Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:51:53.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Territorial Propinquity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Quincy Wright
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an exchange of notes of November 2, 1917, between Secretary of State Lansing and Viscount Ishii, Special Ambassador of Japan, occurs the following paragraph:

The Governments of the United States and Japan recognize that territorial propinquity creates special relations between countries, and consequently, the Government of the United States recognizes that Japan has special interests in China, particularly in the part to which her possessions are contiguous.

That states are more interested in the immediate neighborhood of their frontiers than in remote parts of the world, and are apt to carry on a disproportionate commerce and intercourse or even to expand in such regions, are facts familiar to all students of history and diplomacy; but that geographical position should create special legal capacities is a doctrine perhaps more unfamiliar and seemingly in conflict with certain traditionally repeated maxims, such as the equality of states. If peculiar geographic relationship gives rise to peculiar legal privileges and responsibilities, an absolute equality of states can not be assumed, although equality before the law or equal protection of the law might still be recognized. The fact is unquestionable that on frequent occasions the geographic position of territory. has been offered and accepted as a justification for exceptional proceedings, admitted, in some cases, to be otherwise contrary to the requirements of international law.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , July 1918 , pp. 519 - 561
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1918

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The claim to dominion of portions of the sea itself has been attributed to proximity. Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pads, ii, c. 3, sees, x, xi; Bynkershoek, De Dominio Maris, c. 2, par. 1; Pufendorf, De Jure Naturae et Gentium, Carew, trans., iv, c. 5, sees. 7, 8; Heffter, Europäisches Vdlkerreckt, sec. 74. A limited jurisdiction over contiguous waters, beyond the maritime belt, was implied in the American objection to the hovering of war vessels about its coasts while neutral. In a note of December 16, 1915, Secretary of State Lansing contended that “ This government has always regarded the practice of belligerent cruisers patrolling American coasts, in close proximity to the territorial waters of the United States . . . as vexatious and uncourteous to the United States.” The British Government was “surprised” at this “claim to distinguish between different parts of the high seas.” (Note, March 20, 1916.) The United States, however, reaffirmed its attitude with references to earlier precedents and to an analogy: “In time of peace the mobilization of an army, particularly if near the frontier, has often been regarded as a ground for serious offense and been made the subject of protest by the government of a neighboring country. In the present war it has been the ground for a declaration of war and the beginning of hostilities.” (Note, April 26, 1916.) This Journal, Spec. Supp., 10: 377, 379, 385. For German references to the Russian mobilization on her frontier as a “threatening measure,” see ultimatum, July 31, 1914, and declaration of war, August 1, 1914, Naval War College, International Law Documents, 17: 100. See also German note, January 12,1917, United States White Book, No. 4, p. 314.

2 The Anna, 5 C. Rob. 373 (1805); Scott, Cases, p. 684.

3 Prisenordnung, September 30, 1909; Reichsgesetzblatt, August 3, 1914, Art. 3a.

4 Dana, note to Wheaton’s International Law, sec. 178. See also Halleck, International Law, 1: 138; Westlake, International Law, 1904, 1: 116, who considers the possibility that an island, even within the three–mile limit, might be possessed by a non–contiguous state on account of prior occupation.

5 British and Foreign State Papers, 31: 1097; Moore’s Digest of International Law, 1: 266, 575.

6 Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, to Mr. Eames, Minister to Venezuela, January 24, 1855, Sen. Ex. Doc. 25, 34th Cong., 3d Sess.,,p. 4; Sen. Ex. Doc. 10, 36th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 225; Moore, 1: 571.

7 Mr. Fish, Secretary of State, to Mr. Preston, Haytian Minister, December 31, 1872; Moore, 1: 266, 577.

8 Decree of Buenos Ayres, June 10, 1829, British and Foreign State Papers, 20: 314.

9 Moore, International Arbitrations, 4: 3354; Moore, Digest, 1: 266.

10 Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, to Mr. Orma, Peruvian Minister, August 21,1852. Sen. Ex. Doc. 109, 32d Cong., 1st Sess., p. 12; Moore, 1: 575.

11 The term “sphere of influence” or “sphere of action” has been employed in numerous agreements between European Powers to indicate uninhabited or savage regions upon which an option is gained by one Power as against the other. For references to these agreements, of which Great Britain has concluded some twenty with Germany, France, Portugal, Italy, Congo, and Russia since 1885, see Cobbett, Cases, 1: 113. Hall says, “The term sphere of influence . . . indicates the regions which geographically are adjacent to or politically group themselves naturally with possessions or protectorates but which have not actually been so reduced into control that the minimum of the powers which are implied in a protectorate can be exercised with tolerable regularity” (Higgins ed., 1917, p. 131). The term sphere of interest, on the other hand, has ordinarily been used to refer to particular interests within more or less civilized states, of states already having interests adjacent thereto. In these agreements geographical proximity has commonly been referred to. {Infra, notes 83 et seq.) On the ‘ hinterland” doctrine, see Great Britain, note, June 14, 1890, Parliamentary Papers, Africa, No. 5 (1890), and regulations proposed by Sir Thomas Barclay, International Law and Practice, London, 1917, p. 73.

12 Papers relating to the Treaty of Washington, 5: 5, 21–22; Moore, 1: 265.

13 Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of State, to Mr. Pakenham, British Minister, September 3, 1844, Sen. Ex. Doc. 1, 29th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 149; House Ex. Doc. 2, ibid.; Calhoun’s Works, 5: 432; Moore, 1: 264.

14 British and Foreign State Papers, 76: 19 (Arts. 34, 35). The United States has not become a party to this convention. Foreign Relations, 1885, p. 442; Moore, 1: 268. See also, Cobbett, Cases, 1: 108; Westlake, International Law, London, 1904, 1: 104; Hall, International Law, Higgins ed., p. 116.

14a On rare occasions, territory has been voluntarily ceded on grounds of propinquity to the receiving state. Thus, by a treaty of July 1, 1890, Great Britain ceded Heligoland to Germany, the Marquis of Salisbury explaining that ‘It was probably retained by this country in 1814, because of its proximity to Hanover, the crown of which was then united to that of England.” (Parliamentary Papers, Africa, No. 6 [1890].) By the treaty of April 8, 1904 (Art. 5), Great Britain ceded to France the lies de Los, opposite Kanakry, the Marquis of Lansdowne explaining that “Their geographical position connects them closely with French Guiana and their possession by any power other than France might become a serious menace to that colony.” (Martens, N. R. G., II, 32: 12. See also statement by M. Delcassé, ibid., 32: 48.)

15 Richardson, Messages, 6: 688; Moore, 1: 591. See also the remarks of Senator Douglas in 1845, quoted, Hart, A. B., The Monroe Doctrine, Boston, 1916, p. 133 Google Scholar.

15a As in John Fiske’s well known essay on “Manifest Destiny,” American Political Ideas, New York, 1885, p. 151.

16 Infra, note 99.

17 Mr. Everett, Secretary of State, to Mr. Crampton, British Minister, December 1, 1852, British and Foreign State Papers, 44: 197; Moore, 6: 463.

18 Richardson, Messages, 5: 198. The Ostend Manifesto of 1854, which seemed to contemplate an extreme application of this policy, was virtually repudiated by the administration. House Ex. Doc. 93, 33d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 131; Foster, J. W., A Century of American Diplomacy, 1901, p. 346 Google Scholar.

19 Burgess, J. W., Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law, Boston 1890, 1: 41 Google Scholar. See also Shepherd, W. R., Proc. Am. Acad, of Pol. Sci., 7: 393 Google Scholar.

20 von Bernhardi, F., Germany and the Next War, 1911, trans. 1914, pp. 21–22 Google Scholar.

21 At the International American Conference of 1890, the delegates voted unanimously, “That the principle of conquest shall not, during the continuance of the treaty of arbitration, be recognized as admissible under American public law.” (Minutes, p. 806; Moore, 1: 292.) The arbitration plan, however, never became operative. The United States Supreme Court has said, “A war declared by Congress can never be presumed to be waged for the purpose of conquest or the acquisition of territory.” Flemming v. Page, 9 How. 603 (1850).

22 Mr. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, to Mr. Romero, Mexican Minister, May 2, 1884; Moore, 6: 267; Bartram v. Robertson, 122 U. S. 116 (1887); Whitney v. Robertson, 21 Fed. Rep. 566.

23 British and Foreign State Papers, Jfi: 72 (Art. 3).

24 Lord Derby to British representative at Honolulu, January 25, 1878; Moore, 6: 264.

25 British and Foreign State Papers, 71: 590.

26 Act of June 26, 1884, 23 Stat. 57.

27 Acting Attorney General Maury, September 19, 1885, 18 Op. 260; North German Lloyd v. Heddon, 43 Fed. 17. For entire history of the case see Report of Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, June 14, 1889, House Ex. Doc. 74, 50th Cong., 2d Sess.; Moore, 6: 288.

28 Mr. Alvensleben to Mr. Bayard, February 16, 1886; Bayard’s Report, supra, note 27, pp. 3, 19,; Moore, 5: 290.

29 J. B. Moore, Opinion upon the question whether Congress can pass a special tariff act for Cuba without violating the most-favored-nation clause in treaties with other countries, January 14, 1902, p. 14, cited in this Journal, 3: 58 (note).

30 Mr. Knox, Secretary of State, to Mr. Laughlin, U. S. Chargé d’Affaires at London, January 17, 1913, Diplomatic History of the Panama Canal, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., Sen. Doc. 474, p. 95.

31 Ibid., p. 284.

32 Ibid., p. 318.

33 Mr. Bryce, British Ambassador, to Mr. Bacon, February 24, 1909, ibid., p. 81.

34 Proceedings, North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration, Sen. Doc. 870, 61st Cong., 3d Sess. (Oral Argument of Sir William Robson), 11: 1667. The decision of the Hague Court in this case against the contention of the United States that fishing rights in Canadian territorial waters constituted an international ser vitude, holding that such a servitude could be recognized “only on the express evidence of an international contract,” indicates that such customary neighborhood servitudes, if they exist at all, would have to be very strictly interpreted. Ibid., 1: 76; this Journal, 4: 958.

35 W. E. Hall, International Law, Higgins ed. p. 166; Moore, 2: 18.

36 The Twee Gebroeders, 3 C. Rob. 336; The Appollon, 9 Wheat. 362; Cooley v. Golden, 52 Mo. App. 52, Scott, 129, Cobbett, Cases, 1: 120.

37 The Peterhoff, 5 Wall. 28 (1866); Delagoa Bay Cases, British Parliamentary Papers, 1900, Africa No. 1; Moore, 7: 739; Cobbett, Cases, S: 473.

38 The Springbok, 5 Wall. 1 (1866). In this case questions of contraband were also involved. See also British Memorandum, April 24, 1916, sec. 33, U. S. White Book, No. 3, p. 75; this Journal, Special Supp., 10: 134.

U. S. White Book, No. 1, p. 67. See also British Order in Council, March 11, 1915, ibid., p. 66; this Journal, Spec. Supp.; 9: 110, 113.

Vessels trading with “ports of a neutral country affording means of access to the enemy territory” are to be brought in for examination, under the British Order in Council of February 16, 1917. See also French decree, July 7, 1916 (Art. 3), this Journal, Spec. Supp. 10: 11; Portuguese decree, September 8, 1916 (Art. 4,b), Naval War College, International Law Documents, 1917, p. 202.

40 U. S. White Book, No. 3, p. 74, sec. 31; this Journal, Spec. Supp. 10: 133.

41 Declaration of London, 1909, Art. 19; Mr. Lansing to Mr. Page, October 21, 1915, sees. 19, 21, 24, U. S. White Book, No. 3, p. 31 et seq.; this Journal, Spec. Supp., 10: 80.

42 Mr. Adams, Secretary of State, to Don Luis de Oris, Spanish Minister, November 30, 1918, American State Papers, Foreign Relations, 4: 545; Moore, 8: 405.

43 Mr. Adams, Secretary of State, to Mr. Hyde de Neuville, French Minister, January 27, 1818; Moore, 2: 408.

44 Ibid., March 19, 1818; Moore, 2: 80.

45 Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, to Mr. Almonte, Mexican Minister, February 4, 1856; Moore, 2: 421.

46 Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of State, to Mr. Ellis, Minister to Mexico, December 10, 1836, British and Foreign State Papers, 86: 1419; Moore, 2: 420.

47 Annual protocol, 1882, revived until 1885, again in 1890, 1892, 1896, the last to remain in force until “Kid’s band of hostile Indians shall be wholly exterminated or rendered obedient to one of the two governments.”

48 Mr. Lansing, Secretary of State, to Mr. Silliman, United States Consul in Mexico, March 13, 1916, this Journal, Supp., 10: 183.

49 Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, to Mr. Dupuy de Lome, Spanish Minister, April 4,1896, Foreign Relations 1897, p. 540; Moore, 6: 108.

50 President McKinley, special message, April 11, 1898, Foreign Relations, 1898, p. 750; Moore, 6: 220.

51 30 Stat. 738; Moore, 6: 226.

52 President Roosevelt, message, December 2, 1902, Foreign Relations, 1902, p. xx.

53 Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, to Messrs. Tassara, Mercier, and Lord Lyons, December 4, 1861, House Ex. Doc. 100, 37th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 187; British and Foreign State Papers, SS: 394; Moore, 6: 487.

54 Speech in Æolian Hall, New York, January 27, 1916, quoted in M. Calero, The Mexican Policy of President Wilson, 1916, p. 89.

55 Statement of Secretary Lansing, March 13, 1916, this Journal, Supp., 10: 183; American Year Book, 1916, p. 79.

56 Secretary Lansing to Mr. Anguilar, Mexican Chargé June 20, 1916, this Journal, Supp., 10: 211; American Year Book, 1916, p. 82.

57 Annual message, December 6,1904, Foreign Relations, 1904, p. xlii; Moore, 6: 597.

58 Annual message, December 5, 1905, Foreign Relations, 1905, p. xxxiii.

59 Hart, A. B., The Monroe Doctrine, Boston, 1916, p. 155 Google Scholar.

60 Resolution, House of Representatives, March 27, 1867, Dip. Cor. 1867, 1: 76; Cong. Globe, 40th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 392.

61 Secretary Webster to Hawaiian Agents, December 19, 1842, House Ex. Doc. 35, 27th Cong., 3d Sess.; Foreign Relations, 1894, App. II, p. 44; Moore, 1: 476.

62 Cong. Rec, 48: 10045–10047; this Journal, 6: 938.

63 Special message, April 29, 1848, Cong. Globe, 30th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 709; Moore, 6: 423.

64 Annual message of President Roosevelt, December 6, 1904, Foreign Relations, 1904, p. xli; Moore, 6: 576.

65 Special message of President Cleveland, December 17, 1895, and note by Secretary of State Olney, regarding the Venezuelan boundary dispute with Great Britain, Foreign Relations, 1895, 1: 543, 545, 558; Moore, 6: 553, 577.

66 Address before American Society of International Law, April 22, 1914, this Journal, 8: 440.

67 This Journal, 8: 440.

68 Hart, op. cit., p. 202. See also J. W. Foster, op. cit. p. 446.

69 Hart, op. cit., p. 369.

70 This Journal, Supp., 6: 27. See also explanatory comments by the Marquis of Lansdowne and M. Delcassé, Martens, N. R. G., II, 32: 3, 43. The Figaro (Paris) published in 1911 the draft of an agreement negotiated in 1902 between France and Spain, allocating spheres of interest in Morocco. It began with the assertion that “ Prance by the common possession of frontiers and Spain by the possession of the presidios and her various interests in relation with the territory of Morocco, have a preëminent interest in the maintenance of the territorial, political, economic, administrative, military, and financial independence of Morocco.” The failure of the agreement to receive ratification was attributed to the fall of the Spanish ministry. This Journal, 8: 869.

71 This Journal, Supp., 6: 31.

72 Ibid., 6: 62.

73 Ibid., 6: 207. Italian interests in Tripoli were supported on similar grounds. In her ultimatum to Turkey of September 28, 1911, after referring to her representations “ throughout a long series of years” requesting that the disorder and neglect and lack of progress in Tripoli and Cyrenaica might come to an end, Italy said, “ This transformation, which is required by the general exigencies of civilization, constitutes, so far as Italy is concerned, a vital interest of the first order, by reason of the small distance separating these countries from the coast of Italy.” Ibid., 6: 11.

74 British Parliamentary Papers, Turkey, No. 39 (1878), pp. 113–114; British and Foreign State Papers, 69: 947, 950.

75 Ibid.

76 Original, British and Foreign State Papers, 69: 758; English translation, British Parliamentary Papers, Turkey, No. 44 (1878); Annual Register, 1878, p. 226.

77 British and Foreign State Papers, 69: 1107.

78 Le Temps, June 20, 1913, quoted by J. Pericles Polyvios, L’Albanie et la Réumion d’Ambassadeurs à Londres, Paris, 1914, p. 141.

79 Le Temps, October 12, 1912, quoted Polyvios, op. cit., p. 53.

80 Polyvios, op. cit., pp. 54, 50.

81 Austro-Hungarian Red Book, 1914, Docs. Nos. vii, viii, xxv, xxxiv.

82 Supra, note 11; Cobbett, op. cit., 1: 114.

83 British and Foreign State Papers, 91: 91.

84 Ibid., 100: 555; this Journal, Supp., 1: 400.

84a Japanese Year Book, 1916, pp. 569, 571. See also the Russo-German agreement on Persia and the Bagdad Railway, August 19, 1911, this Journal, Supp., 6:120.

85 Agreement, May 12, 1894, Art. 3, British and Foreign State Papers, 86: 19.

86 British Parliamentary Papers, Africa, No. 5 (1894).

87 Agreement, June 22, 1894, British and Foreign State Papers, 86: 23. Hall (International Law, Higgins ed., p. 91) sustains the British position from a legal standpoint.

87a This Journal, Supp., 3: 6, 69, 294.

87b Pari. Pap., Siam, No. 1 (1909). A similar agreement was made with France with reference to territory bordering French possessions. Journal de droit international privé (Clunet), 1910, p. 78.

87c This Journal, Supp., 10: 5; Japanese Year Book, 1916, p. 583; American Year Book, 1915, p. 112. Other preference treaties are those of the United States with Cuba (1903), Panama (1903), Santo Domingo (1916), and Hayti (1916), giving the United States an exclusive right of intervention in certain contingencies, and with Nicaragua (1916), giving the United States an option on any possible canal route; that of Great Britain with Tibet (September 7, 1904, confirmed by China, April 27, 1906, this Journal, Supp., 1: 78, 80); and those of Japan with Korea from 1894 to 1907, leading to annexation by the treaty of August 22, 1910 (this Journal, Supp., 1: 213, 397, Japanese Year Book, 1916, p. 555). Although territorial propinquity is not specifically mentioned in all of these treaties, its practical influence is obvious.

88 Mr. West, British Minister, to Mr. Frelinghuysen, Secretary of State, August, 5, 1883, Foreign Relations, 1883, p. 527; Moore, 2: 440.

89 General Orders, 1864, Nos. 97, 100; Moore, 2: 368.

90 Mr. Forsyth, Secretary of State, to Mr. LaBranche, Chargé d’Affaires to Texas, January 8, 1839, Moore, 2: 363.

91 Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, to Mr. Romero, Mexican Ambassador, December 1, 1896, Foreign Relations, 1896, pp. 446 et seq.; Moore, 2: 380. See also Moore, 2: 371 et seq., and numerous references to Foreign Relations there given.

92 Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, to Mr. Fox, British Minister, April 24, 1841, Webster’s Works, 6: 250; Moore, 2: 412.

93 Special message, January 3, 1811, American State Papers, Foreign Relations, 3: 571.

94 3 Stat. 471; Moore, 6: 372.

95 President Monroe, annual message, December 2, 1823, American State Papers, Foreign Relations, 6: 250; Moore, 6: 402.

96 A. B. Hart (op. eit., p. 368), in his interpretation of the doctrine, puts this aspect first. See, also, J. W. Foster, op. cit., p. 438, et seq.

97 Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, to Mr. Bayard, Ambassador to England, July 20, 1895, Foreign Relations, 1895, 1: 557; Moore, 6: 552–553.

98 J. W. Foster, op. cit., p. 438 et seq.

99 Address of President Wilson to the Senate, January 22, 1917, Cong. Rec. 54: 1743. See, also, addresses by G. G. Wilson and Albert Shaw, at a Conference on Foreign Relations, May 30, 1917, Proc. Acad, of Pol. Sci., 7: 471, 489.

100 Guizot, F., Memoires, London, 1858, 2: 244–245 Google Scholar. W. B. Lawrence notes this resemblance of French policy to the Monroe Doctrine, Commentaire sur les éléments du droit international et sur l’histoire des progrès du droit des gens de Henry Wheaton, Leipzig, 1868, 2: 312.

101 Montague, Burrows, The History of the Foreign Policy of Great Britain, New York, 1895, pp. 120, 329 Google Scholar.

102 November 8, 1830, Hansard, Series iii, 1: 247.

103 February 18, 1831, ibid., 2: 702.

104 August 10, 1870, ibid., 203: 1786.

105 August 3, 1914, Parliamentary Debates, Series v, Commons, 65: 822.

106 British White Paper, 1914, Doc. No. 119.

106a Even military alliances have frequently had a geographical basis. The Chinese Government authorized the statement on May 19, 1918, that a military agreement with Japan had been concluded, because, “ on account of the propinquity of their territory, the governments recognized the necessity of a definite agreement for joint defense.” Leagues for the preservation of neutrality have, likewise, generally had a basis in territorial propinquity. In proposing an armed neutrality league in October, 1914, Venezuela urged the duty of leadership by American states on the basis of “their geographic position.” Naval War College, International Law Topics, 1916, p. 129.

107 See Freeman, E. A., History of Federal Government in Greece and Italy, 2d ed., London, 1893 Google Scholar; John, Fiske, The Federal Union, American Political Ideas, New York, 1885 Google Scholar.

108 Von Beust, Memoires, trans. H. de Worms, London, 1887, 2: 222.

109 See Hill, D. J., World Organization as Affected by the Nature of the Modern State, New York, 1911 Google Scholar; Allison Phillips, W., The Confederation of Europe, Oxford, 1914 Google Scholar. For texts of schemes of European organization, see Evans Darby, W., International Arbitration, 4th ed., London, 1904 Google Scholar.

110 Quoted by Alvarez, A., Latin America and International Law, this Journal, 3: 277 Google Scholar.

111 For attitude of the United States, see American State Papers, Foreign Relations, 5: 834–905; 6: 383; Cong. Debates, 1826, Vol. 2, pt. 2. See also Moore, 6: 416 et seq.; Alvarez, this Journal, 3: 280.

112 Alvarez, this Journal, 3: 282.

113 British and Foreign State Papers, 56: 1186; 58: 420.

114 British and Foreign State Papers, 56: 708, 709.

115 Ibid., 56: 711. Declaration of war by Ecuador, ibid., 56: 952. See also message of President Perez of Chile, June 1, 1866, ibid., 58: 586. The United States refused to comply with Chile’s request to intervene in the war. Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, to Mr. Kilpatrick, Minister to Chile, June 2, 1866, Dip. Correspondence, 1866, pt. 2, p. 413; Moore, 6: 445.

116 Mr. Olney, Secretary of State, to Mr. Bayard, Ambassador to England, July 20, 1895, Foreign Relations, 1895, 1: 557; Moore, 6: 551–552.

117 Mr. Hay, Secretary of State, to Mr. Vicuna, Chilean Minister, January 3, 1901; Moore, 6: 603–604.

118 Alvarez, this Journal, 3, 269, and the same author, Le Droit International Americain, Paris, 1910. See also conclusion of the Section on International Law of the First Pan American Scientific Congress, January 4, 1909, this Journal, 3: 252.

119 Foreign Relations, 1903, pp. 1–5; Moore, 6: 592.

120 Message, December 3, 1901, Foreign Relations, 1901, p. xxxvi; Moore, 6: 595.

121 Moore, 1: 292, 6: 599; Myers, D. P., The New Pan Americanism, World Peace Foundation, 1916 Google Scholar.

122 March 12, 1913, Myers, op. tit., p. 7.

123 American Year Book, 1914, p. 72, 1915, p. 116. See also President Wilson’s address to Congress, December 7, 1915 (Cong. Rec, 53: 95), and Secretary Lansing’s address to the Second Pan American Scientific Congress, December 27, 1915 (Myers, op. tit., p. 98).

124 Bulletin of Pan American Union, 41: 609 (November 1915).

124a American Year Book, 1916, p. 288. The relation of this solidarity of the Americas to the Monroe Doctrine and to the problem of a general guarantee of “the future peace of the world” was discussed by President Wilson in an address to a group of Mexican editors on June 7, 1918.

125 American Year Book, 1916, p. 288; Myers, op. cit., p. 108. The American Institute of International Law, at its second meeting at Havana, January 22–27, 1917, proposed the question for consideration: “Should the American Republics affirm, as a basis of international organization in their relations with the states of other continents, that the integrity and the sovereignty of the countries which constitute the American Continent or American World should be maintained; and, if so, should they declare themselves jointly and separately responsible for the maintenance of these principles? “ This Journal, Supp., 11: 50.

126 37 Stat. 630.

127 Supra, notes 112, 113.

128 Uruguay, decrees, December 14, 15, 1914, Naval War College, International Law Topics, 1916, pp. 115, 118. The special responsibilities of the “American states” are referred to in a Chilean decree, December 15, 1915, and a Venezuelan memorandum, October, 1914, ibid., 28, 129.

129 Naval War College, International Law Documents, 1917, pp. 60, 65, 77, 197, 198, 249; American Year Book, 1917, p. 50 et seq.

130 Message, President of Brazil, May 22, 1917. This recommendation was acted upon, May 29, 1917, and followed by a declaration of war, October 27, 1917; American Year Book, 1917, p. 53.

131 American Year Book, 1914, p. 99. See also Chinese supplementary proposal to Group I, of the demands of January 18, 1915, ibid., 110.

132 Groups II and III of demands of January 18, 1915, American Year Book, 1915, p. 111.

133 Group V of demands of January 18, 1915, American Year Book, 1915, p. 112. Kesulting agreement, May 25, 1915, this Journal, Supp. 10: 5. See, also, eight demands made after the Cheng Chia Tun incident, September 2, 1916, this Journal, Supp., 11: 113; American Year Book, 1916, p. 100.

134 This Journal, Supp. 12: 1; World Court Magazine, 3: 594 (Dec. 1917); American Year Book, 1917, p. 61.

135 This Journal, 12: 154; World Court Magazine, 3: 595.

136 The Imperial Japanese Mission, 1917, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of Intercourse and Education, Publication No. 15, Washington, 1918, pp. 103–104. World Court Magazine, 3: 520 (November, 1917). The Chinese attitude toward the agreement is indicated by the declaration of the Chinese Legation in the United States, November 12, 1917, immediately after publication of the exchange of notes: “The Chinese Government will not allow herself to be bound by any agreement entered into by other nations.” This Journal, Supp., 12: 3; World Court Magazine, 3: 599 (December, 1917).