KSTKBAX (ilL BORCJKS 
 IJ,. I). (jKOUC.KI OWN, 1921 
 MIMS'I KR ()|. lOKl .KIN K l .l .A'I'IONS ()|. VKM /.UKI.A 
 

 _O-l096 
 
(gparg^totun Inm^rBity 
 
 SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE 
 
 DEDICATED 
 
 TO 
 
 IPa« Ampriran Snitg 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/academicexercise1921geor 
 

ACADEMIC EXERCISES IN GASTON HALL 
 GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY 
 ON THE OCCASION OF THE CONFERRING OF THE DEGREE OF 
 
 Snrtnr nf Earns 
 
 ON 
 
 iEfil^ban (BM 
 
 MINISTER OF FOREIGN RELATIONS OF VENEZUELA 
 APRIL 26, 1921 
 
 'HE sojourn in the United States of the special delegation from 
 Venezuela to the unveiling of the statue of Simon Bolivar in 
 / ^ ^ Central Park, New York, was notable in many respects. Few 
 
 representatives of foreign nations,—and we have seen many 
 in recent years,—have been accorded a more enthusiastic or 
 more elaborate welcome than that tendered to Senor Esteban 
 Gil Borges, Minister of Foreign Relations of Venezuela during his stay in the 
 United States as official spokesman of the land first set free by the Liberator of 
 South America. 
 
 Headed by President Harding and Secretary of State Hughes, a large group 
 of prominent Government Officials and Washingtonians journeyed to New York 
 in a special train on April 19th to attend the unveiling exercises and to hear the 
 President of the United States deliver a stirring address in which he pledged 
 anew to the Republics of Latin America the disinterested friendship of the United 
 States and urged upon both peoples renewed devotion to the common ideals of 
 Washington and Bolivar. 
 
 The President of Georgetown University, John B. Creeden, and the Regent 
 of the School of Foreign Service, Edmund A. Walsh, were among the special 
 guests invited to New York by the Venezuelan Government to participate in the 
 impressive unveiling ceremonies. While in New York, the President of George¬ 
 town conveyed to the Minister of Foreign Relations of Venezuela formal noti¬ 
 fication that the School of Foreign Service had petitioned the academic senate 
 of the University that the Honorary degree of Doctor of Laws should be con¬ 
 ferred upon him. This petition, he was happy to announce, had been favorably 
 voted upon and, he added, he deemed it particularly fitting that the first candidate 
 to be presented for academic honors by the new School of Foreign Service 
 should be a distinguished statesman, scholar and educator from a sister republic 
 of South America. 
 
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE 
 
 A brilliant gathering of foreign diplomats, Government officials, educators 
 and citizens of Washington assembled in Gaston Hall on the evening of April 
 26th to assist at the academic exercises in honor of Venezuela. Gaston Hall, 
 always impressive by reason of its classic mural decorations, was particularly 
 warm and bright with the inter-twined colors of the twenty-one American Re¬ 
 publics. When the long procession, headed by the President of the University, 
 who escorted Dr. Santos Dominici, the Minister from Venezuela to the United 
 States, and comprising the members of the various faculties in cap and gowns, 
 and invited guests from the embassies and legations, had reached the stage, a 
 special convocation of the University was opened with an address of welcome 
 by Edmund A. Walsh, Regent of the School of Foreign Service. 
 
 ADDRESS OF WELCOME 
 
 By Edmund A. Walsh, S.J., 
 
 Regent of the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University. 
 
 Reverend President of the University, Honored Representatives from Venezuela, 
 Dr. Borges and Colleagues, Distinguished Guests, Members of the Faculty of 
 Georgctozvn University, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 OMETHING less than two years ago, in this same hall, under 
 auspices not unlike those which have brought together this 
 distinguished assemblage, the School of Foreign Service was 
 welcomed as a distinct department of Georgetown University 
 and was bid Godspeed by the older faculties in its mission of 
 preparing chosen American youths for the responsible duties 
 devolving upon those who aspire to represent this nation abroad, be it in a 
 public or private capacity. Among the earnest recommendations made on that 
 occasion by the eminent scholars and statesmen who assisted at the inauguration 
 exercises, was the hope that the technical instruction, while based upon and 
 pre-supposing the solid substance of a liberal education, should be eminently 
 practical and, as far as possible, of the laboratory type. Long and bitter experi¬ 
 ence had taught these observant men that proficiency in the technique of Foreign 
 Trade or Consular Practice or Diplomatic Procedure is but a fractional part of 
 the full equipment required of youths embarking on the high romance of 
 International Relations. 
 
 Technical knowledge will be futile, nay, even dangerous in proportion as it 
 is insular, unless humanized by a broad sympathy with the men, the history, the 
 
ESTEBAN GIL BORGES 
 
 literature and social institutions of other climes. It was in answer to this oft- 
 repeated hope, and as a practical exemplification of Articles 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 
 of the Final Act of the Pan American Scientific Congress held in this city in 
 1915, that it was decided to send a group of Foreign Service students to some 
 one of the Latin American Republics in the summer of 1920, under the direction 
 of our devoted and esteemed Professor of Spanish, Dr. Sherwell, himself a 
 perfect blend of Latin culture and northern energy, the true Pan-American. 
 
 The perfect legal equality of nations, so clearly defined by that illustrious 
 interpreter of our Constitution, Chief Justice Marshall, in the “Antelope Case” 
 in 1825, is a first principle of social intercourse in the School of Foreign Service. 
 We were perplexed, therefore, and embarrassed to no small degree in choosing 
 the country to which our first expedition for economic research should be sent. 
 Upon mature deliberation, however, we felt that no happier selection could be 
 made as the starting point for such student expeditions, which ultimately will 
 cover all the Latin American Republics, than the most accessible country of the 
 Southern Continent, the birthplace of the great Liberator, Simon Bolivar, the 
 land especially bound to the United States by ties traditionally cordial and 
 particularly strong since certain events recorded in the Diplomatic History of 
 both countries under the year 1895,—the Republic of Venezuela! 
 
 The rich results of the sojourn of these eighteen Georgetown students in 
 the land of Venezuela are now matter of common knowledge and the subject 
 of wide comment. The printed report shows how great was the courtesy and 
 how extensive were the facilities afforded the Georgetown students by the official 
 and academic authorities of Venezuela. In welcoming you, therefore, to the 
 halls of Georgetown University, halls made illustrious in olden days by the 
 visit of the Liberator of our Country, the immortal Washington, I beg to express 
 to the Minister of Foreign Relations of Venezuela and through him to the people 
 of his country, the sincere gratitude of our University, and, for that matter, of 
 all academic circles in this country, for the many attentions and unfailing interest 
 manifested by the Venezuelan officials and teachers in the work of our rep¬ 
 resentatives. 
 
 I have the honor, sir, of placing in your hands the first copy of the Venezuela 
 Report, which we have taken the liberty of dedicating to you. 
 
 This published account of the first embassy of good will sent by an American 
 University to Latin America makes clear that the contact was a valuable one for 
 the particular students who made the trip, and that they bore themselves well 
 and creditably. All the more satisfaction may be derived from this fact, inasmuch 
 as the students selected might be fairly taken as a cross section of the student 
 body in the School of Foreign Service,—and you are already aware how widely 
 
 5 
 
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE 
 
 representative of the youth of our country that student body is. That these young 
 men should have made a favorable impression in a rather long trip of this char¬ 
 acter, when they were under the observation of a great number of persons, and 
 often in situations calling for a demonstration of no inconsiderable poise and 
 sense of the fitness of things, cannot but enhance our satisfaction and our con¬ 
 fidence, not merely in the resourcefulness, but in the trustworthiness of the 
 men upon whom this country must depend in the future for the promotion of 
 her trade and the dignified and active representation of her policies. 
 
 The opportunity to hear such eminent Venezuelan Professors as Dr. Itriago 
 Chacin, Professor of International Law and Head of the Diplomatic Service of 
 the Government, and Dr. Jose Santiago Rodriguez, Director of the School of 
 Political Science, who graces this occasion with his presence tonight, shows 
 how profitable and enlightening must be the studies in the field of political 
 science carried on by students sent out in groups under conditions described in 
 this report. Studies in the domain of Political Science are not, to be sure, the 
 primary object of students going abroad to survey the economic resources, the 
 commercial usages and the facilities for transportation and distribution of com¬ 
 modities in the countries which they visit. None the less, sustained contact with 
 trained masters of political studies may at times be possible, and should, in all 
 cases, be availed of in order to gain the valuable experience of hearing points 
 of view on matters of international policy developed in other countries and under 
 conditions quite different from those obtaining at home. 
 
 Likewise, to Dr. Manuel Segundo Sanchez, the scholarly Director of the 
 National Library, who did all in his power to promote the studies of our students, 
 the University owes a debt of gratitude and herewith publicly thanks the Doctor 
 for his many courtesies. 
 
 Dr. Sherwell in his individual report has referred to the bestowal of a 
 decoration on him by the Venezuelan Government, and has minimized its personal 
 significance. This reservation of his I transmit with amendments, for I cannot 
 but share the views of the Venezuelan authorities in granting him first, the Medal 
 of Public Instruction and later the Order of the Liberator, that he had rendered 
 Venezuela a lasting service, no less than his own country, by his dignified, 
 gracious and enthusiastic interest in the promotion of the intellectual and com¬ 
 mercial relations of the two republics. 
 
 Again, sir, you are thrice welcome to these halls of learning and to the long 
 list of distinguished Alumni, whom Alma Mater has honored with the highest 
 degree in her bestowal. You come to add your name to a long and honored list 
 of Latin Americans who have found inspiration within these halls, a list begun 
 as far back as 1801, when, just after the inauguration of that Pioneer of Pan- 
 
 6 
 
ESTEBAN GIL BORGES 
 
 Americanism, Thomas Jefferson, twenty-three young Cubans were brought 
 here by Bishop Claget, of Louisville, Kentucky. On our rolls may be read the 
 names of a President of Chile, the elder Errazuriz; a distinguished Peruvian 
 Cabinet Minister, whose picture adorns the hall below stairs, Felix Cipriano 
 Coronel Zegarra; and the high-minded Colombian Diplomat, Thomas Herran. 
 And, as John Carroll, the founder of Georgetown University, with his kinsman, 
 Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the signer of the Declaration of Independence, was 
 one of the leaders in the movement of American Independence in 1775, so, it is 
 a matter of historical record that one of the first agitators for South American 
 Independence was a brother Jesuit, Juan Pablo Vizcardo y Guzman, who, in 
 1791, at considerable peril, wrote a famous letter, in which he said: 
 
 “The valor with which the English colonies of America have fought 
 for their liberty, which they, gloriously enjoy, covers our indolence with 
 shame; zue have yielded to them the palm with which they have been 
 the first to crown the New World by their sovereign independence.” 
 
 In 1798, Guzman died in London, entrusting to the United States Minister 
 there, Rufus King, a remarkable document urging South American independence, 
 in which he said of his countrymen: “The recent acquisition of independence by 
 their neighbors in\ North America has) made the deepest impression on them.” 
 
 And as the students of Georgetown University and the students of Venezuela 
 clasped hands at the foot of the statue of Bolivar in your Capital City of Caracas, 
 so do we extend anew the hand of fellowship in our Capital City, on the shores 
 of the Potomac, within short distance of the tomb of Washington. In extending 
 this hearty welcome and in renewing these pledges of brotherhood to you, sir, 
 and to all our fellow-citizens of the Americas, it is with the fervent prayer that 
 the friendship of our institutions of learning may endure and be as profound as 
 was the love of the two liberators, Washington and Bolivar, for the whole 
 American continent and as sincere as is the friendship which exists between the 
 United States of North America and the United States of Venezuela. Americans 
 all, our spirits thrill in unison to that vibrant note, America, that one word which 
 fills the heart with,—I know not how to describe it,—that sudden, magic com¬ 
 bination of love, jealousy, pride, devotion and confidence, which men call Patri¬ 
 otism! Assuredly, sirs, there is no stronger bond among men than the pure love 
 of liberty and truth symbolized by yonder entwined banners. In this common 
 devotion, national differences are forgotten and party strife ceases. When Truth 
 and Liberty speak, all else is silent. 
 
 7 
 
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE 
 
 ADDRESS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 Rev. John B. CrEEden, S.J. 
 
 Mr. Secretary, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 ^HE story of the visit of our students to Venezuela, the cordial 
 welcome given them and their enthusiasm for the country and 
 its people, forms one of the most gratifying chapters in the 
 history of Georgetown University. When the School of Foreign 
 Service was organized it took for its motto “Pro patria per orbis 
 concordium’' —to serve our country by promoting harmony 
 among the Nations. We recognized the necessity of careful training in languages, 
 and in economic and political sciences. We succeeded in securing the co-operation 
 of a faculty that has no superior in technical knowledge, and is unequalled in 
 self-sacriticing devotedness to the aims of the School, but the University from 
 the very first realized that a knowledge of languages, of economic, and of political 
 science, will not make a man a great diplomat nor a successful foreign trader. 
 
 Eighty years ago a prospectus of Georgetown College emphasized the im¬ 
 portance of cultivating friendly relations with the new Spanish American Repub¬ 
 lics. True to the motto, “Pro Patria per orbis concordiam,” the University saw 
 then, as she sees now, that it is better to know the psychology of a people than 
 to know the mileage of its railroads; that to deal understandingly, sympathetically, 
 and harmoniously with another nation we must know its history, its traditions, 
 and its culture. Centuries ago the cultured Greeks designated all who spoke a 
 foreign language as “Barbarians.” They despised all foreigners because they 
 could not speak their language. If we North Americans have followed the Greeks 
 in nothing else, we have imitated them faithfully in our tendency to belittle those 
 who have been deprived of the great blessing of learning the English language 
 in childhood. We have substituted other epithets, not always flattering, for the 
 “Barbarian” of the Greeks. It is perhaps unfair to judge us harshly for this 
 attitude toward foreigners. Every year there are cast upon our shores hundreds 
 of thousands of the lower classes from all the nations of the earth. It is from 
 these immigrants that the ordinary, untraveled North American must derive his 
 concept of foreigners. He had no opportunity of knowing the history, the culture, 
 the home life, of the mother country. Such an attitude toward foreigners is bom 
 not of malice, but of ignorance. This is true especially of our attitude toward 
 the people of Latin American countries. Much of our information about Latin 
 America and its people comes from poisoned sources. Our country is supplied 
 with reports of authors whose industry is at least equalled by their prejudice. 
 They go to South America expecting to find the people worshiping the sun. 
 
 8 
 
ESTEBAN GIL BORGES 
 
 They meet men and women who make religion a vital force in their daily lives. 
 As in all other countries, some may not practise religion, but they are all ready 
 to die for it. Unfortunately the reports sent by these missionaries are inspired 
 by disappointment and prejudice rather than by facts, and it is from these reports 
 that hundreds of thousands of North Americans get their information about the 
 Republics of the South. Today no self-respecting historian dares to quote Pres¬ 
 cott or Irving as authorities. They were fascinating writers of romance, but 
 they were not historians. And yet our histories, our romances, and our books of 
 travel, have been inspired and colored by the fiction of these authors. Ask any 
 American school child what he thinks of the early explorers of Central and South 
 America, and he will tell you, with as much assurance as he would declare that 
 two and two make four, that the early colonizers of the southern part of this 
 continent were men of blood, cruel to the Indians, and unprogressive in the arts 
 of civilization. 
 
 The facts of history are that the Spanish colonizers and their successors 
 were remarkable for the humane and progressive spirit which marked them 
 from first to last. Compared with the colonizers of North America they were 
 angels of mercy. Where the English colonists civilized one of the aborigines, 
 the Spanish colonists civilized thousands. It will surprise the readers of Prescott 
 to know that more Indians were killed in the English conquest of Virginia than 
 in the Spanish conquest of Peru; and that the massacre of King Phillip and his 
 men in New England was more bloody and less justifiable than the so-called 
 massacre by Cortez in Mexico. In spite of our boast of progressiveness in edu¬ 
 cation, three universities in Spanish America were almost ready for their cen¬ 
 tennial celebration when our oldest university was founded. Schools for Indians 
 were established in 1534; books for the Indians in twelve different dialects were 
 printed in Spanish and Portuguese America before the first printing press had 
 been set up in English America. Thanks to the new school of American history, 
 we are coming to know and appreciate the truth,—a truth that every American 
 who is a lover of fair play, will be glad to know. Thanks to men like Bandelier 
 and Lummis, the omissions, the distortions, the prejudices and exaggerations of 
 Prescott and Irving will no longer mislead the writers of American textbooks. It 
 was to give our young men an opportunity to know and appreciate the people of 
 other countries that we adopted the practical policy referred to by the Regent 
 of the School of Foreign Service. How successful our first experiment has been 
 may be learned from the report of the Regent, from the pages of the book just 
 placed in the hands of our distinguished guest, and from the love and appreciation 
 of Venezuela and its people that has taken possession of the students of the 
 School of Foreign Service. It is our purpose to continue this broad education. 
 We want our students to come in contact with the people of other nations, for 
 
 9 
 
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE 
 
 by this contact they will learn to be guided in their estimation of others by culture 
 and manhood, rather than by language and nationality. They will learn that 
 culture and manhood are not confined to the dwellers of one land, nor to the 
 speakers of one tongue. They are to be found everywhere. When our education 
 is broad enough to enable us to disregard accidents and provincialisms, we see 
 that human nature is fundamentally the same in all lands, and we give up the 
 Greek habit of calling a man a “Barbarian” if he speaks a language with which 
 we are unfamiliar. 
 
 There is a peculiar satisfaction for the Faculty of Georgetown University 
 in our successful experiment in a South American country, for that continent is 
 dear to us by the memory of the heroic labors of brother Jesuit missionaries and 
 educators. In 1556 Nobrega landed in South America, and it is due in large 
 measure to him and his successors, men like Anchieta, Claver and Vieyra, that 
 there exists between North and South America one of the most startling contrasts 
 in the history of civilization. In the North, the original inhabitants have been 
 practically exterminated without pity. In the South, the aborigines are more 
 numerous than they were at the time of the landing of the first Europeans. These 
 pioneer missionaries were the first to advocate successfully the abolition of slavery. 
 They were the first to organize schools for the Indians. They were the first to 
 publish dictionaries and grammars in the native dialect. They were the first to 
 set up and operate a printing press on the Western Continent. They were the 
 first geographers and scientific explorers. They were the first to discover and 
 use many valuable medicines, such as quinine. They were the first to bring into 
 general use India rubber, and vanilla, and the bark of the chincona tree. In the 
 great Reductions of Paraguay, the vanished Acadia, they gave to the world an 
 unparalleled example of scientific civilization. They were ruined by the cupidity 
 of politicians. The storm of violence and passion that so long frowned upon 
 them at last burst over the happy abodes, polluting what it did not destroy. But 
 the true picture of the Reductions and the contributions they made to society is 
 given by the reluctant Raynal—a bitter enemy of the Christian name—“Nothing 
 can equal the purity of morals, the gentle and tender zeal, the paternal care of 
 the Jesuits of Paraguay. There each pastor v/as truly the father and guide of 
 his flock. There authority was not felt, because no order was given, no prohi¬ 
 bition imposed, no punishment inflicted, but what was ordered, imposed, or 
 inflicted by religion, which they loved like themselves ... A government 
 under which no one was idle, no one oppressed with labor; in which the food 
 was wholesome, abundant and alike for all the citizens, where all were comfortably 
 lodged and well clothed; where the old and infirm, orphans and widows were 
 taken care of as in no other country; where all marriages were made for affection 
 and without interest; where a multitude of children was a consolation instead of 
 a burden to parents.” 
 
 10 
 
ESTEBAN GIL BORGES 
 
 Having in mind the broad aim of the Foreign Service School “Pro patria 
 per orbis concordiam" and filled with the memory of the gigantic labors of brother 
 Jesuits in South America, it is with feelings of gratification that we welcome to 
 the halls of Georgetown a distinguished representative of the South American 
 Continent. In conferring upon him the highest honors of the University, we are 
 giving public testimony to our appreciation of his scholarship and of the contri¬ 
 butions he has made to the science of international law, but we intend also that 
 this ceremony should be an outward expression of the aim and desire of the 
 University to join together the men of all nations with the harmonious bond of 
 charity in the Brotherhood of Man under the Fatherhood of God. 
 
 Following the address of President Creeden, a portion of the charter granted 
 by Congress to Georgetown was read by the Dean of the College Department, 
 the Reverend W. Coleman Nevils, S.J., who likewise read the text of the encom¬ 
 ium conferring the Doctorate on Senor Gil Borges; 
 
 “AN ACT 
 
 “Concerning the College of Georgetown in the District of 
 
 Columbia ; 
 
 “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
 United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall and may 
 be lawful for such persons as now are, or from time to time may be, 
 the President and Directors of the College of Georgetown, within the 
 District of Columbia, to admit any of the students belonging to said 
 College, or other persons meriting academical honors, to any degree in 
 the faculties, arts, sciences, and liberal professions, to which persons 
 are usually admitted in other Colleges or Universities of the United 
 States; and to issue in an appropriate form the diplomas or certificates 
 which may be requisite to testify to the admission to such degree. 
 
 “Langdon Cheves, 
 
 “Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
 
 “John Gaillard, 
 
 “President pro tempore of the Senate. 
 
 “March 1, 1815. Approved: 
 
 “James Madison.” 
 
 11 
 
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE 
 
 THE PRESIDENT AND FACULTY 
 OF 
 
 GEORGETOWN COLLEGE 
 
 EXTEND TO ALL WHO SHALL BEHOLD THIS DOCUMENT 
 GREETINGS IN THE LORD. 
 
 This ancient University of Georgetown, while ever devoting itself to the 
 advancement of science and the liberal arts, has likewise sought to promote every 
 worthy cause tending either to the nation’s good or to the common welfare of 
 humanity. Among such ideals is international harmony, for no man can deny 
 that the hope of mankind rests more and more on the cultivation of mutual con¬ 
 fidence and good will among nations. Assuredly, such essential faith in each 
 other’s integrity and a spirit of mutual helpfulness has long characterized the 
 relations existing between Venezuela and the United States of North America. 
 The chronicles of both nations furnish ample proof of this,—if indeed proof be 
 needed,—in the long line of amicable treaties constantly renewed, in the memorable 
 and unequivocal protest made by this Government against the encroachments of 
 a European power on Venezuelan territory and in the acts of gracious kindness 
 and unfailing courtesy with which the citizenry of Caracas welcomed our sons, 
 the American students from Georgetown, in the Summer of 1920. And the latest 
 token of fraternal union stands in imperishable bronze as the gift of Venezuela 
 to the great metropolis of the North,—the heroic statue of the renowned Liberator, 
 Bolivar. 
 
 Motives such as these commend the whole Venezuelan people to our esteem 
 and affection, but especially does this University deem it proper to honor him 
 whom his people have chosen to honor by sending him hither as their special 
 representative, and who is at home their particular pride and abroad their public 
 ornament,—the Honorable Esteban Gil Borges. Not only has this man’s achieve¬ 
 ments in fulfilling worthily the responsible post of Minister of Foreign Relations 
 raised him to preeminence among his fellow Venezuelans, but personal merit, 
 manifesting itself in the winning of academic honors in his native land, in the 
 authorship of scholarly works on Jurisprudence and in the high distinction of 
 professing International Law, has won for him a renown not confined to South 
 America, but extending to our northern lands, and even to the shores of Europe. 
 
 12 
 
ESTEBAN GIL BORGES 
 
 Wherefore, in virtue of the power conferred on us, the President and 
 Directors of Georgetown College by the Federal Government of these United 
 States, we hereby create and proclaim the aforesaid Esteban Gil Borges, 
 
 DOCTOR OF LAWS 
 
 with all the rights, privileges and emoluments attaching to such a degree. In 
 order, moreover, that these rights be secured and safeguarded unto him, we 
 hereby deliver, with congratulations, these letters patent, signed by our own 
 hand and fortified with the great seal of the corporation, on this 26 th day of 
 April, in the Year of Our Salvation, One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty- 
 One. 
 
 PRAESES ET PROFESSORES 
 CONLEGII GEORGIOPOLITANI 
 OMNIBUS PRAESENTES LITERAS VISURIS 
 SALUTEM IN DOMINO. 
 
 Consuevit quidem haec Universitas Georgiopolitana non tantum cultum 
 scientiae et artium liberalium omni modo promovere, sed etiam, quod maximi 
 moment! est, ea omnia quae vel ad bonum Reipublicae vel ad bonum commune 
 omnium hominum conferant diligentissime excolere. Quis vero negabit bonum 
 totius generis human! eatenus provehi quatenus inter nationes fides simplex ac 
 benevolentia sincera existant atque vigeant. Praeterea nemo est qui negare 
 audeat inter rempublicam Venezuelae et rempublicam horum Statuum Foedera- 
 torum amicitiam integerrimam et plenissimam vigere et foveri. Ut alia praeclara 
 omittamus, testis est ilia incredibilis comitas qua nuper cives Venezuelenses 
 exceperunt illos juvenes Americanos qui e schola nostra ad res mercatorias in 
 austral! America visendas explorandasque perrexerunt; testis quoque est ilia 
 statua splendidissima celeberrimi Bolivaris, australis Americae Liberatoris, quam 
 paucis abhinc diebus huic reipublicae dono dedit populus Venezuelanus. Quibus 
 omnibus prae oculis habitis dignissimum videtur ut haecce Universitas Georgio¬ 
 politana, dum grato animo recognoscit virtutes et merita praeclarissimorum civium 
 Venezuelensium, Stephana Aegidio Borgesio, qui est lumen et decus Reipublicae 
 Venezuelae, quique hac festivitate a suis civibus ad populum Americanum nuntius 
 egregius est electus et constitutus, laudes agamus et praemia decernamus. Quod 
 revera eo magis est praestandum quod Stephanus Aegidius Borgesius in sua 
 patria gradu Doctoris Philosophiae est insignitus, libros sapientia ac doctrina 
 refertos scripsit, suis concivibus vera principia de Lege International! tradit, 
 curam gerit de rebus apud gentes exteras, immo tabs est qualem optimus quisque 
 turn in Europa turn in America, septentrional! et austral!, consuetudine devinctum 
 tenet laudibusque ad astra evehit. 
 
 13 
 
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE 
 
 Quapropter Nos, Moderator et Professores Universitatis Georgiopolitanae, 
 auctoritate a summa potestate civili nobis collata, hunc eumdem STEPHANUM 
 AEGIDIUM BORGESIUM, Doctorem Legum, honoris causa, creamus atque 
 declaramus cum omnibus juribus et privilegiis huic gradui annexis. Ut autem 
 haec jura ei sarta tectaque sint et in suo robore semper permaneant documentum 
 manu nostra subscriptum et sigillo Universitatis munitum eidem Stephana Aegidio 
 Borgesio plaudentes tradimus. 
 
 Die septimo ante Kalendas Maias anno Salutis MDCCCCXXI. 
 
 At the conclusion of Dean Nevil’s address. President Creeden handed the 
 diploma to Dr. Borges and placed the Doctor’s hood of blue and gray on the 
 shoulders of the distinguished Venezuelan, thus creating him Doctor of Laws. 
 While his colleagues were crowding around Dr. Borges with congratulations, the 
 students of the University broke into the old, familiar song, “Sons of George¬ 
 town,” and this salutation to the newest alumnus of the college was followed by 
 the stirring national anthem of Venezuela played by the Marine Band Orchestra. 
 
 REPLY OF 
 
 HIS EXCELLENCY ESTEBAN GIL BORGES 
 
 Minister of Foreign Relations of ihe United States of Venezuela 
 Reverend Rector and Regent of the School of Foreign Service: 
 
 Gentlemen: 
 
 Cg T WAS but yesterday that the city of New York conferred on 
 us its freedom, and now today you favor us with your hospi¬ 
 tality, and confer on us academic distinctions in these venerable 
 halls. Kindness thus doubly bestowed binds our hearts and 
 spirits forever to yours. In a moment of generous feeling,—a 
 moment we shall never forget,—you have disclosed to our very 
 souls your own greatness and your goodness. From the United States we shall 
 take home with us the memory of your cities streaming with our national colors, 
 and from the other shore of the Caribbean our tri-colored iris will wave in 
 eternal salute to your native land and toward the stars in your flag, thus signifying 
 the closer approach of our two countries to a common destiny. 
 
 In your kindness, you will understand my feelings, if, in undertaking to 
 express my thanks, I am unable to find an appropriate garland of thought to 
 exchange for the laurels you have bestowed on me; but my soul is as contemplative 
 in this University as in a temple, and my gratitude rises like incense to ask of 
 God that He preserve for your people the national virtues which have made the 
 
 14 
 
ESTEBAN GIL BORGES 
 
 greatness of this American Fatherland, for which we have an admiration equal 
 to our affection; and that He may preserve and encourage those institutions, 
 which, like your University, constitute the grace of your manhood, and are like 
 the flower of the oak,—but of an oak stronger, greater, and more productive than 
 that of imperial Rome, an oak which has already refreshed the world with the 
 shade of peace, no less than it has dazzled it by the glory of its foliage. 
 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 In international private law there is evolving a national tendency which has 
 had a rather full theoretical development in these recent years, particularly in 
 Germany and in Italy. It is, perhaps, the prevailing doctrine in the English 
 speaking countries. 
 
 This tendency is not an exceptional fact in international private law, but is 
 common in the evolution of all systems of law. International private law tends 
 to become a law of the state just as in other times private law was the law of the 
 race, in the case of the barbarian peoples, and was the law of the city in the 
 Greek and Latin forms of society, and the law of the land in the period of feudal 
 social organization. 
 
 At certain moments in the course of history the juridical ideals of mankind, 
 as it exists in one or another group, are so energetically expressed that they take 
 on the form of a legal system exclusive in character. Progress has lengthened 
 the radius of this orbit from the ethnic unit to the city, from the city to the 
 province, from the province to the nation. In Rome this exclusive character of 
 the law dominates the Law of the Quirites. The law of the feudal period, in 
 its turn, was as exclusive in nature as the Roman law of the early times. The 
 doctrine of territorial sovereignty, absolute in character, was exclusive in a 
 way analogous to that which had marked the effect of the Law of the Quirites 
 on Roman institutions. In Rome, there was the exclusiveness of the city as 
 against all that lay without, while within the city there was the exclusiveness of 
 the patrician class as against the plebeian class. In the middle ages, the attitude 
 of exclusion was that the feudal estate on the one hand as against all that lay 
 outside, while within the unit of sovereignty the law of the lord was exclusive 
 as against that of the vassal. 
 
 Civil law was, in the cities of Greece and Rome, the element which fused 
 the antagonistic interests of classes and castes into a social unit more embracing 
 than that of the tyrannies, despotic monarchies and military oligarchies of the 
 Orient. The national law in modern times was, in turn, the element which fused 
 into a still more inclusive unity,—that of the State,—the antagonistic interests of 
 the provinces as they had existed during the feudal period. 
 
 In Rome the city limit was the frontier of law. The law was the child of 
 
 15 
 
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE 
 
 the city. The foreigner was the enemy. The city was juridically a community 
 isolated within its hills. 
 
 In the society of the middle ages there was, as in Rome, a certain antagonism 
 operating within each social group. The feudal castle and medieval town are 
 as hostile to each other as had been the patrician and plebeian classes in Rome, 
 but over and above this hostility prevails the hostility against the foreigner. The 
 doctrine of territorial sovereignty is, as we have said, the Law of the Quirites, 
 translated into terms of feudal law. 
 
 Periods of time, often centuries long, were necessary in order that progress 
 should break down these boundaries limiting the effect of law set up by the caste, 
 the race, the city, and the feudal estate, in turn. In Rome, the political work 
 of the Empire, the philosophical contribution of Stoicism, the spiritual reform of 
 Christianity, were necessary to bring about the transformation of the Law of the 
 City into the Law of Nations. In our modern times, the political achievement 
 of monarchy, the philosophical influence of the Natural Law School and the 
 grinding process of revolution were all required to change the law of the province 
 into the law of the nation. 
 
 The social forces which transformed the categories of human society like¬ 
 wise transformed its law. Rome experienced a profound modification in its 
 legal ideas when those social forces made of the City of Quirites the Republic 
 of the Praetors and Tribunes, and then, later, transformed the Republic into a 
 cosmopolitan empire. 
 
 Legal categories have suffered a like transformation at the beginning of our 
 modem period. Analogous to the reaction against the principles of feudal society 
 is the reaction in law, particularly in the field of international private law. One 
 of the manifestations of this reaction was that of the theory of statutes. The 
 glossators who formulated the statutory theory were the heirs of Latin tradition. 
 
 The legal theories of Italy were the children of Roman cosmopolitanism. 
 
 Legal ideas and influences have roots not only in the loose surface earth of 
 theories, but they also have roots deep in the historic sub soil of the Western 
 races. These ideas and instincts are the result of an historic evolution which has 
 at times lasted centuries. In the middle ages we have seen the countries of the 
 Roman Law develop in the direction of the personality of law, while those which 
 lay outside the influence of Latin civilization developed rather towards the terri¬ 
 torial concept of law. Later, we have seen two other elements in conflict; on the 
 one hand, the legal customs of feudalism, and on the other, what was left of the 
 legal system of the invaders. The fundamental principle of the one was terri¬ 
 torial sovereignty,, while the key of the other was the law of the race. The two 
 principles carried on a long struggle, and historical conditions determined the 
 victory in each instance. 
 
 16 
 
ESTEBAN GIL BORGES 
 
 France and Germany were feudal countries and they were controlled by the 
 system of territorial sovereignty. Italy was a country of small republics, organized 
 municipally and saturated with Latin traditions; and Italy was dominated by the 
 theory of the glossators. Roman law and local customary law were locked in this 
 great struggle. The institutions of society swung now towards the imperial idea, 
 that is, the idea fundamentally Roman, and now towards the feudal idea, funda¬ 
 mentally the product of the individualistic spirit of the Germanic Race. The 
 systems of international private law survive all the incidents of this mighty 
 struggle, from which, as a sort of compromise formula, there emerged the statu¬ 
 tory theory. But this harmonizing formula had still further to adjust itself to 
 the social conditions of the nations, and from it there arose in turn systems so 
 different in character as that of the Italian jurists of the thirteenth century, that 
 of the French jurists of the sixteenth century, and that of the Dutch jurists of 
 the seventeenth century. The doctrine of Bartolo is altogether different from 
 the theory of Dumoulin and D’Argentre, and this, in turn, differs from those 
 of Voet and Huber. In this connection, Laurent was able to say, “There is no 
 vestige of the cosmopolitanism which characterized the glossators to be found 
 among the statutory theorists,” and, again, that “The statutory jurists are already 
 French, Belgian, German.” ^ 
 
 The reason for this difference in interpretation of the same system of law 
 is to be found in the controling ideas which characterized each of the peoples, 
 and also in the diversity of their social institutions. Law has been profoundly 
 affected social conditions and mental aptitudes. In Italy, which was a country 
 primarily municipal in its social structure and fundamentally Roman in its 
 juridical development, the dominant theory was that of the glossators. In France, 
 on the other hand,—a feudal country, the land of the coutumes ,—the prevailing 
 law was the law which ran with the land, although there was discernible an occa¬ 
 sional tendency towards adoption of the Italian system. Again, in the Nether¬ 
 lands and Belgium, which were countries of provincial autonomy, the governing 
 principle in law was that of absolute territoriality. 
 
 The transformation of the doctrine of personality of law is another example 
 of the profound modification by which experience shapes ideas which may have 
 had the same source, and, at the outset, the same nature. The idea of the 
 personality of law has in our modern systems of law the same function which 
 it had in the early centuries of the middle ages among the invaders of the 
 Roman Empire. In both systems of law, the function seems to have been 
 identical although the ground for its operation seems to have changed. 
 
 Laine and Laurent have denied that these two systems had an identical origin 
 and a dose relationship. “We must not,” says Laurent, “confuse the personal 
 
 ^ Laurent—Dr. civ. int. I—257-258. 
 
 17 
 
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE 
 
 law of the Germanic peoples with the personal law or statutory law of French 
 legal theory. In our system, one law governs all those who are members of a 
 single state. The Code Napoleon governs all Frenchmen whatever may have 
 been their racial origin. Generally speaking, laws are without authority beyond 
 the boundaries of the territory over which the legislator exercises jurisdiction. 
 Some laws, however, which deal with the status and capacity of persons continue 
 to govern even Frenchmen living in foreign lands; and these laws are called 
 personal because they refer to the person and no Frenchman can escape them 
 by departing from his native land. . . . Among the barbarian peoples the 
 personal law was the national law of every man.” ^ “The personal laws of the 
 French,” remarks Laine, “are nothing else than their territorial laws following 
 them into foreign countries. Today all laws which are called personal from 
 the point of view of conflict of laws are really territorial laws, that is to say, they 
 are precisely the opposite of the personal laws of the barbarian peoples.” 
 
 The basis of the notion of personality of law has, in fact, been transformed. 
 Among the barbarians the criterion was the race, while in modern law it is 
 territorial. Its function, however, in our judgment, remains the same, and in 
 one and the other case to a greater or less extent it implies the application of 
 a national law in a foreign country. Among the bargarians it was the law of 
 the tribe, while among the peoples of today it is the law of the nation. What 
 has changed is the form of the State; the basis of law in the system of the 
 invaders was the ethnic unit, while in the modern world it is chiefly the geographic 
 unit. 
 
 Neither the personality of law among the barbarians nor the territoriality of 
 law in feudal Europe, nor the compromise formulas of the statutory jurists, nor 
 again the personality of law in our modem juridical system can be conceived as 
 purely theoretical notions capable of isolation from historical realities. These 
 concepts take their origin directly in the diversity of social institutions, racial 
 characteristics and stages of evolution of the State. The personality of law 
 directly corresponds to a notion of a state resting squarely on an ethnic unit; the 
 “law of the land” rests, in turn, on a concept of a state founded on the basis of 
 a geographic unit; while the personality of modem law finds its basis in a theory 
 of the state resting on the principle of nationality. 
 
 The work of centuries cannot be changed in a day. The personality of law 
 is destined long to remain an element in the legal systems of those states which 
 accepted the Roman law and the Latin theory of the State; the territorial char¬ 
 acter of law will likewise remain imbedded in the legal systems of those States 
 which adhered to the Germanic law and the feudal traditions. 
 
 Race, historic environment, ideas, instincts, prejudices, political interests. 
 
 * Laurent, Dr. civ. int. I—168. 
 
 18 
 
ESTEBAN GIL BORGES 
 
 national passions,—all these are coefficients with evident influence on the for¬ 
 mation of law and in a less direct, but none the less certain, manner, on the 
 formation of scientific doctrines. In order to estimate the possibility of a reform 
 which would bring about a uniformity of ideas in the teaching and principles of 
 
 positive law, we must take account of the historic factors. Scientific thought by 
 
 itself would create nothing but abstract concepts. For example, if we were to 
 try to reconcile the Italian theory of the personality of law and the territorial 
 theory which prevails in the English speaking world, we should have to wipe out 
 all the past of these peoples and erase from the national life of some, centuries 
 of feudal traditions, and from) that of others, centuries of Roman traditions. 
 
 In international private law we find essential differences between the coun¬ 
 tries of the civil law and those of the common law, and these differences originate 
 in large part in the historic development of these two systems of law. 
 
 “Our English concept of the law,” says Harrisson, “preserves us from the 
 fantastic sophism which govern most of the law on the Continent; that is to 
 
 say, the idea that from international private law we can construct a universal 
 
 system based on the meditation of jurists and imposed by the force of their 
 logical strength on the different tribunals of Europe. For us in England, notions 
 of jurisprudence are derived from practical decisions and not dogmatic theories.” ® 
 
 “Systems of legislation,” says Laine, “may be divided into two groups; on 
 the one hand the systems which exist in France, Italy, and Germany, and on 
 the other the systems of England and America. The first group has as its 
 common element the Roman law, which cannot be found in the second; conversely 
 the second group has the feudal law, which is not to be found in the first. Conse¬ 
 quently, between these two systems of legislation there is a profound difference 
 for a double reason.” 
 
 The positive law of the United States has been composed by jurisprudence 
 and federal legislation. In matters of international private law, Anglo-American 
 jurisprudence still clings to the concepts of the Dutch jurists of the eighteenth 
 century. The doctrine of absolute territorial sovereignty permeates its rigorous 
 attitude towards the foreigner and the foreign law. 
 
 The application of the foreign law is not admitted, but it is tolerated on 
 the basis of comity and as a matter of liberalism. (“Ex comitate”; “Liberaliter”; 
 V. Comm, ad Pandectas Lib. I—T. IV—“De Statutis.”) 
 
 The theory of the “Lex Situs” is the basis of the international private law 
 of the English speaking peoples. This theory is applied to all juridical relations, 
 persons, status and capacity, property and all its ramifications, contracts and 
 criminal law. 
 
 •' Harrisson, Journ. de Dr. Int. Prive, 1880, p. 548. 
 
 19 
 
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE 
 
 “It is of the highest importance,” says Minor, “that every question coming 
 to a court for decision shall have a ‘situs’ some\vhere, and, generally speaking, 
 every question which arises will be settled by the law of the State where this 
 ‘situs’ is located. Whatever interests may be ventilated before a tribunal, whether 
 they have been created by the voluntary action of an individual or have an origin 
 without his voluntary action but rather as a result of the operation of law, such 
 an interest must have its ‘situs’ indicated by the individual or determined by 
 the law. Marriage, contract, inheritance, and crime,—each of these things has 
 its ‘situs,’ and it is the law of the ‘situs’ which governs it. . . . One of the 
 
 principles of science is that every state is sovereign within its own jurisdiction. 
 Consequently, every state may forbid the application of foreign laws within its 
 boundaries. It follows that when effect is given to a foreign law it is because 
 temporarily the national law withholds its supreme authority in favor of the 
 foreign law, which, for the moment and with particular reference to a specific 
 case, is converted by the will of the State into its national law.” * 
 
 In the British Empire the difference between the juridical standards of 
 the home country and the constituent States of the Empire, and in the United 
 States, the difference between the federal and state laws, has resulted in a tendency 
 somewhat similar to that which prevails in international private law; and these 
 differences have conferred predominating influence on the theory of territorial 
 sovereignty. 
 
 These differences, profound in character,—which distinguish systems of 
 international private law prevailing on the European continent and in England,— 
 and the differences between the civil law of the Spanish American countries and 
 the common law of the United States in America, are to be attributed less to 
 the fondness of thinkers for this or that theoretical construction, than to peculiar¬ 
 ities in the historical development of the respective juridical standards. 
 
 After the dissolution of the Roman Empire, the variety in law, based on the 
 criterion of race, persisted. From the eleventh through the twelfth century, the 
 commercial relations and the renaissance of Roman Law in the cities of Italy 
 modified the concept of law in the units of civil society which there existed. As 
 Westlake remarks, in the application of foreign laws, principles of justice, 
 determined by reason, were observed.® 
 
 The feudal system brought to the Western World a new concept of inter¬ 
 national private law.® This fact was the starting point for two distinct systems 
 of law on the Continent. According to one, the law of the land was to be applied 
 
 ^ Minor “Conflict of Laws,” Boston, 1901, p. 6. 
 
 ® Westlake “International Law,” 4th Ed., p. 15. 
 
 ® Sumner Maine, Ancient Law, p. 108. 
 
 20 
 
ESTEBAN GIL BORGES 
 
 to every controversy, while according to the other, there could be applied to a 
 particular case a foreign juridical principle if the nature of the case so required. 
 
 By reason of the geographic isolation of England and the unity of its judicial 
 organization, that country was somewhat remote from this conflict of legal systems. 
 The Norman conquest resulted in the organization of a strong monarchy and a 
 parliament with genuine legislative authority. As Brunner declares, the Curia 
 Regis from the beginning displayed an unaccustomed capacity for centralizing the 
 legal and administrative system of the country.'^ 
 
 These elements constituted a uniform and exclusive system of territorial 
 law, a closed system in which there was no room for the variety of points of 
 view given expression by French, Italian, Dutch and German jurisconsults in 
 settling conflicts between their several customary or statutory systems. 
 
 Anzilotti puts it well when he says: “In England, the statutory theory was 
 late in coming into use, and it was adapted in such a way to the common law 
 that it was almost transformed. In all the other countries on the Continent the 
 principles and conclusions of this theory were admitted. It is true that they were 
 regarded from different and even opposite points of view.” 
 
 England remained in this geographic and legal isolation down to the period 
 of revolution. At the end of the sixteenth century the commercial relations 
 between England and the Continent grew very much more close. This was 
 particularly the case between England and the Low countries. The Dutch pub¬ 
 licists of the school of Grotius, Rodemberg, of the two Voets, and of Huber, 
 enjoyed great prestige. 
 
 English jurisprudence found its doctrines particularly applicable to the legal 
 system of England, and as application of foreign law was regarded as a limitation 
 of territorial sovereignty, this obstacle was overcome by the acceptance of the 
 principle of comity of nations. 
 
 The comitas gentium is still in England and the United States the basis for 
 the application of foreign law. British jurisprudence and that of the United 
 States have been in this regard altogether conservative. In 1895, a decision of 
 the Supreme Court of the United States declared that the principle of reciprocity 
 was an indispensable requisite for the carrying out of foreign decisions for “the 
 comitas gentium of the United States called for nothing more.” ® 
 
 Recently there has developed a tendency looking to the conciliation of the 
 two systems of international private law namely, to that of Europe and to that 
 of the English speaking countries. The Conference of the International Law 
 Association, at its meeting in Heidelberg in 1911, declared “that there ought to 
 
 ^ Brunner and Hastings, Sources of the Law of England. 
 
 ®Cf. Beale, Harvard Law Review, 23; Wharton, Conflicts of Law, 356-357; 
 and New York Code of Civil Procedure, Par. 1756. 
 
 21 
 
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE 
 
 be established an International Commission with a view to recommend mutual 
 concessions between the systems of law of the continent and the English speaking 
 peoples so as to bring them closer to uniformity.” 
 
 The difference in the basis of international law between the countries of 
 Roman tradition and those of feudal traditions are not as profound as to compel 
 us to abandon our hope of reaching a compromise which will eliminate the 
 divergencies. National peculiarities which took shape by reason of racial dif¬ 
 ferences are today of less influence than they were in the evolutionary period 
 of law, while those peculiarities due to geographical reasons have been modified 
 by reason of the improvement of communications and means of closer contact 
 between peoples; while, finally, those due to differences in social institutions are 
 being gradually wiped out by reason of the expansion of a single ideal of 
 civilization which makes identical the principles of moral and juridical life.® 
 
 The action of various common cultural factors, the comparative studies of 
 legislation which seek amid all the varieties those elements which are common, 
 and which always exist at the bottom of all systems of law, and upon which there 
 may be based a harmonizing structure, research in the universal underlying 
 stratum of ideas and principles governing our civil life, and, above all, the analogy 
 of the interests which nationalities in this hemisphere have in their various jurid¬ 
 ical relations and particularly in commercial law;—these factors seem to justify 
 our hope and to stimulate our effort in the unification of the legal standards of 
 America. 
 
 The most imperative need of legislative uniformity,—and the least difficult 
 to effect,—is to be found in the field of commercial law. The work of uniformity 
 in this branch meets fewer obstacles than in the other branches of law, as the 
 civil or public law more immediately and fundamentally follow the influence of 
 national individualism and historical tradition. 
 
 Commercial institutions fulfill economic requirements of a general character; 
 it is, therefore, in this branch of legal activity that the task of making uniform 
 the law of the American Republics can most successfully be achieved. This will 
 be a useful accomplishment. This work of uniformity will not only be useful now, 
 but it will also clear the way, in the future, for a more embracing and more 
 profound unity of the juridical life of the nations of this hemisphere. 
 
 The President of the University, in introducing the next speaker, said: 
 
 “I believe the greatest force in the country today for the promotion of har¬ 
 monious intercourse among nations is the Pan American Union. It is always 
 
 ® Bertin-Journ de Dr. Int. Prive, 1892-225, and 1898. For the opposite view, 
 see Raoul de la Grasserie. Raymond Saleilles, Rev. trim, de Dr. Civ. 
 
 22 
 
ESTEBAN GIL BORGES 
 
 ready to furnish accurate historical knowledge of all the countries of America, 
 and it is likewise always ready to correct false history concerning those countries. 
 It seems that a man to be a successful Director of that Union should possess one 
 of the qualities of a great poet. He has to be born to such a position, and cannot 
 be made. The Union at present has a man at its head who certainly seems to be 
 born for the position. He has a wide knowledge of the American Republics, 
 a broad sympathy with their peoples and a geniality which is irresistible. It 
 gives me great pleasure to present him to you this evening in the person of the 
 Honorable Leo S. Rowe, Doctor of Laws, Director of the Pan American Union.” 
 
 Closing Remarks by the Honorable Leo S. Rowe, LL.D., 
 
 Director of the Pan American Union. 
 
 Gentlemen of the Special Delegation from Venezuela, Members of the Board of 
 Regents and Faculties of Georgetown University, Students of Georgetown 
 University, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 One would be poor both in mind and spirit were he not to be stirred by an 
 inspiring occasion such as this. It is on these occasions that we are able to 
 measure the progress that has been made for that closer relationship, not only 
 between the governments, but between the peoples of America, which means so 
 much to the present and to the future of our civilization. 
 
 It is, therefore, Mr. Minister, with a deep sense of privilege that I bring to 
 you the warm greetings and congratulations of the Pan American Union. 
 
 We realize that in honoring you Georgetown University has honored itself. 
 We greet you as the representative of that spirit of continental co-operation which 
 both you and your country have done so much to develop. Statesman, philosopher, 
 educator, you have ever held before your students and before the people of your 
 country the highest standards of international right and justice. Beyond the 
 personal tribute which this occasion means to you. Sir, we desire to thank you 
 and the members of the distinguished special mission that accompanies you for 
 the honor you have done this country in paying us this visit. Your presence 
 here means much to us, as it means much to the other republics of the American 
 continent, because, aside from the great outpouring of national feeling which 
 the occasion of the presentation of the statue of the Liberator has brought, there 
 is a significance to these demonstrations which I am sure you will carry back 
 with you to Venezuela, and which will also resound to the utmost confines of 
 this continent. 
 
 23 
 
SCHOOL OF FOREIGN SERVICE 
 
 The great national hero whose memory we have honored during the cere¬ 
 monies of this last week stands forth in the history of this continent as the pioneer 
 of international codperation, the first to appreciate the importance of unity of 
 policy and unity of effort as between the republics of the American continent, the 
 first to realize how much such unity of effort means to the peace of America and 
 to the peace of the world. Bolivar’s call for the assembly of the First Pan 
 American Congress, which met in Panama in 1826, indicates his large vision, his 
 power to visualize the future and his keen sense of the important part which the 
 republics of America were called upon to play in the history of modern civilization. 
 The high standards which he set during the early years of the nineteenth century 
 have required a long time of painful effort to find acceptance throughout the 
 continent, and it is only the present generation that is beginning to reap the fruits 
 of the great, statesmanlike vision of your distinguished countryman. 
 
 And we congratulate you, Sir, as well as those who are accompanying you, 
 that it has been vouchsafed to you to continue, and to express in your own public 
 policy those high standards and ideals for which Bolivar stood, for which he 
 struggled and for which he made the great sacrifice. 
 
 The Pan American Union greets you. Sir, not only as the worthy repre-' 
 sentative of a great country, but as a staunch promoter of those ideals of inter¬ 
 national justice and fair dealing which should ever characterize the relations of 
 the republics of America with one another and with the world at large. 
 
 24 
 
P: 
 
 
 
 
 
 [(» 
 
 V.J 
 
 l' 
 
 V