for reopening the question in order to consider any changes which may be agreed upon locally between the Newfoundland authorities and the American fishermen, and which are acceptable both to the United States and Great Britain.

SECRETARY ROOT'S VISIT TO MEXICO.

The visit of Secretary Root to Mexico in October was the logical complement of his journey around South America in 1906. He had visited the Republics of Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Peru, aside from making brief stops in Uruguay, Panama, and Colombia. He had been able to view with his own eyes the political, economic, and social conditions of the South American continent, and to mingle with its representative statesmen, but he could hardly have formed a thoroughly comprehensive idea, first hand, of Latin America without seeing Mexico and meeting her leading men. In considering our sister republics we ought not to forget that ten of the twenty are in North America, or closer to it than to South America. Among these ten, Mexico has a population, wealth, and commerce equal to the other nine.

The interest of Mr. Root in Latin America is not a sudden development. Long before he assumed the duties of Secretary of State, and while Secretary of War, he became thoroughly acquainted with the politics and people of Cuba, through practically administrating its affairs for three years, visiting the island frequently and finally establishing the Cuban Government. As he was, therefore, familiar with. Cuba and could not possibly absent himself from Washington long enough to call upon the other Republics of the Caribbean or upon those of Central America, it was fitting that he should accept the invitation of President Diaz and select Mexico to complete his pan-American journeys. When the Secretary of State returned to Washington he had established an unprecedented record of official traveling in foreign lands for the purpose of better equipping himself as Minister for Foreign Affairs. No other government has such peculiar associations with its neighbors as the United States enjoys with the twenty Latin American republics of the Western Hemisphere. Whether these have confidence in the policies of the United States and work with it or against it for the general good of all depends much upon the personal interest and attitude of the Secretary of State of the United States, and it does not take long for the statesmen, press, and people of our sister nations to find out whether the man himself who directs the foreign policy of the United States is in sympathy with them or not.

If Secretary Root had concluded his study of Latin America with his visit to South America, and had omitted Mexico, he would have failed to see actually, and therefore to grasp thoroughly, the material, administrative, and general possibilities of the Latin American peoples as a whole. While the achievements and progress of South America have been notable and have excited the admiration of the world, Mexico has advanced along special lines and has had a peculiar history which makes it stand apart from the others as an interesting and instructive field of study. In no other foreign country has American capital invested so much money as in Mexico. No other foreign land, with the possible exception of the Canadian portion of Great Britain, has more questions of interest in common with the United States, and no other nation of the Western Hemisphere has had such a unique and forceful character for so long a time at its head as Mexico has known in the person of General Diaz. There is in Mexico City a coterie of intellectual men and legal minds that rank well with those of the other leading capitals of the world. With all these conditions Secretary Root came into contact by going to Mexico, and, above all, he had the opportunity, so fortunate for any Minister for Foreign Affairs, of studying and understanding the questions of a neighboring country from its own standpoint and in its own home environment. As long as Mr. Root remains Secretary of State there will be a feeling not only in South America, but in Mexico and all Latin America, that he looks upon their own problems and their relations with the United States with both sympathy and practical knowledge.

The newspapers of the United States have not exaggerated the enthusiasm, warmth, and magnificence of the reception which was accorded to the Secretary of State in Mexico, while the Secretary himself has, from natural diffidence, hesitated to describe in detail, upon his return to the United States, how he was received and treated by the Mexican Government and people. All those, however, who followed the Mexican newspapers were impressed with the greatness and sincerity of the welcome given him by the Mexican Government and people. The American people, in turn, should feel grateful to those of Mexico for the honor the latter showed to their Secretary of State.

Perhaps there was no more important occasion, among the many gatherings in honor of the Secretary, than the extraordinary session of the Mexican Academy of Jurisprudence and Legislation, which presented him with a special diploma. It is therefore fitting that there

should be reproduced in the columns of the "American Journal of International Law" the speech which Mr. Root delivered in reply to the address of Mr. Casasus, the President of the Academy:

REPLY OF HONORABLE ELIHU ROOT UPON THE PRESENTATION OF DIPLOMA BY THE MEXICAN ACADEMY OF JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGISLATION OF

MEXICO, OCTOBER 4, 1907.

Mr. President, Mr. Casasus, and Gentlemen of the Academy:

I am highly appreciative of the very great honor which you have now conferred upon me. It is all the more grateful to me that in the ceremony which makes me an associate of this distinguished body, so prominent a part should be taken by a gentleman who, as the representative of Mexico in the capital of the United States, has not only taught me to admire his rare intellectual ability, but has won from me, by the grace and purity of his character, the warmth of friendship which adds especial pleasure to every new association with him into which I can enter. I feel, sir, that the compliment which you have paid to this little work of mine, produced without any idea that it should receive so distinguished an honor or find its way so far from home, I must ascribe rather to friendship than to any intrinsic merit of the work; but I thank you and I am most appreciative of the honor that you do me in causing it to be translated into Spanish and making it the subject of your resolution.

Circumstances have not permitted and do not permit that I should present to the Academy any thesis or discussion adequate to be associated with the admirable and well-considered papers which have been read by Mr. Casasus and yourself. I wish, however, in addition to expressing my thanks, to indicate in a few words the special significance which this Academy and my new association with it seem to me to have. We are passing, undoubtedly, into a new era of international communication. We have turned our backs upon the old days of armed invasion; and the people of every civilized country are constantly engaged in the peaceable invasion of every other civilized country. The science, the literature, the customs, the lessons of experience, the skill, the spirit of every country, exercise an influence upon every other. In this peaceful interchange of the products of intellect, in this constant passing to and fro of the people of different countries of the civilized world, we find in each land a system of law peculiar to the country itself, and answering to what I believe to be a just description of all law which regulates the relations of individuals to each other, in being a formulation of the custom of the civil community. These systems of law differ from each other as the conditions, the customs of each people differ from those of every other people. But there has arisen in recent years quite a new and distinct influence producing legal enactment and furnishing occasion for legal development. That is the entrance into the minds of men of the comparatively new ideas of individual freedom and individual equality. The idea that all men are born equal, that every man is entitled to his life, his liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the great declarations of principle designed to give effect to the fundamental ideas of liberty and equality, are not the outcome of conditions or customs of any particular people, but they are common to all mankind.

Before the jurists and lawyers of the world there lies the task of adapting each special system of municipal law to the enforcement of the general principles which have come into the life of mankind within so recent a time, and which are cosmopolitan and world wide and belong in no country especially. These principles have to be fitted to your laws in Mexico and our laws in the United States, and to the French laws in France and the German laws in Germany, and the task before the jurists and lawyers of the world is to formulate, to elaborate, to secure the enactment and enforcement of such practical provisions as to weld together in each land the old system of municipal law, which regulates the relations of individuals with each other in accordance with the time-honored traditions and customs of the race and country, and these new principles of universal human freedom. Now, that task is something that cannot be accomplished except by scientific processes, by the study of comparative jurisprudence, by the application of minds of the highest order in the most painstaking and practical way. In the adaptation of these new ideas common to all free people, the best minds of every people should assist every other people and receive assistance from every other people. The study of comparative jurisprudence, apparently dry, purely scientific, is as important to the well being of the citizen in the streets of Mexico or Washington as those scientific observations and calculations which seem to be purely abstract have proved to be to the mariner on the ocean or to the engineer of great works of construction. We ought to promote the existence of societies of this character in every civilized land and the free intercourse and mtercommunication of such societies, and the existence of such a spirit of comradeship between them, that they can freely give and take the results of their labors, of their experience, and their skill.

This is of immense practical importance in the administration of government and the progress of ordered liberty in the world; for, after all, the declaration of political principles is of no value unless laws are framed adequate to bring principles down to the practical use of every citizen, and the framing of such laws in every land is the work of the jurists of the land. It is because I may be associated with you in doing what little a lawyer can do toward helping to the accomplishment of this great beneficent and necessary work for civilization that I find the greatest pleasure in accepting your election as a member of this Academy and find cause for gratification beyond mere personal vanity or personal feeling.

Permit me to express the warmest good wishes for the continued activity, prosperity, and usefulness of this distinguished body, which has so greatly honored me by this election.

THE REGULATION OF IMMIGRATION AND THE DOCTRINE OF EXPATRIATION.

The subject of immigration is naturally one that has advanced to a position of greater importance in this country than in any other country during modern times. Its growth from the beginning is due to the migration of peoples from the older nations of the world to this continent. During earlier ages migrations were due to different causes, and were for different purposes than those which have impelled the more

recent migration to our portion of the continent. Previous migrations were due principally to the spirit of conquest, and they were en masse, and not individualistic. They were undertaken for the benefit of the state from which the migrants came, as in Roman times, and not for the benefit of the individual. The earlier migrations were for conquest, for colonization, or for commerce. This was true not only of Roman imperialistic expansion, but also of the Spanish conquests on this continent. A clear line of distinction must be drawn between this form of migration and that which is individualistic and properly termed immigration.

The Act of February 20, 1907, which was reviewed in the Journal for April, has made some material changes in our practice in regard to immigration.

The number of immigrants now annually excluded at our ports averages a little over one per cent of the total immigration. During the last fiscal year the number excluded was, in round figures, 13,000, while the total immigration was 1,285,000. These exclusions often involve extreme hardships, if not human tragedies, and many persons, both in and out of Congress, as well as writers upon the subject of immigration, have advocated the stationing of our immigration officers at the principal seaports in foreign countries, where immigrants could be examined and their admission or rejection finally passed upon, thus obviating the hardships that rejection at our ports involves. There are several serious objections to the adoption of such a plan. In the first place, this could not be done without the consent of foreign governments, and it is not reasonable to suppose that such consent would be given without our granting to them the right to station their officers at our seaports to determine which of our citizens would be permitted to leave the United States and emigrate to their respective countries. To grant such a right in the United States to officials of foreign government would be practically vesting such officials with the power to enforce writs of ne exeat. Furthermore, this would involve the regulation of the subject of immigration by international agreement. One objection to such a policy is that it could not be effective without countenancing the position of those governments which claim the perpetual allegiance of their citizens or subjects. This would involve for us the abandonment of an international policy to which we have constantly adhered from the beginning of our Government to the present time, namely, the maintenance of the right of expatriation, which was one of the causes of our war with Great Britain in 1812, and which, through many years of