Evening star., 1928-02-26
Continued from First Page.)

ministrative position. and that as he
becomes familiar with his multitud-
inous duties only through experience,
| PAN American Union to replace this Of
ncer every year. The logic Of this ar
gument was effective.
Mexico further proposed that each
| country send separate representatives
| to the Pan American Union in Wash
ington. instead Of relying upon their
Ambassadors or Ministers to represent
them. Here Mr.. Hughes might have
pointed out that such proposal was
foolish. Some of the member states OF
the union might not feel that they
could afford to maintain special
repr, sentative in Washington to attend
the rather prosaic meetings OF the gov
erning board of the Pan-American Un-
ion. Others might neglect, because II
was unimportant. to designate speciai
ing such arguments. Mr.. Hughes moved
for the adoption of the Mexican pro-
posal, and then moved for adoption OF
a proposal from Peru. which would
leave to each country the decision OF
whether it would be represented on the
governing board by special represent
alive or hv It's diplomatic represent
ative. Both proposals were adopted
and Mexico, as we'll as Peru, were sat
isfied.
Mexico started some colorful oratory'
which brought actual tears OF emotlon
to the eyes of some Of the delegates; Dy
proposing that the committee on puDiic
international law discuss the question
Of allowing each government 10 piocS %a :, ,
ado norts in its own territory which had
fallen into the hands Of revolutionists.
Mr. Hughes, representing a country
which has sought to lessen the possi-
bilities of revolutions. opposed this sug-
gestion. So did Argentina and CUBA.
though from different motives. The
latter two nations upheld in picturesque
language the right of revolution. going
ali the wav back to George Washington
and Simon Bolivar to cite the good that
comes from revolution. But Mr.
Hughes opposed it with the cold logic
of an international lawyer. He mere
took the stand that brought MN later
victories. holding that the task before
the committee on public lnternationa,
law was to codify existing international
law and not to express an opinion on
what that law ought to be or might De.
The Mexican proposal was lost.
But it was the troublous question OF
whom a nation has and does not have
the right to intervene in the affairs OF
another nation that came nearest 10
s,1bjecting the United States to that
criticism which. it was felt. would be
s,,ch an awful thing The Commission
of International Jurlsts, which met last
wear in Rio. had been charged by the
preceding Pan-Amcrican Congress
with codification of public international
law. Instead Of completing this task. II
sent on to Havana several projects Tor
such a codiflcation. one Of them laying
down the fat assertion that mo state
NAV intervene in the internal affairs OF
another These projects were referred
10 the committee on public internatlona!
law at Havana for report. But instead
Of drafting his report on Intervention
upon the principles set fortn at Rlo'
victor Maurtua Of Peru. the COM
mittec's reporter. discarded these pr:n-
ciples end substituted declarations pre-
pared by the American Institute OF In
ternat:onal Law in 1916. These de-
clarations are. in part:
Every nation has the right to exist
and to protect and conserve its ex-
;stence: but this right neither implies
the right nor justfies the act OF the
state to protect itself or conserve its
existence by the commission OF unlaw-
ful acts against innocent and unohend-
ing states.
Every nation has the right to in
dependence In the sense that 1t has the
right to pursuit Of happiness and is
free to develop itself without inter-
ference or control from other states,
provided that In so doing 1t does not
interfere with or violate the rights OF
other states.
Every nation has the right to ter
ritory within defined boundaries and to
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over Its
territory and persons. whether native
or foreign. found within"
Argentina. Mexico, Guatemala. Sal
,.n dor Canto ncynIpra Honduras C0f-