The pre-Tridentine œcumenical councils of the Roman Catholic church were, as Dr. Francis Wharton has well remarked, international congresses, working toward the establishment of a uniform law for the civilized world. It was a law confined to one set of subjects; but among them were those having to do with the family relation, and which were therefore of the first importance to human society. Each nation of Christendom was represented in these gatherings by its sovereign or political delegates, as well as by its bishops, and it was for each nation, acting through its political departments, to ratify or reject such rules or laws in these respects as the council might propose.

The representation of political sovereignty in the Council of Trent was slight, and in the only œcumenical council since called by Eome — that of the Vatican — it was wholly wanting; Bavaria being the only power (though all European cabinets were consulted) which intimated a willingness to send an official delegate.

The dominant note of political development during the nineteenth century was undoubtedly nationalism, and the political forces of the century, intricate and involved as their action was, may be understood and analyzed with the greatest clearness from the point of view of the struggle for complete national existence and unity which was going on in all the principal countries of the earth. Nations are readily personified, and there is a unity and sequence in their action which makes it appear very concrete when compared with other political influences and movements. Thus, when toward the end of the century, after the great struggles in the United States, Germany, and Italy had been decided in favor of the national principle, it seemed as if the latter were bound to exercise an almost exclusive sway over the future destinies of humanity, as if the twentieth century would be taken up with a fierce economic and military competition among the nationalities who had achieved a complete political existence. Under such conditions, international or diplomatic action would have had for its main function the maintenance of a political balance or equilibrium which would prevent the undue aggrandizement of any one state or nation. Such indeed had been the original and continuing purpose of diplomatic action.

Because of the many contributions made by America to the world's ideals of government, the nation has the feeling that it is quite adequate to work out its own principles on all other subjects without the aid of any other people. “ What have we to do with abroad ? ” said a United States senator from Ohio, only thirty years ago; and the word “ un-American ” covers a multitude of virtues. In fact the roots of American institutions of all kinds, social, economic, and political, are in the traditions of the English race; and American ideals have been modified by the experience of other European nations. Nor has the western hemisphere been separated from the great current of world affairs. Its destinies have been closely interwoven with those of Europe; and since 1895 the United States has awakened to the fact that it not only is a part of the sisterhood of nations, but is destined to be one of the half dozen states which will powerfully influence the future of all the continents. The world is no longer round about America; America is part of the world.

The power to make treaties with other nations is an inherent attribute of the sovereign power of an independent nation.

Where the treaty-making power is exercised by the sovereign power of a nation, the right to treat with other nations rests wholly in sovereignty and extends to every question pertaining to international relations.

Where, however, the treaty-making power is not exercised by the sovereign power of the nation as a whole, but has been delegated to a branch of the government by which it is exercised in a representative capacity, the treaty-making power there, although it arises from sovereignty, rests in grant, and can be exercised only to the extent of and in accordance with the terms fixed by the grant.

So in the United States, where the people, as the sovereign power, have delegated through the medium of their State conventions or State legislatures the treaty-making power to a designated section of the Federal Government under the Constitution, such power rests in grant and is to be measured and exercised under the terms of such grant.

In his address to the First Peace Conference on May 20, 1899, President De Staal remarked:

The name “ Peace Conference,” which the instinct of the peoples, outstripping in this respect the decision taken by the governments, has given to our reunion, well indicates the essential object of our labors. The “ Peace Conference ” cannot fail in the mission incumbent upon it. It must produce from its deliberations a tangible result which the whole of humanity awaits with confidence.

Such was the keynote of the salutation with which doubt and pessimism were greeted upon their arrival at The Hague in 1899. Certainly, in 1907 the nations, after the impressive lessons taught by two terrible wars, whether anxious participants or silent witnesses, have a still more ardent desire for permanent peace, and the duty owed by the governments to humanity is not less solemn or less evident.

The Argentine Republic, like all America, was deeply moved by the military steps taken by England, Germany and Italy in the month of December, 1902, against Venezuela for the settlement of claims of various sorts. Among these claims, arising some from special contracts and others from material injuries sustained by the subjects of the nations mentioned in the revolutionary commotions and civil wars of the unfortunate Republic, was made to figure the collection of the deferred interest on the foreign public debt, outstanding in the form of bonds issued by the Venezuelan government for the construction of railways and other public works. The coercive measures adopted assumed at one time a character of extreme violence, the Powers going so far as to seize the Venezuelan fleet, bombard the cities of La Guerra, Puerto Cabello and Maracaibo and establish a rigorous blockade of the coast.

It was at this moment of veritable consternation for America that the Argentine Republic sent to its Minister in Washington the note of December 29, 1902, that has given rise to most important controversies and debates, which now, after the lapse of so long an interval, are far from exhausted.