¹ For the text of the letter to the President of the Argentine Republic, see Inter-American Conference for the Maintenance of Peace: Special Handbook for the Use of Delegates (Pan American Union, 1936), p. 1.

The Diario of the Conference, issued daily by the Secretary-General of the Conference, Dr. Felipe A. Espil, contains a full documentation of the proceedings of the Conference. It was printed for private distribution among the delegates and is at present writing available in Spanish only.

The texts here used of the conventions, treaties, resolutions, etc., signed at the Conference or approved by it are taken from the bulletin issued by the Pan American Union, February, 1937, in the form of a Report on the Proceedings of the Conference, submitted to the Governing Board of the Pan American Union by the Director-General. It appears to correspond with the mimeographed texts issued by the Department of State. Authentic texts were not available at the time this article was written.

The texts of the conventions, treaties and protocol are printed in the Supplement to this Journal, p. 53, from authentic copies in the files of the Department of State in Washington.

² See Special Handbook, above referred to, p. 4. A resolution adopting the program prepared by the Pan American Union and ratifying its resolution recommending that preferential consideration be given to questions relating to the organization of peace was approved at the first business session of the Conference on December 4, 1936.

³ In a copyrighted article in the Baltimore Sun, dated Jan. 4, from Buenos Aires, the Foreign Minister of Argentina, Dr. Lamas Saavedra, appears to have reference to this draft treaty in stating that “when going over the text of the agreements or recommendations, no hypothesis of a European attack will be found, inasmuch as this would imply a kind of Monroeism…. those of us who know the antecedents of these facts know that, in order to adopt the two main agreements of the conference, we expressly indicated the need of eliminating all reference to this imaginative hypothesis, and that was done.” While the original draft referred to a “non-American” Power rather than to a “European” Power, there was a clear suggestion of the possibility of a threat to the peace from that source. The draft finally adopted generalizes the source from which the threat might come.

⁴ In his address at the closing plenary session of the Conference Secretary Hull emphasized this point as follows: “In a broad way the program contemplates the mobilization of the public opinion of all the peoples of this hemisphere in the effort to bring their combined moral influence to bear upon the solution of controversies, upon the defense of their common interest in the peace of the Continent, and upon the maintenance of the fundamental principles of international law upon which the stability of the international order is dependent. We believe this public opinion to be more than a passive element in the life of our peoples; we believe it to be a powerful force which must be brought to bear upon our common problems and which can give vitality and effectiveness to the efforts we are making for their solution.”

Specific application of the value of concerted public opinion was given by Assistant Secretary of State, Welles Sumner, in an address delivered on February 4, 1937, before the Peoples Mandate to Governments to End War, in which he said: “We know also that the Chaco War continued until a group of American Republics comprising Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Peru, Uruguay, and the United States, through their mediatory efforts, assisted the two parties to the dispute in finding a method of restoring peaceful conditions. Endeavors on the part of many of the American Republics throughout the period of the controversy to lend their good offices were not lacking, but there was no continental understanding of the purposes of consultation, there was no rallying of the forces of continental public opinion, and there was no agreement such as that which we now possess for obligatory consultation between us all whenever peace is jeopardized.” (Dept. of State Conference Series, No. 26, p. 10.)

⁵ See this JOURNAL, Vol. 17 (1923), pp. 611, 616.

⁶ The original draft signed by the Central American States reads: “absolute juridical equality.” The change was probably made inadvertently in the subcommittee which revised the Declaration after it had been voted upon by the Committee. The revised form was not discussed when it came before the Committee for final vote.

⁷ The plural, “soberanias,” is used in the Spanish text. The final authentic text reads: “sovereignties.”

⁸ The Declaration takes no notice of certain incongruous facts, one of which occurred at the time the Conference was in session, another shortly before it opened.

^{9 9}“American international community” would seem to be a better translation of “comunidad internacional Americana” in the Spanish text. “American community of nations” appears in the authentic text.

¹⁰ Compare Art. 11 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States.

¹¹ This principle had already been made the subject of the Protocol Relative to Non-Intervention which was a development of Art. 8 of the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States.

^{12 12}This was made the subject of a special resolution reported from Committee IV. See below.

^{13 19}The Spanish text reads: “arbitraje amplio,” which the authentic text interprets to mean “unrestricted arbitration.” An alternative meaning may be “arbitration according to principles with no element of compromise.”

¹⁴ “Judicial procedure,” as distinct from arbitration, would seem to be a better translation.

¹⁵ The suggestion was made that a compromise might be reached by creating regional courts which might act as courts of first instance, passing upon both the facts and the law, with an appeal to the Permanent Court of International Justice on the law only.

¹⁶ The Montevideo resolution uses the term “Commission of Experts.” See Seventh International Conference of American States: Report of the Delegates of the United States of America, p. 263. “Commission” appeared to be in general use until the Buenos Aires Conference when “Committee” appears to be preferred, although the resolution on Study of the Problems of Citizenship inconsistently uses the term “Commission,” as does the resolution on the Immunity of Government Vessels.

¹⁷ This phrase suggests a degree of prophetic insight which would add considerably to the difficulty of a study of present conditions. But the meaning is obvious enough.

¹⁸ In the original draft, to the Inter-American Consultative Committee.

¹⁹ The Argentine delegation was at first willing to accept this provision if at the end of the so-called “preventive period” decrees would be issued against one or other or both of the belligerents, taking into account the aggressive character of their action, as determined under the circumstances.

^19a Chile, Paraguay and Venezuela, only, have ratified the Protocol.

²⁰ “Nacionalidad” in the Spanish text is unfortunately translated as “Citizenship.” The Program of the Conference uses the term “Nationality.”

²¹ The Spanish text reads: “unificar el criterio de América y procurar una uniformidad de sus leyes locales, en materia de nacionalidad.” There is no antecedent for “sus,” but the meaning seems to be “to adopt a common American test of nationality and to bring municipal legislation into conformity with it.” The Program of the Conference on this point reads: “Unification of the international American principle and of national legislation with respect to the problems of nationality.”

²² The same as the “Committee” of Experts.

²³ Apparently a special committee, distinct from the Committee of Experts created by the Montevideo Conference.

²⁴ On this point there is a difference of opinion among the experts, some holding that it is within the power of the Federal Government to conclude treaties on all matters which are properly subjects of international regulation. Query, conceding the general principle, whether the direction to be given to teaching in respect to the promotion of international peace is “properly” a subject of international regulation?

²⁵ In his address at the closing plenary session of the Conference Secretary Hull, after summarizing the substance of the agreements reached at the Conference, continued as follows: “We turn now to something more fundamental than the actual accomplishments of the Conference as they appear on the record of the treaties and resolutions adopted. I have in mind the spirit which animates the individual American Republics and which is the firmest guarantee of their written word. That spirit is latent in their democratic institutions which we believe to be the basis upon which the good faith of nations must ultimately rest. If, in the words of the President of my country, ’Democracy is still the hope of the world,’ then it is for us to guard with a jealous eye our chosen form of government and to further in every possible way the education of our people in the processes of self-government. The necessity for such education can not be over-emphasized. Freedom is the soil from which peace springs. From the institutions of a free people arise those conditions of stability of government so essential for the preservation of lasting peace. Therefore, we are joined in a common determination to make our countries safe for peace.” Later in the same address the Secretary attacks more directly the theory of certain statesmen that “war is natural and inevitable” and points out that the purpose of the Conference “is not to isolate this Continent, but to chart our own path to peace, and thereby set a practical example to other parts of the world.”