Life! we've been long together, Through pleasant and through cloudy weather; 'Tis hard to part when friends are dear; Perhaps 'twill cost a sigh, a tear; Then steal away, give little warning, Choose thine own time; Say not good night, but in some brighter clime Bid me good morning. "Even so and in the same affectionate spirit let us say of them both "They rest from their labors and their works do follow them." THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL AMERICAN CONFERENCE The Fourth International Conference of the American Republics held its meetings in the city of Buenos Aires in July and August. The date of the conference is memorable as coinciding with the celebration of the centenary of Spanish American independence. Among all the features of the celebration of this great historical event there stands out prominently the meeting of representatives of the American republics for the discussion of the common interests of all America. The motions of homage and of condolence which were adopted by the conference well express the feeling of a common destiny and the mutual sympathy that animates the republics. The death of the great Chilian statesman and leader, President Montt, as well as the disaster which recently befell Costa Rica, when Cartago was destroyed by an earthquake, gave rise to a spontaneous and dignified expression of the common participation in such sorrows. On the other hand, on the different dates when individual American republics commemorated their independence there came an eloquent expression of the common pride in historic achievements, and the appreciation of how strongly the American republics are bound together through the course which their development has taken. The commemoration of the centenary is, according to a resolution of the conference, to take a visible form in the American products exhibition 'to be founded and maintained in Buenos Aires through cooperation among all the countries of America. Turning to the work performed by the conference in the development of international administrative law, we encounter the fact that expectations are often entertained in relation to international conferences. which in the nature of things are not justified. It is the purpose of a general international conference to determine a basis upon which unanimous or nest manmens weten may be had. Is can not in the space of a few weeks scire il pelimed piestions of an international nature, far less an it reform the world by entering into and attempting to deal with the lcmeste problems of ferent nations. The Fourth Pan-American conference inct seape the macrable criticism born of men anpracticable views: but it must alse be said that the responsible press of South America, when it came to consider the results of the conference, showed a high degree of appreciation of the exact nature of the work which these great international meetings can perform. The conference itself waived all purely doctrinaire discussions and dedicated itself from the start to the practical scintion of specite problems. It was not, in leed, unminiful of the great principles which underlie the solidarity of America. To these, eloquent expression was given from old and new points of view: but it was the unmistakable feeling among the delegates assembled that the relations of the American republics to each other were well enough settled as regards their general character, to enable the continental conference to pass on to the order of the day and to transact the specific business before it. Isolated speeches involving a different conception were quietly listened to and respectfully consigned to the printed minutes of the conference. The practical character of the work to be done was emphasized through the reports made by the different governments, which indicated that since the last conference far more ratifications of Pan-American treaties had been made than ever before. The work of the conference is embodied in four conventions and twenty resolutions, aside from the motions of a contgratulatory and commemorative nature. A draft convention was also adopted embodying the organic law of the Pan-American Union in Washington. The conventions cover such important subjects as patents, trade-marks, copyrights and pecuniary claims; while the resolutions deal with the organization of the Pan-American Union, inter-American steamship service, consular and customs regulations, census and statistics, the Pan-American Railway, sanitary police, the interchange of university professors and students, and the opening of the Panama Canal. Further resolutions express the thanks of the republics to Mr. Andrew Carnegie for his munificent donation towards the Pan-American Building and deal with the work of the Pan-American Scientific Congress. The permanent results embodied in, and to be expected from, this work are discussed in an article in this JOURNAL.1 1 Page 777. The Fourth Pan-American Conference has given a new and strong expression to the solidarity existing among American countries. It is a notable fact that at a time when a great many differences separated the governments of individual countries, they could yet meet together and in perfect mutual confidence cooperate in the solution of many specific problems of American international life. All the prophets of evil came to grief. As the delegates became acquainted with each other a strong feeling of mutual confidence and of security grew up, so that alarmist reports and forecasts were heard with equanimity and amusement. The International Union of American Republics may indeed be said to be well established when its work can be done in this quiet and effective a manner which involves a sincere mutual confidence and a feeling that the bases upon which our common action rests are well settled by convention, custom, and intimate mutual understanding. manner THE ANNEXATION OF KOREA TO JAPAN In an editorial comment which appeared in the JOURNAL in April, 1907, the international status of Korea was considered, with a review of the changes which had taken place in the Hermit Kingdom from 1876 to 1906. As a result of an examination of the various treaties between Korea and Japan, the view was expressed that Korea had surrendered its independence and that it ceased to be a member of the family of nations; for, by the treaty of November 17, 1905, Japan took charge of the external relations of Korea, which agreed not to conclude any act or engagement of an international character, except through the intermediary of Japan. The establishment of the Residency-General and Residents in Korea by the Japanese Imperial Ordinance No. 267, promulgated December 20, 1905, was a natural consequence and logical development of the status created by the treaty of November 17, 1905. For an examination of the successive acts by which Japan assumed sovereignty over Korea, see the editorial comment referred to above, Vol. 1, pages 444-449. It would seem that the agreement of 1905 and the government established in accordance therewith, have not worked satisfactorily, and on August 29, 1910, Japan and Korea concluded at treaty by which Korea was formally annexed to Japan. The agreement of 1905 was in fact, if not in theory, virtual annexation, but the treaty of August 29, 1910. annexes Korea and incorporates it with the Japanese Empire under the name of Chosen. The proclamation of Japan annexing Korea, dated August 29, 1910, stated that, "in order to maintain peace and stability in Korea, to promote the prosperity and welfare of Koreans, and at the same time to insure the safety and repose of foreign residents," it was necessary to make fundamental changes in the government of the country, and in order to effectuate this purpose the complete annexation of Korea was agreed to by the high contracting parties. The preamble of the treaty of annexation stated it as the desire of both countries "to promote the common weal of the two nations and to assure permanent peace in the Extreme East," and that the best method to attain these purposes was the annexation of Korea to Japan. The important articles of this important treaty are the following: Article I. His Majesty the Emperor of Korea makes complete and permanent cession to his Majesty the Emperor of Japan of all rights of sovereignty over the whole of Korea. Article II. His Majesty the Emperor of Japan accepts the cession mentioned in the preceding article and consents to the complete annexation of Korea to the Empire of Japan. For the purposes of administration, a governor-general of Korea is to be appointed, who is, under Japanese direction, to exercise "the command of the army and the navy and the general control over all administrative functions in Korea." In the Japanese proclamation annexing Korea, particular attention is devoted to matters relating to foreigners and foreign trade in Korea. Existing Japanese treaties are to be extended as far as practicable to Korea to take the place of Korean treaties which have ceased to be operative. Foreigners residing in Korea are, as far as conditions permit, to enjoy the same rights and immunities as in Japan and the protection of their rights is subject to Japanese jurisdiction. However, cases actually pending in any foreign consular court in Korea at the time of the treaty of annexation shall remain in said court until final decision. For the treaty of annexation, the proclamation of annexation, the Imperial rescript attached to the proclamation and treaty of annexation, and the announcement of the Japanese Foreign Office, all of which are dated August 29, 1910, see SUPPLEMENT, p. 1. The absorption of Korea is thus complete. It has ceased to exist as a nation and has even surrendered the name by which it was known in the family of nations. The situation in Korea has been a cause of trouble and difficulty in the Far East for many years, whether as a dependency of China or as an independent but struggling kingdom, exposed to designs on the part of its powerful neighbors, Russia and Japan. The protectorate created by the agreement of 1905 was but a step toward the absorption of the kingdom. It indicated clearly the ultimate intention of Japan, but it did not wholly subject it to the administrative control and domination of the protector. The formal annexation of Korea will no doubt be regretted by the Koreans who desire its independence, but there can be little doubt that its annexation will, in the language of the Japanese proclamation, "maintain peace and stability in Korea and promote the prosperity and welfare of Koreans, and at the same time insure the safety and repose of foreign residents." "EL CHAMIZAL" DISPUTE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO The announcement some time since that Mexico has accepted Secretary Knox's proposal for the arbitration of the long-pending controversy between the United States and Mexico over the international boundary at El Paso, Texas, would seem to promise an early solution of the only important boundary dispute now existing between the two countries concerned. The agreement provides that the matter is to be referred to the International Boundary Commission, now composed of two commissioners one of whom this Government appoints and the other Mexico which is to be augmented for the sole purpose of determining the international title to the land in dispute by the addition of a third commissioner who is to act as umpire and preside over the deliberations of the commission. This commissioner is to be a Canalian jurist, to be selected by the two governments, acting in common accord, or failing such agreement, to be appointed by the Government of the Dominion of Canada, and the decision of this commission upon the title to the land in dispute is to be final and conclusive. - The land involved in the dispute referred to, estimated at some six hundred acres, is within the so-called El Chamizal tract, which lies south of the channel of the Rio Grande as it ran in 1853 and north of the present channel of the river. Under the treaties of 1848 and 1853, which will be later discussed in detail, the Rio Grande from its mouth until it passes El Paso, Texas, forms the international boundary line between the United States and Mexico, and it is by virtue of certain provisions of these treaties that the people of Texas lay claim to the land in question, the said Chamizal tract lying wholly north, i. e., on the American side of the river as it now flows. |