Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

obligations. We should not be obliged to refer those who complain of a breach of those obligations to governors of states and county prosecutors to take up the procedure of vindicating the rights of aliens which have been violated on American soil.

I do not think that any one, however I will not say extreme, but however strong his view of the necessity of the preservation of state rights under the Federal Constitution will deny the power of the government to defend, and protect, and provide procedure for enforcing the rights that are given to aliens under treaties made by the Government of the United States. Therefore, it is no excuse, it seems to me, to any one who is a supporter of the Federal Constitution at all to say that he is in favor of a strict construction of that Constitution and the preservation of state rights, in order to defend his refusal to give the central government the means of enforcing its own promises. If it has a right to make promises, I think it has a right to fulfill them, or at least ought to have power to fulfill them. I can not suppose that the Federal Constitution was drawn by men who proposed to put in the hands of one set of authorities the power to promise and then withhold from them the means of fulfilling them.

Now, gentlemen, that is the thing that rushes into my mind the minute I see international lawyers, because it affects the international responsibilities that I for the time being have to meet. I thank you for coming here. I hope that your visit to the capital will result in something tangible in the way of recommendations that will be followed. I congratulate you on coming to a city like Washington at the time of its greatest beauty to give you new inspiration for the support of the national government.

The Society took appropriate action upon the death of Mr. Justice Brewer, vice-president, and the Honorable William L. Penfield, both founders of the Society and members of the Executive Council.

The Society elected as honorary member Mr. T. M. C. Asser of Holland, Minister of State, Member of the Council of State, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, Member of the Institute of International Law, and Corresponding Member of the Institute of France.

All of the officers of the Society were re-elected and the following changes made in order to fill the vacancies created by the deaths of Justice Brewer and Judge Penfield:

Honorable Shelby M. Cullom and Honorable Jacob M. Dickinson were elected vice-presidents

Mr. Jackson H. Ralston of the District of Columbia was elected to the Executive Council to serve until 1912.

The members of the Executive Council elected to serve until 1913 are as follows:

Hon. James B. Angell, Michigan,

Hon. Augustus O Bacon, Georgia,

Hon. Frank C. Partridge, Vermont,

Mr. A. H. Snow, District of Columbia,
Prof. Leo S. Rowe, Pennsylvania,

F. R. Coudert, Esq., New York,

Everett P. Wheeler, Esq., New York,

Hon. Edwin Denby, Michigan.

Owing to the fact that his duties as Ambassador to Constantinople prevents his attendance at the meetings of the Society at present, Hon. Oscar S. Straus was succeeded as Chairman of the Executive Committee by Hon. John W. Foster.

Mr. George A. Finch was elected Business Manager and Assistant Secretary and Treasurer to succeed Mr. W. Clayton Carpenter who resigned to accept a position on the Agency of the United States in the approaching arbitration between the United States and Venezuela at The Hague.

The following members were elected to the Board of Editors of the JOURNAL for the ensuing year:

James Brown Scott, Editor-in-chief,

C. P. Anderson,

Charles Noble Gregory,

Amos F. Hershey,

Charles Cheney Hyde

George W. Kirchwey,

Robert Lansing,

John Bassett Moore,
George G. Wilson,

Theodore S. Woolsey.

At the annual dinner, hold in the New Willard, Saturday night, April 30, 1910, President Root acted as toastmaster, and highly enjoyable and informal addresses were delivered by Hon. Charles Nagel, Dr. James B. Angell, president emeritus of the University of Michigan, Dr. Harry Pratt Judson, president of the University of Chicago, and Mr. Eugene Wambaugh, professor at the Harvard Law School, all members of the Society. President Root made the very comforting announcement that the Society had never solicited funds, that it had never levied an assessment, that it had paid its running expenses for five years, had conducted the JOURNAL as the organ of the Society for the past three years and more, and that it has on hand a balance of some three thousand dollars.

BOUNDARY WATERS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

On the fifth of May last the Secretary of State and the British Ambassador at Washington exchanged ratifications of the treaty of January 11, 1909, between the United States and Great Britain, relating to the use of boundary waters and the settlement of questions along the boundary between the United States and Canada,1 which treaty was negotiated by Mr. Root, when Secretary of State, assisted by Mr. Chandler P. Anderson as special counsel for the Department of State.

The purpose of this treaty, as recited in its preamble, is

to prevent disputes regarding the use of boundary waters, and to settle all questions which are now pending between the United States and the Dominion of Canada, involving the rights, obligations or interests of either, in relation to the other, or to the inhabitants of the other, along their common frontier, and to make provision for the adjustment and settlement of all such questions as may hereafter arise.

This treaty accomplishes these purposes briefly as follows:

It confers on both countries mutual rights of free navigation in all boundary waters on each side of the line, boundary waters being defined as the waters of the lakes and rivers and connecting waterways along which the international boundary between the United States and Canada extends.

It gives the residents on either side of the boundary the same remedies in the courts of each country, for injuries resulting from diversions or obstructions of water on the other side of the boundary that they would have in the courts of the respective countries if they were residents on different sides of State or Provincial boundaries.

It fixes a limit on the amount of water that may be diverted from Niagara River above the Falls on either side of the boundary for power purposes, following the recommendation of the existing International Waterways Commission as approved by resolutions of Congress.

It agrees on an equitable division of the waters of the Saint Mary and Milk Rivers which are partly in Canada and partly in the State of Montana.

It provides for the establishment of an International Joint Commission with power to decide all questions concerning the use and diversion of boundary waters and establishes a code of principles to be applied by this Commission in all such cases.

1 Printed in the SUPPLEMENT, p. 239.

It confers upon this International Joint Commission jurisdiction to investigate and report on any question arising between the United States and Canada along their common frontier on the request of either country.

11

It also confers upon this Commission jurisdiction to hear and determine any question whatever between the two countries by consent of ||

both.

The international boundary between the United States and Canada. extending from the Atlantic to the Pacific and across the Alaskan peninsula, for a distance of upwards of 3,000 miles, passes through the Great Lakes System and crosses a great number of rivers and waterways flowing from one country into the other.

The present prosperity and future development of the immense regions served by these waters on both sides of the boundary requires that they be available for domestic and sanitary uses and for irrigation and power purposes, and for commerce and navigation. Any such uses by the inhabitants of either country, interfering with similar uses by the inhabitants of the other country affecting the level and flow of the waters on the other side of the boundary, necessarily concerns the interests and rights of the people of both countries. Numerous questions of difference and causes of friction have arisen in the past on account of the injurious results which have been occasioned on each side of the boundary by the uses of these waters on the other side, and difficulties of this nature must invariably become more frequent and of increasing importance as the regions along the boundary become more thickly settled. Good neighborhood and comity between nations demand that the people of each country should be protected so far as possible against injurious uses of these waters on the other side of the boundary, and at the same time it is important that an opportunity be secured on each side for the utilization of these waters for all the beneficial uses above mentioned, not only to meet the requirements of present conditions, but to provide for the greatly increased demands which the growth of population will create in the future. As neither country acting independently of the other can adequately deal with this situation, the uses of these waters, therefore, must necessarily be the subject of joint regulations, if they are to be used to the full extent required for commercial development. on both sides, and if international difficulties in the future are to be avoided. The present treaty is designed to meet the requirements of the situation thus presented.

With reference to the waters defined as boundary waters, the treaty recognizes the primary importance of the use of such waters for navigation and commerce, and it provides that no other uses of such waters, in addition to those heretofore permitted or hereafter provided for by special agreement, shall be made except under the authority of the United States or the Dominion of Canada within their respective jurisdictions, and unless they are approved by the International Joint Commission established by the treaty. A series of rules or principles is adopted by the treaty governing the action of the Commission in all cases requiring its approval, and it is provided that in such cases the two countries shall have, each on its own side of the boundary, equal and similar rights in the use of such waters, and that these uses shall take precedence in the following order:

(1) Uses for domestic and sanitary purposes;

(2) Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of navigation;

(3) Uses for power and irrigation purposes.

Provision is also made for safe-guarding and indemnifying any interests on either side of the line which would be injuriously affected by uses of such waters on the other side of the line.

With reference to the use of the waters of rivers flowing across the boundary and of rivers tributary to boundary waters, it is agreed that, subject to any treaty provisions previously existing, each Government reserves to itself "the exclusive jurisdiction and control over the use and diversion of all waters on its own side of the line which in their natural channels would flow across the boundary, or into boundary waters." This provision of the treaty, as its terms imply, makes no change in existing conditions, but the treaty proceeds to establish a new rule for the benefit and protection of those interests on either side of the boundary, which might be injuriously affected by the use or diversion of such waters on the other side of the boundary, there being, under existing conditions, no remedy or redress in such cases. This rule is set forth in the treaty as follows:

But it is agreed that any interference with, or diversion from, their natural channel, of such waters on either side of the boundary, resulting in any injury on the other side of the boundary, shall give rise to the same rights and entitle the injured parties to the same legal remedies as if such injury took place in the country where such diversion or interference occurs.

« ZurückWeiter »