in the

14 La Jeune Eugénie, 2 Mason 409; Fed. Cas. No. 15551 (1822).
15 Ibid.

capital of Cuba, the last of the American states to separate itself from Spain, that Mother of Republics, to affect a familiarity with Latin American precedents. But codification is to be of general, not of special, practice, and we of the English-speaking world must remember that the law of nations is not of English origin. The English-speaking peoples have indeed contributed to its development, but it is to a system of rules and usages which they did not create. International law came into being on the continent of Europe where it had assumed definite form and shape before there was an English writer on the subject, while England reposed in insular isolation and before its slumbers were troubled with those dreams of empire of which we in our own day have seen well-nigh unbelievable realization.

On the eve of the American Revolution, Lord Mansfield could say of a famous case in which he was engaged as counsel some thirty years previously, that the Lord Chancellor deciding it "argued and determined from such instances, and the authority of Grotius, Barbeyrac, Bynkershoek, Wiquefort, etc.; there being no English writer of eminence upon the subject." It must, therefore, be admitted that a perfected system of international law existed before the thirteen English colonies of North America had declared their independence, and it is a fact that the statesmen of the Revolution accepted the law of nations as expounded in the immortal treatise of Vattel, an eminent publicist of French-speaking Switzerland, and whose authority today decides questions of right and wrong in the chancelleries of the world. A code for the Americas must be conceived in the spirit of American liberty; it must be drafted upon a footing of legal equality, and it must manifest in all its provisions the sentiment of continental fraternity.

There is a universal law of reason, of justice and of conscience, of which the law of nations is naturally a part. Almost two thousand years ago Cicero felt justified in saying: "Non erit alia lex Romae, alia Athenis, alia пипс, alia posthac, sed et apud omnes gentes, et omni tempore, una eademque le obtinebit."

If Cicero were speaking today and if he were modestly to abstain from reference to Rome, he might say, "There is to be one law in London, in Paris and in Berlin" and, looking toward the sun which is rising, not setting, in the West, would he not add: "The same law in Rio de Janeiro, in Habana and in Washington."

That the American republics may in some measure contribute to the statement of this law and through their initiative lay it before the peoples of Europe in the form of a code is indeed an ambition worthy of the twenty-one free, sovereign and independent states of America.

THE OPIUM QUESTION

BY QUINCY WRIGHT

Of the Board of Editors

1

Congressman Porter's resolution of January 28, 1924, authorizing an appropriation for American participation in two international conferences on the opium and narcotic drug traffic to be held in the latter part of this year is the most recent step in the long history of mankind's fight against his own desire for narcotics. This fight has progressed by three stages.

The first stage began with the edict prohibiting opium smoking by the Chinese Emperor Young Cheng in 1729.2 In spite of this and subsequent edicts, opium smoking increased in China. Originally imported from India by the Portuguese, the monopoly of the trade was taken over by the British East India Company in 1773. Chinese cultivation of the poppy had begun in the seventeenth century, but the government's efforts at suppression seem to have been moderately successful at this time. Smuggling from India, however, continued until the drastic efforts at suppression in 1839 led to the first opium war with Great Britain. The treaty of Nanking which followed this war did not legalize the opium trade, and the United States by its first treaty with China made in 1844 agreed to prevent the abuse of its flag for smuggling (Art. 33). Nevertheless, illegitimate importation continued, and by the treaties of Tientsen made by China with Great Britain, France and the United States in 1858 the trade in opium was recognized and a tariff provided. The British and American negotiators both insisted that no pressure was brought upon China to this end. France and Great Britain fought the second opium war against China before the treaties were finally ratified. By the treaty of 1880 the United States and China mutually agreed to prevent opium trade by their citizens (Art. 2) and American legis

168th Cong., 1st sess., H. J. Res., 162.

2 See League of Nations, Advisory Committee on Traffic in Opium and other Dangerous Drugs (hereafter referred to as Opium Committee), 5th session, Minutes, p. 187. Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, on Limiting Production of Habit-Forming Drugs and Raw Materials from which they are made, 67th Congress, 4th Session, House of Representatives, 1923 (hereafter referred to as H. of R., Hearings), p. 124.

'Articles concerning opium in treaties before 1909 are printed in the SUPPLEMENT to this JOURNAL, Vol. 3, pp. 253-269. Americans were extensively engaged in the opium trade before 1844 and the treaty was not effectively enforced. See Dennett, Americans in Eastern Asia, pp. 115-127, 168.

'See letter of American Minister Reed and British Commissioners, Lay and Oliphant, SUPPLEMENT to this JOURNAL, Vol. 3, pp. 269–274. But see Dennett, op. cit., p. 325.

lation of February 23, 1887, made this provision effective. Since that time the United States has consistently sought to aid China in her struggle against opium.

6

Domestic cultivation and foreign trade, however, increased rapidly after 1858 until it was estimated that twenty-seven per cent of the adult male population of China were opium smokers, and according to Yuan Shi Kai, in 1912, "China has been dying from this curse for more than half a century. Her people overcome by the vile drug have been half asleep and have not known that they and their country were dying." In these circumstances an imperial edict of 1906 ordered the entire abolition of opium cultivation and smoking within ten years from January 1, 1907.8 An agreement with Great Britain, effective from January 1, 1908, provided for reduction of Indian export for a three year experimental period provided China reduced cultivation and importation from Turkey, Persia and other opium-growing countries proportionately. In 1911 the British commissioner made so favorable a report on the results of Chinese efforts that Great Britain agreed to end importation from India by 1917. Though the revolution of 1911 brought a temporary set-back, general opinion seemed to be that by 1917 both cultivation and importation of opium in China had ended,10 with the exception of some smuggling mostly from Hong Kong and Macao." The disorder in China since 1917 has resulted in a recrudescence of poppy growing 12 and in an increased smuggling of opium, morphine and cocaine, the last two of which had been introduced as "opium cures" during the period when smoking opium was difficult to obtain.13

'See Moore's Digest of International Law, Vol. 2, p. 651; League of Nations Official Journal, Vol. 3, p. 1038. On negotiation of this treaty see Dennett, op. cit., pp. 520, 543. H. of R., Hearings, 1923, p. 125.

'This JOURNAL, Vol. 7, p. 139. See also ibid., Vol. 7, p. 872.

Opium Committee, 5th sess., Minutes, p. 187. For Chinese laws as revised in 1921 see H. of R., Hearings, 1923, pp. 134–136.

• This JOURNAL, Vol. 3, pp. 835, 878; Vol. 7, p. 873; SUPPLEMENT to this JOURNAL, Vol. 3, p. 264 and statement of Lord Minto, Governor-General of India, 1910, quoted ibid., Vol. 5, p. 471.

10 H. of R., Hearings, 1923, p. 125; Opium Committee, 5th sess., June, 1923, Minutes, p. 186; Statement of Chinese representative Koo, League of Nations, Records of the First Assembly, Plenary Meetings, 1920, p. 543; Records of the Second Assembly, 5th Committee, p. 347.

"See agreement between Great Britain and Portugal, 1913, SUPPLEMENT to this JOURNAL, Vol. 8, p. 163.

12 See 6th resolution, Opium Committee, 2nd sess., April, 1922, Report, p. 12. The League Secretariat estimated the 1920 crop at 10 per cent of the 1906 crop (ibid., 5th sess., Minutes, p. 192), but this was considered much too low by the committee (ibid., p. 106). A British report in 1922 says: "The law which operates in restriction of opium production in the great majority of the poppy-growing provinces is the ordinary law of supply and demand, while in not a few of the provinces, there is an artificial stimulus to production in the form of compulsory planting under order from the military chiefs (Tuchuns) who derive a substantial revenue by taxing the ensuing crop" (ibid., p. 172).

13 This JOURNAL, Vol. 6, pp. 870, 885; Statement of Chinese representative Koo, League