This evening I am asking you to consider with me for a while the subject of international boundaries, which, by a process involving many forces, has come to have a very important position in international law. Ratzel, the great German authority in the field of political geography, said that “the mathematical precision of boundaries is a special characteristic of higher civilization; the progress of geodesy and cartography have permitted the making in Europe of political boundaries as well as geographical abstractions.” I employ the term “boundary” rather than the term “frontier,” for “frontier” is used in two senses: one, that of the boundary; the other, that of the zone, narrower or wider, where one state ends and another begins, in which sometimes the exact limit of that frontier has never been exactly fixed.

The short tractate De officio legati by Stephanus Doletus (Étienne Dolet) was printed by the author at his printing establishment at Lyons in 1541. All books with Dolet’s imprint are rare, many of them having been destroyed as heretical. From his press at Lyons between 1538 and 1544 proceeded 84 titles, no one library possessing more than a fraction of the total number bearing his imprint.

Judged by its inability to agree upon a convention on territorial waters, as the substance of things hoped for, the Conference for the Codification of International Law was a failure. Good may come of the Conference. It may have been a necessary preliminary stage in a very long and difficult process. Nevertheless, the fact remains that its purpose was to agree upon a convention upon territorial waters and it failed of its purpose. Usually the cause of the ill-success of a conference is lack of preparation. This failure cannot be ascribed to lack of preparation. It is unnecessary to rehearse the antecedent steps. Several years had been devoted to preparation. Governments had agreed that the subject of territorial waters was suitable and ripe for codification. In addition to the work done by the Committee of Experts and by the Preparatory Committee, the governments had answered voluminous questionnaires and had made observations upon detailed schedules of points from which had been prepared the bases of discussion. All of this work had been completed and in print months before the Conference met. Apparently nothing was left undone by the agencies of the League of Nations in order that the various governments might have ample opportunity for examination and study of the questions involved. And, it may be added, the observations of the governments were for the most part responsive andilluminating.

There is being developed a special technique of codification. The Sixth Pan American Conference at Havana adopted in the form of seven conventions a codification of that number of topics in public international law; namely, on the status of aliens, treaties, diplomatic privileges and immunities, asylum, civil strife, and maritime neutrality. The preparatory work had been done by (a) the American Institute of International Law working through its executive committee, and (b) the Rio Commission of Jurists reestablished by the Fifth Pan American Conference. The proposed world conference upon codification has now been called to meet at The Hague in the spring of this year. There have been no official indications as yet of its postponement because of other international conferences. The machinery created by the League of Nations to perform the work preparatory to this conference has been functioning since 1925. The working of this machinery has already been described in this Jo u rn al down to the creation of the present Preparatory Committee for the Codification Conference. It will be remembered that the Committee of Experts for the Progressive Codification of International Law, composed of sixteen members, prepared a provisional list of topics suitable for codification by international agreement, made reports upon various topics, submitted questionnaires upon seven of them to the various governments, and selected therefrom three topics as the agenda of the first world conference on codification. This cpmmittee also made one general and two special reports upon the further work of codification, with some indications as to procedure.

The American Political Science Association was founded December 30, 1903, at New Orleans. Its organization was the outgrowth of a movement looking toward a national conference on comparative legislation. A group having the matter in charge held a meeting in December, 1902, at Washington, the call for which stated that the formation of an American Society of Comparative Legislation had been suggested as “particularly desirable because of the complexity of our system of federal government.” Interest in legislation in general and in the problems presented by the lawmaking activities of the federal and state agencies in particular was, therefore, the starting point from which proceeded the wider range of interests which gave rise to this Association. The preliminary meeting in Washington indicated that if a new national society were to be formed it might be well to enlarge its scope so as to embrace the whole of political science, of which comparative legislation is an important part. A year later, thanks to the coöperation of the American Historical Association and of the American Economic Association, which were having joint meetings in New Orleans, opportunity was given to the group to form an organization, the members of which were in large part members of one or both of the older Associations. The adoption of the constitution of this Association was the result. In a way, therefore, the American Political Science Association is the god-child of the American Historical and the American Economic Associations. All but two annual meetings have been held jointly with one or both of the older bodies, indicating not only a factor of common membership but also a large measure of common interests and kindred endeavors.