applies between independent governments, to wit: Inter-
national Law. Take the case of Kansas against Colorado,
heard and decided by the Supreme Court. Kansas com-
plained that Colorado was using more of the water of the
Arkansas River which flowed through Colorado into Kansas
than was equitable for purposes of irrigation. The case
was heard by the Supreme Court and decided, not by a law
of Congress, not by the law of Kansas, not by the law of
Colorado, for the law of neither applied. It was decided
by principles of International Law.

Many other instances of similar decisions by the Supreme
Court could be cited. But it is said that such a precedent
lacks force here because the States are restrained from going
to war with each other by the power of the National Govern-
ment. Admitting that this qualifies the precedent to some
extent, we need go no further than Canada to find a com-
plete analogy and a full precedent. There is now sitting
to decide questions of boundary waters (exactly such
questions as were considered in Kansas and Colorado) a
permanent court, consisting of three Americans and three
Canadians, to settle the principles of international law that
apply to the use of rivers constituting a boundary between
the two countries and of rivers crossing the boundary. The
fact is, that we have gotten so into the habit of arbitration
with Canada that no reasonable person expects that any issue
arising between us and that country, after a hundred years
of peace, will be settled other than by arbitration.

If this be the case between ourselves and Canada and
England, why may it not be practical with every well-
established and ordered government of the Great Powers?
The Second Hague Conference, attended by all nations,
recommended the establishment of a permanent International

-62-