§§
F.
;
ºš
§
º: sº §
- §
*
§
§
º:
º,
º ºgº º
# * * *{ºgº fº. $º
§§
§
º:
§ 2 º'
§ r
§§3.
• *: *
3 *
ºfº'º.
ºt
sº '. º: rº º 3% ºf a
#;
§:
º §§ §: - * *
3º §º.
º Fºr *. : - º >
º: tºº §
§§
*.*.*.
:: ***…º.
* *
*; ºf St.
. º §§ 3:::::
- . #;
sº...?
- § jº
ce - [. § *::,
..º.º.º. - i...º.º.’, sº
ºść.
§
§
*&^**** - - :: ***.
- ; º §§
ºa:. º .*.*.*.*.*. .." sº * . . . . 2 *
- - º §ºś! $$. #3 ºi
}ºx.º. `-- * ºś
- r - … .º.º. º. #. §§a’’ ‘’’
º, º, * º - - º jº.
** º Żºłº, º
§: #
*...*.*.*
&
º: fºr ** ** -
tº º
&: º: Aft S3
t 3. ºf;
-- § ****
rººf.
§§
* - fº
sº §
§
ºf.
§. *5.
$.J. #;
º
ſº
$
* &*
.# {
s
*ś
... f***
º, }}
7. º gº? *
ſº §§ § 3.
º
...; ; -
& sº...º.º. º
º §: # f
*** *... * *...gºv.º.º.º.
§ §
::::: §: jã
,'º' tº rº-
- § *ś
§ º . §§ .*
: rºº. §§ tº: :** * ****
% ** t § ** 3. % 3.”
*::::...º.º.º. º s: - «
§3.4% #3; & º § tº
$ ſº - º § º º ...'.
§: §§§ º: % ºº::
33.33% ºf * ºf *
* - :* ºr ºx: tºº.”
* * : * - -
ºº::ºx. #####. *
º:
ºº:
jºšº §
§§§
s: } º 3. gº': . **
§§§
ſº. !. ;
º, ;"
º
& §: *
§: - § ;
- {-> º 3.
#
§º: - º
f §º * •º.
§§§ left º' ºº
#: §: $º
*. pºsºſ ºjºsº.
..ºf ‘...r.º.º.
§
* § º
ğ.
sº * * * * : *. tº: #
sº - ..º.º.º.
§ºß -4 :
strº- .* * º, º-'s
º § •:..
Nº.
§ºśs.
*2,..., ºf t ºi, * Y-
*; º;º
º §º: § ## º, º,
*. § §§ sº º §§ ... ...
§§ §§
. §§ § & 4 £º &:};
§§
3.33: § .it
§ sº
§§
;: § •x ºf: #.
º:
*
Sºft
s -
tº:
§§§
ºr. # # § } #: - ºft
Fiºrs tº 23 º
§ §: - głºść
ãº
sº *ša
*:::
* : * ſºls
§§ * *
& º Jº:
ºft
º
º
§§§
rººt;
‘, ‘º. ºº
...ºft
:*::::: º *
zºº; #3;
;: ſº F.
- º:
tº: § - * - -*** *
§
§§§§
§ -- º, º s
º ** !? º' tºº.º.º.º."
jºš
:3
º
§ % º
* #: §
§§§
§
hº
§§§
sº
§§
§§
§§§
. .*.*.*.*.*.
Nº.
º
*ś
. . .º. §§ sº
sº.s. i. º
ºf A,
º:’s, f"...º. 4' 2".
*Y*.*...* *.*.* tº
º:
*
º 3.
$2::::::::::::::::::: -
e. ºf"...º. - -- rº, . .
At sº §§ *:::::::::::::::º. § $33.
º r §§
ºf: ;3. § -
złº - zºº, Ríº.
, ºkº
*
º: .x º'
jº',
A:Fº
º: º
‘se
§
..:” #; - tº
ºº::
* -
*r.
º;
**
º
§
...sº §§.3.3
*
º
; : jº
† :º
ºº::
jiàº.
- '4?",
º º º .# *
§§
£º &
§: 3.
§:
cº,
> *: *, *'.
º
iº
# , ; #4 §§
X §§§ §3.
- ¥º - º: -
..º.
º *
‘.3% *...* :
:*...! § * .
; ºftº:3,
&#º.
* .###. *:::.. º: -
§* º: *::::
º,
º
- :*. *...;
*º-3
* ---> * > * * ~ *- :- - -
ºsº.º. ** ***.
* * it "tº
• * * * , - , º, . -
§ * %. $. -ºº:
º § -
*. t - : ; ºf
§:
} º

zº
|ÉTºyºſiſ.Tº
º
ſ
CIn zº- sº § |-º-m
&sº jSiminiſtſ tº
FITTTººlſ): º
Fºlſº
º-
i
IVERSITY OF MICHICAN
º**ºn
|
º
£ºuat RIS PENINsu
º º
gº º
& º * h 'A ſº-º-º- ( & sº
7-Z Xº *fſ;
Jºº JºJº JºJº Cº. C/º V.Kyū.J.º.º.º.
:-----,
:* -
|
-
r
CLAss
LIBRARY
ºil
---
É-
-
-
.
:
Tº |H
IIIHITIIIllſºnſ|||IIIHIIIHIIIHIIIIlli
ºfflºt
:-
+:3.
-
-

- ſea y Y
| 245
ºn 3
INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION
- AA’O AA 7'AºA A/EA’ OA' A' M.S. COAVCOA-AD/AA/
Published Monthly by the
American Branch Association for International Conciliation
THE SANCTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Presidential Address Before the Second Annual
Meeting of the American Society of
International Law, 1908
(Reprinted by permission)
BY
ELIHU ROOT
JULY, 1908, NO. 8
American Branch of the Association for International Conciliation
Sub-station 84 (501 West 116th Street)
New York City



The Association for International Conciliation desires to express
to the Secretary of State its deep gratitude for his permission to
include annong its documents his address as President of the American
Society of International Law. French, German and Spanish trans-
lations of the address are being distributed throughout Europe by
the Paris Office of the Association.
For the information of those who are not familiar with the work
of the Association for International Conciliation, a list of its pub-
lications is subjoined.
I. Program of the Association for International Conciliation, by
Baron d'Estournelles de Constant. April, Igo7.
2. Results of the National Arbitration and Peace Congress, by
Andrew Carnegie. April, Igo7.
3. A League of Peace (Address delivered at the University of
St. Andrew) by Andrew Carnegie. November, Igo7.
4. The Results of the Second Hague Conference, by Baron
d'Estournelles de Constant and Hon. David Jayne Hill. January,
I908.
5. The Work of the Second Hague Conference, by James Brown
Scott. January, IQO8.
6. Possibilities of Intellectual Co-operation Between North and r
South America, by L. S. Rowe. April, Igo8.
7. America and Japan, by George Trumbull Ladd. June, Igo8.
Up to the limit of the editions printed, copies of the documents
will be sent post-paid upon application.
Association FOR INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION,
AMERICAN BRANCH,
SUB-STATION 84, NEw York.
Executive Committee of the American Branch
Nicho I.As MURRAY BUTLER RICHARD WATson GILDER
Rich ARD BARTHoldT SETH Low
LYMAN ABBOTT STEPHEN HENRY OLIN
JAMEs SPEYER ANDREW D. WHITE
s)
\\
ñº
THE SANCTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
One accustomed to the administration of municipal
law who turns his attention for the first time to the
discussion of practical questions arising between
nations and dependent upon the rules of international
law, must be struck by a difference between the two
systems which materially affects the intellectual proc-
esses involved in every discussion, and which is
apparently fundamental.
The proofs and arguments adduced by the municipal
lawyer are addressed to the object of setting in motion
certain legal machinery which will result in a judicial
judgment to be enforced by the entire power of the
state over litigants subject to its jurisdiction and con-
trol. Before him lies a clear, certain, definite conclu-
sion of the controversy, and for the finality and
effectiveness of that conclusion the sheriff and the
policeman stand always as guarantors in the last resort.
When the international lawyer, on the other hand,
passes from that academic discussion in which he has
no one to convince but himself, and proceeds to seek
the establishment of rights or the redress of wrongs in
a concrete case, he has apparently no objective point
3
C. 4-2. S +
to which he can address his proofs or arguments,
except the conscience and sense of justice of the
opposing party to the controversy. In only rare,
exceptional and peculiar cases, do the conclusions of
the international lawyer, however clearly demon-
strated, have behind them the compulsory effect of
possible war. In the vast majority of practical ques-
tions arising under the rules of international law there
does not appear on the surface to be any reason why
either party should abandon its own contention or
yield against its own interest to the arguments of the
other side. The action of each party in yielding or
refusing to yield to the arguments of the other appears
to be entirely dependent upon its own will and pleasure.
This apparent absence of sanction for the enforcement
of the rules of international law has led great authority
to deny that those rules are entitled to be called law
at all; and this apparent hopelessness of finality car-
ries to the mind, which limits its consideration to the
procedure in each particular case, a certain sense of
futility of argument.
Nevertheless, all the foreign offices of the civilized
world are continually discussing with each other ques-
tions of international law, both public and private,
cheerfully and hopefully marshaling facts, furnishing
evidence, presenting arguments and building up rec-
ords, designed to show that the rules of international law
4
require such and such things to be done or such and
such things to be left undone. And in countless cases
nations are yielding to such arguments and shaping
their conduct against their own apparent interests in
the particular cases under discussion, in obedience to
the rules which are shown to be applicable.
Why is it that nations are thus continually yielding
to arguments with no apparent compulsion behind
them, and before the force of such arguments aban-
doning purposes, modifying conduct, and giving
redress for injuries 2 A careful consideration of this
question seems to lead to the conclusion that the
difference between municipal and international law, in
respect of the existence of forces compelling obedience,
is more apparent than real, and that there are sanc-
tions for the enforcement of international law no less
real and substantial than those which secure obedience
to municipal law.
It is a mistake to assume that the sanction whichſ .
secures obedience to the laws of the state consists
exclusively or chiefly of the pains and penalties
imposed by the law itself for its violation. It is only
in exceptional cases that men refrain from crime
through fear of fine or imprisonment. In the vast
majority of cases men refrain from criminal conduct
because they are unwilling to incur in the community
in which they live the public condemnation and
5
y
obloquy which would follow a repudiation of the
standard of conduct prescribed by that community
for its members. As a rule, when the law is broken
the disgrace which follows conviction and punishment
is more terrible than the actual physical effect of
imprisonment or deprivation of property. Where it
happens that the law and public opinion point different
ways, the latter is invariably the stronger. I have
seen a lad grown up among New York toughs break
down and weep because sent to a reformatory instead
of being sentenced to a State's prison for a violation
of law. The reformatory meant comparative ease,
comfort, and opportunity for speedy return to entire
freedom; the State's prison would have meant hard
labor and long and severe confinement. Yet in his
community of habitual criminals a term in State's
prison was a proof of manhood and a title to distinc-
tion, while consignment to a reformatory was the
treatment suited to immature boyhood. He preferred
the punishment of manhood with what he deemed
honor to the opportunity of youth with what he deemed
disgrace. Not only is the effectiveness of the punish-
ments denounced by law against crime derived chiefly
from the public opinion which accompanies them, but,
those punishments themselves are but one form of the
expression of public opinion. Laws are capable of)
* . . . \-
enforcement only so far as they are in agreement with &
\
6
the opinions of the community in which they are to be.
enforced. As opinion changes old laws become obsolete
and new standards force their way into the statute
books. Laws passed, as they sometimes are, in advance
of public opinion ordinarily wait for their enforcement
until the progress of opinion has reached recognition
Y
•
*
t
J
of their value. The force of law is in the public opinion
which prescribes it. - -
The impulse of conformity to the standard of the
community and the dread of its condemnation are
reinforced by the practical considerations which
determine success or failure in life. Conformity to
the standard of business integrity which obtains in the
community is necessary to business success. It is
this consideration, far more frequently than the thought
of the sheriff with a writ of execution, that leads men,
to pay their debts and to keep their contracts. Social
esteem and Standing, power and high place in the
professions, in public office, in all associated enterprise,
depend upon conformity to the standards of conduct
in the community. Loss of these is the most terrible
penalty society can inflict. It is only for the occasional
nonconformist that the sheriff and policemen are kept
in reserve; and it is only because the nonconformists
are occasional and comparatively few in number that
the sheriff and policeman can have any effect at all.
For the great mass of mankind, laws established by
7
* - ----------------> <- - -
public opinion, having, as the sanction for its judgments,
the denial of nearly everything for which men strive
in life.
The rules of international law are enforced by th
same kind of sanction, less certain and peremptory,7
but continually increasing in effectiveness of control.
“A decent respect to the opinions of mankind " did
not begin or end among nations with the American
Declaration of Independence; but it is interesting that
the first public national act in the New World should
be an appeal to that universal international public
opinion, the power and effectiveness of which the New
World has done so much to promote.
In former times, each isolated nation, satisfied with
its own opinion of itself and indifferent to the opinion
of others, separated from all others by mutual ignorance
and misjudgment, regarded only the physical power of
other nations. Gibbon could say of the Byzantine
Empire: ‘‘Alone in the universe, the self-satisfied pride
of the Greeks was not disturbed by the comparison of
foreign merit; and it is no wonder if they fainted in the
race, since they had neither competitors to urge their
speed nor judges to crown their victory.” Now, how-
ever, there may be seen plainly the effects of a long-
continued process which is breaking down the isolation
of nations, permeating every country with better
8

knowledge and understanding of every other country,
spreading throughout the world a knowledge of each
government's conduct to serve as a basis for criticism
and jud gment, and gradually creating a community Of
nations, in which standards of conduct are being
established, and a world-wide public opinion is holding
nations to conformity or condemning them for disre-
gard of the established standards. The improved
facilities for travel and transportation, the enormous
increase of production and commerce, the revival of
colonization and the growth of colonies on a gigantic
scale, the severance of the laborer from the soil,
accomplished by cheap steamship and railway trans-
portation and the emigration agent, the flow and
return of millions of emigrants across national lines, - -
the amazing development of telegraphy and of the
press, conveying and spreading instant information of
every interesting event that happens in regions how-
ever remote—all have played their part in this change.
Pari passu with the breaking down of isolation,
that makes a common public opinion possible, the
building up of standards of conduct is being accom-
plished by the formulation and establishment of rules
that are being gradually taken out of the domain of
discussion into that of general acceptance—a process
in which the recent conferences at The Hague have
played a great and honorable part. There is no
9 -
~ J
civilized country now which is not sensitive to this
general opinion, none that is willing to subject itself
to the discredit of standing brutally on its power to
deny to other countries the benefit of recognized rules
of right conduct. The deference shown to this interº.
national public opinion is in due proportion to aſ
nation's greatness and advance in civilization. The)
nearest approach to defiance will be found among
the most isolated and least civilized of countries,
whose ignorance of the world prevents the effect
of the world's opinion; and in every such country
internal disorder, oppression, poverty, and wretch-
edness mark the penalties which warn mankind
that the laws established by civilization for the
guidance of national conduct can not be ignored with
impunity.
National regard for international opinion is not
caused by amour propre alone—not merely by desire
for the approval and good opinion of mankind. Under-
lying the desire for approval and the aversion to gen-
eral condemnation with nations as with the individual,
there is a deep sense of interest, based partly upon’
the knowledge that mankind backs its opinions by its
conduct and that nonconformity to the standard Qf
nations means condemnation and isolation, and partly,
upon the knowledge that in the give and take of inter-
national affairs it is better for every nation to secure
IO
the protection of the law by complying with it than to
forfeit the law's benefits by ignoring it.
Beyond all this there is a consciousness that in the
most important affairs of nations, in their political
status, the success of their undertakings and their
processes of development, there is an indefinite and,
almost mysterious influence exercised by the general
opinion of the world regarding the nation's character
and conduct. The greatest and strongest govern-
ments recognize this influence and act with reference
to it. They dread the moral isolation created by
general adverse opinion and the unfriendly feeling
that accompanies it, and they desire general approval
and the kindly feeling that goes with it.
This is quite independent of any calculation upon a
physical enforcement of the opinion of others. It is
difficult to say just why such opinion is of importance,
because it is always difficult to analyze the action of
moral forces; but it remains true and is universally
recognized that the nation which has with it the moralſ.
force of the world's approval is strong, and the nation
which rests under the world's condemnation is weak,
however great its material power.
These are the considerations which determine the
course of national conduct regarding the vast majority
of questions to which are to be applied the rules of
international law. The real sanction which enforces
II
those rules is the injury which inevitably follows non-
conformity to public opinion; while, for the occasional
and violent or persistent law-breaker, there always
stands behind discussion the ultimate possibility of
war, as the sheriff and the policeman await the occa-
sional and comparatively rare violators of municipal
law. -
Of course, the force of public opinion can be brought
to bear only upon comparatively simple questions and
clearly ascertained and understood rights. Upon
complicated or doubtful questions, as to which judg-
ment is difficult, each party to the controversy can
maintain its position of refusing to yield to the other's
arguments without incurring public condemnation.
Upon this class of questions the growth of arbitration
furnishes a new and additional opportunity for Opinion
to act; because, however complicated the question in
dispute may be, the proposition that it should be sub-
mitted to an impartial tribunal is exceedingly simple,
and the proposition that the award of such a tribunal,
shall be complied with is equally simple, and the natioſ
which refuses to submit a question properly the sub-
ject of arbitration naturally invites condemnation.
Manifestly, this power of international public opinion
is exercised not so much by governments as by the
people of each country whose opinions are interpreted
in the press and determine the country's attitude
I2
towards the nation whose conduct is under consid-
eration. International opinion is the consensus of
individual opinion in the nations. The most certain
way to promote obedience to the law of nations and
to substitute the power of opinion for the power of
armies and navies is, on the one hand, to foster that X,
“decent respect to the opinions of mankind" which
found place in the great Declaration of 1776, and on
the other hand, to spread among the people of every
Country a just appreciation of international rights and
duties, and a knowledge of the principles and rules of
international law to which national conduct ought to
conform; SO that the general opinion, whose approval
or condemnation supplies the sanction for the law, may
be sound and just and worthy of respect.
ELIHU ROOT
I3
ÜN}\}, {} F \, : (; ; ; , , ,
} \
COUNCIL OF DIRECTION FOR THE AMERICAN BRANCH
OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INTERNATIONAL
CONCILIATION
LYMAN Abbott, N Ew York,
CHARLEs FRANCIS ADAMs, Boston.
EDWIN A. ALDERMAN, CHARLOTTEsvili.E, VA.
C11 AR1. Its H. AMEs. BosſroN, MAss.
Richard BART Holdt. M. C., ST. I.O.UIs, Mo.
CLIFTON R. BRECKENRIDGE, FoRT SMITH, ARKANSAs.
WILLIAM J. J3ry AN, LINCOLN, N EB.
T. E. Burton, M. C., CLEv ELAND, OPilo.
Nicho LAs MURRAY BU'ri.ER, N Ew York.
AND REw CARNEGIE, NEw York.
T. Dw ARD CARY, N Ew York.
Joseph H. ChoATE, New York.
Richa RD H. DANA, Boston, M Ass.
A Rºrii U R L. DASHER, M Aco N. G.A.
HoRAcE J. DEMING, NEw York.
CHARLEs W. I. Llor, CAM BRIDGE, MAss.
John W. Foster, WASHINGTON, D. C
Richi ARD WATson GILDER, N Ew York.
Jo HN ART HUR GREENE, NEw York.
JAMES M. GREEN wooD, KANSAS City, Mo.
FRANKLIN H. H. EAD, CHICAGO, Ill.
WILLIAM J. Hollan D, Pittsburgh, PA.
HAMILTON HolT, N Ew York.
JAMES L. HouGHTALING, CHICAGO, ILL.
IDAVID STAR Jorp AN, STAN for D tjniversity, CAL.
EDMOND KELLY, N Ew York.
ADolph Lºw isot, N, N Ew York.
SETH Low, N Ew York.
CLARENCE H. MacKAY, New York,
W. A. MAHONY, CoLUMBUs, OHIo.
BRANDER MAttri Ews, N Ew York.
W. W. MoRRow, SAN FRANcisco, CAL.
GEORGE B. McCLELLAn, MAYor of New York,
LEvi P. Morton, N Ew York.
Silas McBEE, NEw York.
SIMoN N Ewcom B, WASHINGTON, D. C.
STEPHEN H. () LIN, N Ew York.
A. V. V. RAYMon D, Schen ECTADy, N. Y.
IRA REMSEN, BALTIMORE, MD.
JAMES FORD R Hop Es, Boston, Mass.
How ARD J. Rogers, ALBANY, N. Y.
ELIH U Root, WASHINGton, D. C.
. G. Schurm AN, ITHAca, N. Y.
SAAc N. S.E.IGMAN, N Ew York.
F. J. V. Skiff, CHICAGo, ILL.
WILLIAM M. SI.o.ANE, NEw York.
ALBERT K. SMILity, LAKE MoHoNK, N. Y.
JAMEs SPEye R, N Ew York.
Oscar S. STRAUs, WASHINGTon, D. C.
Mrs. MARy WooD Swift, SAN FRANcisco, CAL.
GEORGE W. TAYLOR, M. C., DEMopolis, A.A,
O. H. Titt MAN, WashingtoN, D. C.
W. H. To LMAN, N Ew York.
BENJAMIN TRUEBLooD, Boston, MAss.
Tºpward Tuck, PARIs, FRANCE.
WILLIAM D. WHEELwRIGHT, Port LAND, ORE.
ANDREw D. WHITE, Ithaca, N. Y.
≡≡≡**********№
№-- ~- - - - ----
--◄*•、、******************）（s-s_º：№š
• №-ºsae***±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±
:：=≡:±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，± -- - - - - - - - - -
*№º ----******************§§=ſae！！！！！！！！！！！！！!！！！！！！！ :，:
→ → →�� �& ș**************
&=--~~~~）;2=№w） == №
:：::--№i±±
№ſe≡≡≡≡…<3№
±±±±№ •■e=s=！！！！！！！！≡≡≡≡&& &&******
№ º（~~~~∞∞∞∞∞∞i√∞ √≥±，±，±，±，±）,••• • • ►►---： №ae, *********+ → -- →*
±±±#####№Ē！！！！！！！！！！！！！！№.§Ê№######################±，±，±，±，±,±，±，±
|-ſaes= <！！！！！！！! - ſaeaeaeae№aegae±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±），*** • • • • •- →
（±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±№ſae∞∞∞∞∞ſae∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞±，±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±，±，±，±,±，±，±，±
± ==*****~~~~5！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！!！！！！！！！！！！！！№.~affae№sae
№aeae:№ſ∞=№ſaeſaeaeaeaeae§§§:ſſae:：::：::：::：：:：:：::：:::：:：::：:****
&·ſaes， z，***********>|<<， ≥±−×:：=≡******§§§©®°¶√≠≤≥±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±），sºs±，±,±，±，±，±，±,±，±
→∞ √° ******~№aeaeae， §:s:::::::：：::：:：:：：：::：：:：:：：::Saeg、、、、、、、、、、、、ae ::
și №ſſae:§§№ae
（±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±），
ſae！！！！！！！！--№ſſae
！！！！！！！！ :::::#ffae！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
<！=*************** _ ！！！！!！！！！！！！！!！±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±），
！！！！！！…*…！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！~ |-
±，±,±，±，±，±，±，±，±·
№t！！！！！！！！ №， №aei！！！！！！！！！！
~~~~==++~~~~！）|×:=≡≡≡:：:::：::：::！！！！！！！№， №s ae ********！！！！！
±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±3，±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±,±）,s-…--• <<<= *）>（.**） ***
3:a， **）.* <^§§§！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！№！！！！！！！！！--№saeae:№tºr:：：::::::::：::*№
~s！！！！！！！！！！！！！！-- <！--F（！）§Ë№！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
№t: №№. ！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！№.
！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！_）+（-ae,a=-- ~~ ~~~~，、。x_3=_≥±，±，±，±，±），±，±，±）,∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞，∞） = * * * * * * =: （ №
º:
§
§§§ º
{
º
№！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！~~ ~~~~）（ *ſae№
#：######3–5-rſſ':）?！！！！！！！！！$$$±！=$№！！！！！！！！！！！！~
ºlae ！！！！！！！！！！！！!！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！•№aeae × ≤ ≥ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − _…：…?
- - -、、、、、、） *_' + _） ：-（.*）… ~~~~ ！= … +：- ！！ ！！ ！！！！！！：≡≡≡≡ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − √≠ √æ√≠√≠√°√∞（*:）*）
-¿№lº： *…*…*3！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！!！!§！！！！！！！！！！！！！ :：::：:：:::：:：！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！
→！！！！！！！！！！！！!！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！ №！！！！！！ *ſ*…*¿.*¿.*¿¿.*¿¿.*¿¿.*
• ×！！！！！！--~~~~~）; ， -3 =5， -（-）-（№:№º！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！=#####×， ， > --~--~
：ſ！！！ :） --- ！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！-№ſſaeſaeſºrſ:（-（:-（:-（+！！！！！！！！！！:）?:）?（.*（?:）?（.*-º-º-º-º-º-º-º?~ § 5. *،E:º:º:！!！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！№s！！！！！！
ſaes -- zae،±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±ſae: * · * * * * · * * * · * 2 : * · · · · · · ·:·ſaeae-№（aeaeae
►►ºxx），x，x）=x=aº š！！！！--* * * * * ！<！-- ** * * * * * ！• º ： · · ·：ſaeaeae∞∞∞ √≠ ≤ ≥ ≡≡≡ （！！！）: sae aerae
șę.• • •••••… .- -->-->¿Ķ
№！ ± &************x=a… z=========++~~~~~~*~~~~ ~~~~
*、、、、、、、、、
#1;
iſ
×£§！！!！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！§--№ſſae（**********
·（±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±，±,±，±），
： ∞ → ** **
| R v J N G. P R E S s, N E w Yo RK






ſºil
3 go15 06386 8726
+ . . . ;
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
;:::::::::::'''''',
!,''', ' ' ". . . . . .

*º º º v § Fº § : łº, g; *. --- -- .* § -
§§
§º
; § § sº tº
§§
#. §: º gº Sºº º #. º: §§ § º º 5. º º º s - §º * , a
- #Tº. º sº.
~ º º §
§§§
§§.º
& | & º
º º ºś *º. sº º §§§s. ..º.º.º. sº
º § º ºğ H § ºšº ; º
- &’s tº . sc 3 ñº. .*.*.*.*. º Fº . º -- º º'; º **'. º
§§ §
º . ãº.
§§§ §
§ . § º s
º § º:
-. § º's
º #. gº; º
º
º
; :
º, ºr
*:::
se
$º
& Aſſ'
* *
º *
% ; º § § §º: g
§§
§º. 2. º tº. * **
* s *
º: § # §
* ...ſº I *
#y;
$...º.º.
º § ºf º §
§. § ... º wº irº *
** : sº 3. º :* * *::: *Y. - º is º tº ºx ºr,
t 3. tº: * . . . . .” tº, *::: r º ... s. $33.3' :*:
º. º. 3 rººf...,]º.
########,
* t -
s} ºf º 'º - .
§§§.
º º §
º tº # ºf
º
i ! º,...;
§ §
'º'
§º
§§
§§§
§§§
§
* º
§ - § tº: - º
; º
**
jº ºf §§ § % * § º
:* * ºš. º º # lº.
.# ###$$. * * º
§
3. £3. $ $º 3. , -
º §§§ yº
º, ºxº *
*ś
$ 3.
rº. $ º § º, tº
§: . § º: § ſº
::. - º'A'. & * lºſsº." º” “sºft
:::: º §§ ºtºº
§§ #. º §º * ** i
r-º- * * º, Žº.
{ -
;
º .
• *.x: , º ;
3 * iſ] * * . § º % . §
§§ º; §
sº, §º §: º ; º
º .* - x. $.
$.
..
- 3.
*::::: * * -
*
t * -
w i? tº .
". §: |-sº
A !
. .*.*. ^ sº º
sº f * } : $f º *::: ;
t º º # tº:
tº, wº *:
#3; gº';
†.
º 2x
º: º: * (*, * . . .
ºß
!" ...' º, r {{# 3.3% § ** º !
* * * * §§º * * *
ir w .
**
;
: -;
ſ
ºś
sº ; *
*"...ſº
**, ºil ºš $
* , º, Piñº § º
§: § §§ -
§§
§§
} $º r
º ; ;3
§
£: §§ $;
º, º * * * :
tº ft.* rºw.” -*. º, º f *.*. -
§ º Å. ºfº is i § r
§ § §'.
º § § º sº *ś
:- *::: º § §: § # º; #.
§ § º §§ º,
º'º',\\ºtiº, :***. h
y ſº
. ; : tºº
{{º. º §§ $ º § Sº, § Lº f § §§ "...?
** } -v. § #. ...}*** **** 3, §
º ºš *\º. º *
'ºff'...'..…sº, ſº tº
§§§
** F.”
s º -: ...
::::: º: tº "... tº: * A.
- , ºf ,\!,'º', *: ..? A$. **º-4 3
ºf. ; :Sº
§ ºf **ś,
tº ºff.
3.
*'''
&# ºr'Y' 'º
tº sº
wº." sa 'º'
* --> .###".
ºf ºs., t_* * *
*...*, fºg; ºr § , * * *
º # * § ºf .
g j • * jº K". Aº ſº.
* § º *f; º, 6 ºz. .*.*
gºt ººk ºf #
ºś
.. §:
‘ a , , it ºf ... ."
§§ §§
º,"; sº, º ºsº.º.º.
*A*ś gº º º'º jº'" º'º. f **** º º, #º º
“s,ł ‘. . . ; ; * $. ..", ...' ...?...] ...?. # , . f *** sº *
ºft, fº. º.º.º.º.º.º.º.º.º.º. 'º'º.
* †º ;º. º *2. §§§ .# º § Wº's
ºś
***.' º º, ºf '…' $3. :*, 3. rººf".
','º' § * º §§ ºč
§§ **ś.
º: tºº, fºl'. '.... §. *}, . }. -
tº #”. **, **ſº º sy
º
* ** g º, !
§§§
:*::::::::$º º
tº "ºrºv §
* tº:
* º: º, # .
‘. . . sºpº * {
. . . º, '#' ſ: *..." .*, *
$'; ºt.º.º. tºº,
* T - ſº ſº. jº ; ,sº
jº §§