What is Pan-Americanism? The term itself is new. It appears to have been employed first by the New York Evening Post in discussions relating to the International American Conference which was held at Washington in 1889–1890. It was used in imitation doubtless of such terms as Pan-Slavism, Pan-Hellenism, and Pan-Islamism, which, along with numerous combinations of the sort, became current during the third quarter of last century. The new term was quickly admitted into the columns of other newspapers, and, as in the course of a few years its use became general, it found its way into the editions of the dictionaries and encyclopedias which subsequently appeared. To such works of reference inquirers who have but a vague notion of its meaning are most likely to turn for their first instruction on the subject. Unfortunately, however, from this source but little enlightenment is to be obtained.

The Permanent Court of International Justice, in two of the most exhaustive judgments it has thus far rendered, has recently decided, mainly against the claimant, the bitterly contested case of Mavrommatis (Greece) v. Great Britain (Judgments No. 2 and No. 5). It took two hearings and two decisions to dispose of the case, the first (August 30, 1924) on the question of the court's jurisdiction, asserted by a majority of seven judges to five, and the second (March 6, 1925) on the merits. The majority in favor of the jurisdiction were Judges Loder, Weiss, Nyholm, Altamira, Anzilotti, Huber, and the Greek national judge, Caloyanni. The dissenting judges, each of whom prepared a separate opinion, were Judges Finlay, Moore, de Bustamante, Oda and Pessoa. Under the court's practice, it is not possible to tell which judge or judges wrote the majority opinion; there is some evidence that several judges participated in drafting it. The second judgment practically dismissing the claim on the merits, was nearly unanimous, only Judge Altamira dissenting.

The Supreme Court of the United States is now bringing to a close a case which has occupied its attention for five years, involving the boundary along the Red River between Oklahoma and Texas. The principles of law applied by the court were not new, but the facts to which they were applied were complicated and interesting, both from historical and legal points of view, and when taken in connection with the warmth of popular feeling along the boundary, are perhaps worth recording in this JOURNAL, since they could easily have given rise to actual warfare had the contesting sovereignties been independent nations instead of members of the United States of America.