Out of the vague haze of controversy and circumlocutionary ramifications incident to the many conferences, plenary sessions, debates, congresses, conventions, and what not, which have taken place on the four corners of the earth during this post-war age, one significant fact emerges clear as crystal, and that is that the best and most advanced thought in all civilized countries is definitely concentrated in an attempt at evolving some plan by which wars may be averted.
Call them what you will, leagues to enforce peace, outlawry of war, compulsory arbitration arrangements, international courts of justice, Hague tribunals, and so on down through the long category of movements proposed for preserving the peace of the world, they all serve very potently to indicate to thinking people the possibility that a state of mind may gradually be developing among the masses in the interest of the cause—a general moral awakening against the crime of aggressive war.
And, whether or not we approve or subscribe to those various plans and movements, or can detect any meritorious or constructive features in them, the fact remains that the outstanding highlight of the times—the history of the moment, so to speak— is that civilized humanity, it matters not what the race or creed, is groping for some means of preventing armed conflict between nations.
Moreover, in sharp contrast with the preachments of the pitiable pacifist advocates—those emotional theorists—and their peace at any price doctrines which, unfortunately, are present in some degree in every country, it should in justice be said that the best minds and leaders of the larger movement for preserving the peace of the) world duly recognize the supreme importance of armament and armed forces—national defense amply commensurate with the particular requirements of each individual sovereign state—as a necessary adjunct in consummating any plan for definitely averting war. Truly, a healthy and practical fundamental premise, to say the least, and one which should augur well for the future development of the movement and in advancing it along the road—even though it be ever such a long, long trail—to a successful realization of the ideal.
And, although it may be said that it was as a result of the World War—the effects of which were felt in some measure in every hamlet on the globe—that this world-wide movement received its greatest impetus, the tap-root of that movement goes down much deeper into the history of the world. Furthermore, just as the horrors and suffering of that war reacted in impart- ting to that movement its greatest impetus, the movement itself had its very inception in the horrors and suffering of another sanguinary conflict staged on the European continent—the Thirty Years’ War. For acting under the inspiration of the teachings of Grotius, and as a means of averting war, the European nations, shortly after signing the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648, entered into a series of agreements by which were formulated rules of international conduct in recognition of certain rights common to all. This also may be said to have been the beginning of what is our modern conception of International Law.
The next phase in the development of the movement for promoting international accord through recognition of certain rules of conduct among nations was that in which a group of governments instituted the practice of convoking conferences and conventions for the joint consideration of matters and issues of more or less common concern to all, such as the Paris Conference of 1856, the Berlin Conference of 1878, the Madrid Convention of 1881 on Moroccan affairs, and also the supplementary one of 1906 on the same subject, the Conference of Algeciras. Of course, in addition to the foregoing conventions and conferences, which were more or less of a politico-diplomatic character, there have also taken place from time to time many others in the domain of the world’s commercial and scientific development, and having as their prime objective the effecting of convenience and expedition in regulating and progressively carrying on world business and the preservation of life and health. Such conventions are commonly referred to as “mutual convenience arrangements,” and cover such subjects as railways, telegraphs, radio, postal service, quarantine, money, patents, trade-marks, copyrights, weights and measures, longitude and time, shipping, navigation, etc. Those conventions and arrangements have moreover played a prominent part in the field of developing world legislation, and as we glance backward over the pages of history they stand out in bold relief as stepping stones over which the world has passed on the march which has brought us to the threshold of a new era in international legislative endeavor.
Outstanding examples of the above conventions are: the Universal Postal Union which originally convened at Berne, Switzerland in 1874, and which covers the postal regulations which now obtain throughout the world; Convention of International Sanitation at Washington, in 1881, covering the subject of quarantine; International Marine Conference at Washington, in 1899, and out of which came the “International Rules of the Road;” Convention on use and management of Wireless Telegraphy, at Berlin in 1906, and International Congress for Adopting a Common Meridian, at Washington in 1884. It is of interest to observe that many of the above conferences and conventions quite naturally apply to subjects intimately associated with the seafaring profession, and it is particularly interesting to naval men to note that in the case of the international congress for adopting a common meridian, among their recommendations was that “the conference proposes to the governments here represented the adoption of the meridian passing through the center of the transit instrument at the observatory of Greenwich as the initial meridian for longitude.” In consequence, therefore, it seems clear that to that conference may be attributed in large measure many of the trials and tribulations experienced in our midshipman days when, within a stone’s throw of Lover’s Lane and under the ever watchful care of Tecumseh, we shot into an artificial horizon and laboriously endeavored to “find the correct G.M.T. and date” while old Sol hovered around in the neighborhood of the Crabtown meridian!
The calling of the First and Second Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907, respectively, constituted the next logical and very important steps in the development of the movement for promoting harmonious international relations. Through those conferences the element of judicial procedure and the principle of arbitration— an international tribunal—were injected into the scheme for settling disputes between nations without recourse to war. It is here gratifying to observe that our own government played a highly important part in the development of this particular phase of the movement. Moreover, on viewing at this point the current phase of international affairs, and as, applying particularly to Russia and the present status of her relations with other powers, an interesting trace of historic irony suggests itself when we recall that the First Hague Conference was convoked at the instance of the Czar of Russia. One therefore wonders what will be the effect on international affairs when the Muscovite again assumes his place at the table in the council chamber of nations.
Although one must admit that the efforts put forth by the above mentioned assemblies and tribunals in furthering the movement for peace have not been crowned with success in every sense of the word, owing mainly to the refusal—or failure, at any rate—of some of the contracting parties to abandon their traditional practices of intrigue in the practical application of the accepted rules of international conduct, it must nevertheless be said that some progress has been made, the World War notwithstanding. That small progress, is the one ray of hope which filters through the present cloudbank of international distrust, and upon which the leaders of the movement pin their faith for achieving the objective—an orderly, lawful method of preserving international accord.
That meritorious movement for improving international relations received a severe jolt when the World War broke forth. It is nevertheless true that out of the many vicissitudes of the long drawn-out peace negotiations came the next step—however feeble it may have been—in the development of that movement. It is not in any sense of the word the purpose of this article to defend the League of Nations as constituted under its present covenant, but rather to emphasize the fact that when we dig down under the opaque strata of political faction and partisan agitation, we discover unmistakable evidence that the world as a whole has derived some benefits from the League, even though it is imperfect as viewed from our own national standpoint. At this point it is pertinent to observe that among the serious objections which have been raised in support of our own government’s refusal to subscribe to the present covenant may be included the following: not sufficient specific emphasis placed upon exempting Monroe Doctrine from consideration by League; neutral nations took little or no part in drafting the covenant, hence it does not fulfill universal requirements of an agency for preserving peace of the world; the obligations of the covenant distinctively involve war; it contains no declaration of rights, and members are not bound by any statement of judicial principles; it is not founded on juristic basis; it does not unreservedly adopt International Law as a standard of conduct ; the League is in its essence a defensive alliance of a limited group of powers against the rest of the world and it commits the whole future policy of the United States to the decisions of an international body in which it would have only a single voice.
Granted, then, that as considered strictly from the American point of view serious imperfections do exist in the present covenant of the League of Nations, that body, nevertheless, has accomplished some constructive results which have reacted in the interest of the world at large, not only in bringing about peaceful settlement of disputes, but in other spheres of international endeavor as well, the Greek-Italian flare-up over the Corfu incident and the Greek-Turkish War notwithstanding. Furthermore, those results have been achieved through the joint and harmonious action of the many nations comprising the membership of the League, deliberating in common council around the conference table, all striving for a common end—the peace of the world. Thus, in addition to the different value of the results themselves as achieved through the joint deliberations of the accredited representatives of the various nations, there is another phase of the matter which has also reacted to the direct interest of the world at large, in the mere fact of those representatives of many nations coming as they do from the four quarters of the globe—collaborating in common council and bringing to bear a unity of purpose and effort in attempting to adjust matters of international concern.
It is here, therefore, that the writer would stress the latter phase of the League’s value, and it is that phase which has prompted the mention of that body in this article. For it serves to illustrate the world’s trend of thought in developing and giving directive force to the movement for preserving the peace of the world by promoting orderly and harmonious processes in improving international relations, as a result of the get-together spirit engendered through the agency of such a gathering, society, league or conference of the nations of the world. In other words, such an international gathering, assembling periodically, is conducive to bringing about an international public opinion on world issues, and preserving international peace, as well as enlisting world-wide support of established rules for international conduct. And then, too, the present League has proven of value at this particular stage of the world’s history through its creation of a World Court—the Permanent Court of International Justice. This may be said to have marked the next important step in the development of the international accord movement, which as time goes on is destined to play a considerable part in improving the status and in broadening the application of International Law.
In viewing in restrospect at this juncture the whole situation of international relations, who knows but what it may have been an act of Providence to cause the world to undergo the ravages and suffering of the greatest war in all history in order to rivet attention and educate the peoples of the earth to a proper appreciation and realization of the necessity of creating some duly appointed international mechanism for preserving the peace of the world, and of according to it adequate moral support for making it effective. At any rate, following closely in the wake of that war, and in accordance with provisions of Article XIV of the covenant of the League of Nations, which stipulates that “the Council shall formulate and submit to the members of the League for adoption plans for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice,” a commission consisting of some of the foremost jurists of the world, including Mr. Elihu Root, meeting at The Hague, in 1920, evolved a plan and reached unanimous agreement on all its details for creating such a court. That plan formed the basis upon which the League acted and which brought into being the present World Court, thus constituting one of the League’s major achievements to date.
Although our own government has shown no formal inclination to accept the present covenant of the League, and while it is true that the World Court was born of that covenant, there is unmistakable evidence that the country had been building up sentiment favorable to bringing about our official acceptance of the Permanent Court of International Justice, with, of course, certain specific reservations. As indicative of this President Coolidge in speaking of the World Court in his inaugural address stated that:
In conformity with the principles that a display of reason rather than a threat of force should be the determining factor in the intercourse among nations, we have long advocated the peaceful settlement of disputes by methods of arbitration and have negotiated many treaties to secure that result. The same consideration should lead to our adherence to the Permanent Court of International Justice. Where great principles are involved, where great movements are underway which promise much for the welfare of humanity by reason of the very fact that many other nations have given such movements their actual support, we ought not to withhold our own sanction because of any small and inessential difference, but only upon the ground of the most important and compelling fundamental reasons. We cannot barter away our independence or our sovereignty, but we ought to engage in no refinements of logic, no sophistries and no subterfuges, to argue away the undoubted duty of this country by reason of the might of its numbers, the power of its resources, and its position of leadership in the world, actively and comprehensively to signify its approval and to bear its full share of the responsibility of a candid and disinterested attempt at the establishment of a tribunal for the administration of even-handed justice between nation and nation. The weight of our enormous influence must be cast upon the side of a reign not of force but of law and trial, not by battle but by reason....
In the following session of Congress (last winter) the Senate passed a resolution signifying our willingness to adhere to the Protocol of Signature of the Permanent Court of International Justice, subject to certain specific reservations, and our joining the Court is therefore contingent only on the approval of these reservations by the nations now members. Therefore, a brief summary bearing upon the organization, administration, and some of the functional details of the World Court should prove of more than passing interest.
In the first place, representatives of forty-eight nations signed the treaty creating the World Court, while to date thirty-seven governments have ratified it. The first election of judges took place at Geneva, in September 1921. The court has now been functioning for over four years and is available as a tribunal to all nations of the world. The court comprises eleven judges and four deputy-judges, who were elected from a list of names submitted to the Council and the Assembly of the League of Nations by members of the old Hague Court. In electing the judges the Council and the Assembly ballot separately, thus maintaining independence of action by those two bodies in the selection of the judges, and thereby preserving equilibrium as between the choice of the large and small powers belonging to the League. Although the United States has not joined the court, an American jurist, Mr. John Basset Moore, was among the first elected to the World Court bench. The first meeting of the judges took place at The Hague in February, 1922, at which time they organized themselves into a court body, and formulated rules of procedure for the routine adjudication work of the court, as well as in rendering advisory opinions. The rules of the court are seventy-five in number, while one of the important provisions of the statute of the court is that a session is required to be held each year, beginning on June 15, unless other arrangements are made. The statute of the court also provides for a Chamber of Summary Procedure. While the old Hague Court—the Permanent Court of Arbitration—and the new World Court both sit under the same roof—the Hague Peace Palace—certain salient differences exist in their composition and administrative structure. For whereas the old Hague Tribunal comprises only a panel of arbitrators each of whom is available for selection by parties submitting their controversies to the court for arbitration, the new World Court has permanent judges who come together at stated times in joint deliberation for the adjudication of cases voluntarily submitted to it, while also in certain specific types of controversies the court is vested with compulsory jurisdiction. In the trial of cases making up the international docket, not only is full opportunity given to all interested governments to appear before the court, but private parties or organizations are also given an opportunity to present their views. During the first three years of its existence the World Court handed down three judgments and ten advisory opinions bearing upon international affairs, and in each case the judges had the benefit of extended argument by eminent counsel to assist them in their deliberations before passing judgment or rendering opinions.
Now, as a sort of postscript to the foregoing information relative to the World Court, and in connection with this phase of our subject it should be reiterated that arbitration and peaceful settlement of international controversies are traditional American principles. Even prior to the First Peace Conference at The Hague the United States had participated in fifty-seven arbitrations. And Uncle Sam has always been strong for the administration of international justice according to law. Moreover, although the World Court as at present constituted is not perfect in every detail as an international tribunal, it is believed that it marks the nearest approach towards that juridical goal which the world has long been striving to attain. It is also believed that it may be asserted without fear of successful contradiction that that court at least constitutes a move in the right direction for setting the international ship of state on the correct course for improving and maintaining harmonious world relations through orderly processes of internationally accepted law. And, furthermore, that through the jurisprudence produced by its routine functions the court will prove a dynamic factor not merely in still further developing International Law, but in bringing about practicable codification of some of its diverse phases, it matters not whether that be by a restatement of existing law—the so-called law of custom—in revitalized terms of the new world order of things, or whether it be by enacting new legislation designed to meet the demands of present-day world society. By exercising its muscles as far as may be practicable on the international problems which exist today the World Court will itself undergo development, and, like all things created by man, will be just as good and effective as the civilized nations of the world choose to make it—and no better. Its success, therefore, will he in direct proportion to the moral support accorded to it by the governments of the world.
The next outstanding event in the domain of international conference effort was the Washington Conference of 1921, and the enactment of international legislation incident to the ratification by the various governments of the treaties growing out of that conference.
Although it failed of ratification it might be well in passing to mention the so-called Geneva Protocol proposed by the Fifth Assembly of the League of Nations, in 1924, and which was designed to bring about specific settlement of international disputes. Of special interest was the provision which it contained for calling another international conference for the reduction of armaments at Geneva on June 15, 1925. There were many other features covering a wide field and based particularly upon the premise that the three subjects of compulsory arbitration, security, and disarmament are so intimately related that they must be considered as a Unit in solving the problem of which they are factors. The protocol also incorporated certain features of a draft treaty of disarmament and security, designed to bring about outlawry of aggressive war, as prepared by an American committee and submitted to the League of Nations. It has been very appropriately pointed 0ut that the protocol constitutes another attempt at equipping the League of Nations with a good set of sharp teeth. However, Great Britain refused to ratify the protocol.
Now reverting to the subject of International Law with specific reference to what the immediate future holds for its further development and codification, it is of interest to point out that eminent jurists are now devoting considerable time, thought, and energy to that important task. Two special commissions of jurists—one on each side of the Atlantic—have been appointed for this purpose, and it is of additional interest to note that the new world took the initiative in this movement and was the first to appoint a commission of experts from the Americas to undertake this work. Since then a similar commission has been appointed by the League of Nations and is now functioning in the old world.
The appointment of the American international commission of jurists for undertaking the work of codifying American International Law came about as a result of action taken by the Fifth Pan American Conference which convened at Santiago, Chile, in 1923. That commission of American jurists was scheduled to meet some time in 1925 at Rio de Janeiro, but as a preliminary expedient the governing board of the Pan American Union requested the assistance of the American Institute of International Law in preparing some draft conventions to be used as a basis for the work of the jurist commission. The American Institute of International Law completed its work and the draft conventions were afterward submitted to the governing board of the Pan American Union and in turn to the foreign offices of the American republics, for use of the commission of jurists at Rio de Janeiro. There are thirty-one of the draft conventions, and while they are based upon the affirmation of the reliance of the American republics on the general principles of international law, they assert the right to reject or protest against any rules in force in the old world which may contradict American independence and sovereignty. Those draft conventions embrace a wide range of subjects bearing upon the relationships of the republics in this hemisphere, and include a proposal for outlawing aggressive wars of conquest among American republics; cover commerce and communication by land, sea, or air; deal with difficult questions of diplomatic recognition of new nations and governments under a definite code of rules; lay the ground work for regularized exchange between the state of educational publications and educators; propose a unified system of dealing with extradition, and point out that completion of the codification of American International Law, on which a start is to be made, is necessarily a progressive work to be followed up year after year.
The committee of jurists on the other side of the Atlantic to engage in work with the view of bringing about a progressive codification of international law was appointed by the council of the League of Nations, in accordance with a resolution passed on September 21, 1924, at the Fifth Assembly of the League, which resolution was introduced by the Swedish delegation and called Upon the council to invite suggestions as to "the items or subjects of International Law, public or private, which may be usefully examined with a view to their incorporation in international conventions . . . . in order to enable the League of Nations to contribute in the largest possible measure to the development of International Law."
It is thus manifest that the whole subject of International Law is now engaging the serious attention of the entire world and is causing civilized peoples in. every land to devote thought to it as never before in the world's history, which in turn will bring about a universal state of mind favorable to its further development. In truth, therefore, it may be said that we are on the threshold of a new era in International Law, and the next decade should bring forth marked progress in the realm of world legislation and in the interest of international harmony. Moreover, by nature of things, development in that sphere commands the special attention and interest of the naval profession.
The foregoing chronological train of movements is but an index to the progressive history of international effort in organizing the world for orderly, lawful, and cooperative methods of carrying on its business, and is indicative of the trend of the world's best thought in that field. Another encouraging aspect of this subject of developing a world-wide state of mind or opinion favorable to universal recognition of the underlying principles of International Law as a necessary instrument for promoting and maintaining harmony in the very diversified phases of international intercourse is that of the growing interest manifested by the peoples of the world in international affairs. That, however, is quite natural since the more that the peoples of the world know of each other the more interested they become, and the broader becomes their horizon of appreciation and toleration of the other fellow’s point of view, and, consequently, the more apparent it becomes to all that it is necessary to formulate and universally adopt some authoritative system of regulation or law for governing international intercourse. Indeed, all factors being equal, it may even be asserted as a maxim that the chances of decreasing aggressive war are enhanced in direct proportion to the increase in international understanding and toleration of the other fellow’s point of view, when coupled with an abundant flow of the milk of human kindness over the surface of this old globe. Although of a ripe old age the Golden Rule has not suffered from overwork in an international sense and still constitutes an excellent measuring rod for gauging and establishing codes of international conduct. And one of the hopeful signs of the times, as we round the first quarter post of the twentieth century, is the growing tendency among the peoples of every land to recognize and appreciate the fact that that ancient rule is the very essence of the principle upon which International Law is founded.
Another hopeful sign is that this growing interest in international affairs is particularly noticeable among the people of our own country. Today world events and affairs are discussed in women’s clubs and barber shops on Main Street in America with as much interest and enthusiasm as was the community gossip by wood- whittlers around the stove in the country store, before the automobile and good roads and radio relegated that national institution to a past age. Moreover, this has come about in large measure through our experiences in the World War and the accompanying national realization that, owing to the intensive and close-knit order of financial, commercial, and social activities of the world as at present organized, and the consequent inter-dependent nature of conditions under which the nations of the earth exist today, the Atlantic and the Pacific no longer serve as an asbestos curtain for shielding us from the scorching flames born of armed conflict on the stage of other world powers.
It should also be stated that another contributory factor to the increased interest manifested by the peoples of the world in international affairs is that of the modern improvements which have taken place in the realm of world communications—the annihilation of time and space through the advent of the cable, telegraph, and the phantom-like transmission of the spoken word by radio, all of which have so dynamically supplemented that powerful and important moulder of public opinion, the printing press. In consideration of the subject from that angle one has but to turn back a few brief pages of our own American history to discover what a sharp contrast presents itself when we compare the modern stage of development attained in the art of world communications with that of yesterday, as for instance during the War of 1812, when in absence of news from Europe that the Treaty of Ghent had been signed on December 24, 1814, the American and British armies fought the famous battle of New Orleans on January 18, 1815, or over two weeks after the treaty of peace had been signed. Furthermore, news of the signing of that treaty did not reach the shores of the western hemisphere until the arrival at New York, on February 11, 1815, of the British sloop-of-war Favorite, the bearer of that celebrated news across the Atlantic. In other words, over a month and a half had elapsed since peace had been formally declared before the American and British forces on this continent received news of it, thus costing both countries needless losses in both men and treasure. When we compare that historical incident with that of the phenomenal rapidity which characterized the passing around the world of the news of signing of the Armistice on November 11, 1918, the contrast is strikingly significant. Moving pictures have also played their part in arousing interest and educating the peoples of the earth in world affairs; an inaugural ceremony at Washington is now reproduced in all its pomp and spectacular effect with as much interest and entertainment to the peoples who inhabit the steppes of central Asia as to the shell-spangled natives of the south sea isles, or the igloo dwellers of the Arctic regions, while a boy scout parade in Hong Kong or the picturesque setting of a treasure-laden caravan wending its weary way across the hot sands of the Sahara is projected in all its native brilliance and color with equal interest and amusement within the very glow of the lights of Broadway. People also travel more extensively now than at any other period of the world's history, and travel is universally recognized as having a liberalizing influence upon peoples through affording friendly, interesting, and profitable contact with other societies and civilizations. And it is not inconceivable that a universal language may yet he evolved as a result of the girdling of the globe by radio telephone waves which are increasing by leaps and bounds in number as well as points of origin. The English language is already being used in many foreign countries for announcing radio programs. All of those globe-contracting factors will continue to exert a forceful influence in developing international understanding and in making increasingly apparent the necessity for the existence of International Law, while its codification in some degree or phase and further development will be brought about in due course. And that day is not far off.
A very potent indication of the development of international interest among the people of our own country is the increased space given over to foreign affairs in the American press, and also the gradual increase in enrollments in political science courses at our colleges and universities, as well as the material increase in the number of societies which have been organized throughout the country having as their prime objective the study of foreign affairs to the end that our citizenry may become better versed in the details of international relations. It is thus clear that considerable effort is being put forth in an attempt at reducing to a scientific basis the preservation of the peace of the world, and one of the essential reagents being utilized in the statecraft test tubes for evolving a world peace formula is international understanding—a substantial stepping stone to a realization of International Law and the full fruition of its underlying principles. Other realities which presage a new era in international judicial procedure are that the American Bar Association maintains a standing committee in the interest of developing International Law, as also the existence and purposes of the American Society of International Law, while such annual gatherings as the Institute of Politics at Williamstown, Massachusetts, and the Norman Waite Harris Memorial Foundation at the University of Chicago, offer added significance in mirroring this trend of thought in improving international relations and in bringing about orderly practices in world intercourse. A keynote of this line of thought is sounded in the following which is quoted from the endowment letter establishing the Harris Memorial Foundation in 1923.
It is apparent that a knowledge of world affairs was never of more importance to Americans than today. The spirit of distrust which pervades the old world is not without its effect upon our own country. How to combat this disintegrating tendency is a problem worthy of the most serious thought. Perhaps one of the best methods is the promotion of a better understanding of the other nations through wisely directed educational effort. The purpose of the foundation shall be the promotion of a better understanding on the part of American citizens of the other peoples of the world, thus establishing a basis for improved international relations, and a wore enlightened world order. The aim shall always be to give accurate information, not to propagate opinion.
Obviously, therefore, it is of transcendent importance that every naval officer be an ardent student of foreign affairs and well versed ln international Law. And especially is this true in this age in which international contracts, pacts and adjustments are studied and negotiated on bases which in many instances are primarily of a politico-naval character—for example, the Washington Limitation of Armament Conference. Even as these lines go to press a rear admiral of our Navy is sitting, at Geneva, as a technical advisor to the American delegation to the Preliminary Conference 0n Limitation of Armament. And as time goes on there will be many other occasions in which naval officers will be called upon to perform duty of that same general nature. Let us therefore be always ready.
Accordingly, it is important that we keep our eyes open and our ears close to the ground and be ever alive to any international developments or changing phases of international relations, in order that we may not merely interpret world events in their outward or superficial aspect, but may also be able to read between the lines, so to speak, and thus to discern and intelligently correlate tie pertinent antecedents to any changing scenes on the stage of world affairs, and, finally, to the end that we may attain a thorough understanding of the trend in international affairs, thus keeping a feast, professionally, of the most advanced international thought and opinion.