« PreviousContinue »
the United States Military Academy at West Point at the expense of the Government of Cuba.
The passage of the resolution would be regarded by the Government of Cuba as an act of courtesy, and it would be in accordance with established precedents. Respectfully submitted.
FRANK L. POLE,
Acting Secretary of State. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, Júly 17, 1917.
JOINT RESOLUTION Authorizing the Secretary of War to receive for instruction
at the United States Military Academy at West Point, Mr. Aurelio Collazo, a citizen of Cuba.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be, and he hereby is, authorized to permit Mr. Aurelio Collazo, a citizen of Cuba, to receive instruction at the United States Military Academy at West Point: Provided, That no expense shall be caused to the United States thereby, and that the said Aurelio Collazo shall agree to comply with all regulations for the police and discipline of the academy, to be studious, and to give his utmost efforts to accomplish the course in the various departments of instruction, and that the said Aurelio Collazo shall not be admitted to the academy until he shall have passed the mental and physical examinations prescribed for candidates from the United States and that he shall be immediately withdrawn if deficient in studies or conduct and so recommended by the academic board: And provided further, That in the case of the said Aurelio Collazo the provisions of sections thirteen hundred and twenty and thirteen hundred and twenty-one of the Revised Statutes shall be suspended.
OUR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
BEFORE THE MICHIGAN STATE BAR ASSOCIATION AT GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN, ON
JUNE 29, 1917
HON. ATLEE POMERENE
PRESENTED BY MR. TOWNSEND
July 18, 1917 (Calendar Day, July 20, 1917).-Ordered to be printed.
OUR INCREASING NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
The United States is a world power. We are a world power whether we wish it or not. We can not escape its responsibilities if we would, and we would not if we could. Nations, like men, can not live unto themselves alone. Destiny has marked out our course. The fathers of the Republic builded wisely, but I can not conceive that even they knew to what end their first steps would lead in inaking history. The peals of Liberty Bell have rung 'round the world. The shot at Bunker Hill was but the precursor of the thunderous roar of the cannon of democracy at Verdun.
In 1776 the democracy of the thirteen Colonies pitted itself against the divine right of King George III. Now the democracy of the world is engaged in a life struggle against the divine right of Kaiser Wilhelm. The democracy of the thirteen Colonies did not fail; the democracy of the world will not fail.
On August 1, 1914, civilized mankind was appalled to learn of the declaration of war and the beginning of hostilities. Christian nations could not believe that causes so trivial as those which seemed to divide Austria and Serbia would lead to a world cataclysm.
At first blush it would seem that, even in its widest ramifications, the clash of giant European nations ought not to reach the far-off shores of America. But he who entertains such a thought fails to take into consideration the changed conditions since first our Nation had birth.
Then we were thirteen separate Colonies with 3,000,000 of people. We occupied a comparatively narrow strip along the Atlantic seaboard. We were more than 3,000 miles distant from Europe, and a journey of more than 30 days. Then our people could have been blotted off the face of the earth and the rest of mankind would scarcely have been sensible of the loss.
How changed the situation now. Our 3,000,000 have multiplied to 110,000,000; our thirteen Colonies to forty-eight empire States; our foreign commerce, which in 1830 amounted to $144,000,000, has multiplied by leaps and bounds until it reaches annually the stupendous sum of more than six billions. The thirty days' trip across the waters has been reduced to six. The surplus productions of our farms and factories and mines find their way to the four corners of the earth. Our people, seeking new outlets for trade, are to be found in every clime and every nation, and no fate can befall any one of the family of nations without seriously affecting our own welfare.
If my address shall to-day seem to depart from the beaten path which is usually marked out for those who may have the honor to appear before a convention of lawyers, the only excuse that I shall offer is that we are living in the most momentous day of the world's history; that lawyers always have played and always will play a leading part in the public and political thought of the Nation; and that now we, as members of the legal profession, like men in every profession, in every line of business, and in every trade, are giving our first efforts to the solution of the problems which are engrossing the attention of mankind to the end that reason may resume her sway and peace be restored to the world.
The purpose of our national existence was, and is, in the language of the Constitution
To form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
In the light of our national history and the events of the last three years, let us consider what we have done and what we ought to do in the future, both from a standpoint of power and policy.
POWERS OF THE NATION.
I take it everyone will concede that, as a member of the family of nations, we are clothed with the full powers of sovereignty. Defining our position from a political standpoint we are as great, but no greater, than any other nation clothed with equal privileges and equal powers. If we were not we would be less than sovereign, and that no true American ever would admit. Considered from a domestic standpoint, we have a divided sovereignty-State and Nationalbut the National Government under the Constitution gives us fill and plenary power to do whatever the wisdom of the Nation may require, so far as our international affairs are concerned.
The President is given the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, and the only limitation upon this power is that he can make them “provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” Under this power, independent of the question of national sovereignty, we have made treaties with every nation of the world, defining and controlling our political and commercial relations, and when it pleased our purposes we modified them or abrogated them entirely. We have made treaties of peace and arbitration for the amicable adjustment of international disputes. Every conceivable phase of our international powers and relations have at one time or another been dealt with in our sovereign or constitutional capacity.
The power, therefore, to do that which we have done or which we may hereafter do, whether considered from a standpoint of national sovereignty or from the defined authority of the Constitution, can not be questioned. As indicating the judicial view of our sovereign powers, the case of Williams v. Suffolk Insurance Co. (13 Peter, 415) is interesting. The court says:
Can there be any doubt that when the executive branch of the Government, which is charged with our foreign relations, shall, in its correspondence with a foreign nation, assume a fact in regard to the sovereignty of any island or country it is conclusive on the judicial department? And in this view it is not material to inquire, nor is it the province of the court to determine, whether the executive be right or wrong. It is enough to know that in the exercise of his constitutional functions he has decided the question. Having done this under the responsibilities which belong to him, it is obligatory on the people and government of the Union,