As a legal concept jurisdiction may be considered the right to exercise state authority. Story says that it may be “laid down as a general proposition that all persons and property within the territorial jurisdiction of a sovereign are amenable to the jurisdiction of himself or his courts; and that the exceptions to this rule are such only as by common usage and public policy have been allowed, in order to preserve the peace and harmony of nations, and to regulate their intercourse in a manner best suited to their dignity and rights.” (Santissima Trinidad 7 Wheat. 354) It is fully recognized that all land and the marginal sea, to a distance of a marine league at least, is subject to territorial jurisdiction and that the open sea is not within the jurisdiction of any state though vessels sailing upon such seas are within the jurisdiction of the state whose flag they rightfully fly. As Story says exceptions to this rule of exclusive jurisdiction are such “as by common usage and public policy have been allowed, in order to preserve the peace and harmony of nations, and to regulate their intercourse, in a manner best suited to their dignity and rights.”

Although the peace movement is still a movement of intellectuals it is no longer confined to idealists. That fact is amply illustrated by the personnel of the congress held at Washington, December 15–17, 1910, under the auspices of the American Society for Judicial Settlement of International Disputes.

The various groups of practical men in close touch with affairs—legislators, statesmen, educators and business men—who addressed the congress were likewise liberally represented in the crowded and interested audiences of the congress.

The explanation of this change in the personnel of the peace workers lies partly in the fact that the growing waste of armaments has projected this question into the arena of practical politics; partly in the actual results accomplished by certain existing institutions, notably those set up at The Hague; together with the manifest need of additional institutions of a simple nature which it is folly to continue without. Among the latter that which in the minds of many men will do more to make war difficult than any institution thus far existing or suggested is a true international court of justice.

The question of the constitutionality of government aid to the needy classes in the community may arise because of the existence of the rule which forbids the exercise of the power of taxation for any but a public purpose.

The general principle that the purposes for which this power may be exercised must be public is perfectly clear, but the principle is to be applied in the light of our history. Thus from a very early time in the history of both England and this country the taxing power had been used to provide funds for the support of the poor. The poor laws, as they were called, have been regarded as constitutional notwithstanding the general rule of constitutional law to which allusion has been made.

As new conditions have appeared to make necessary attempts on the part of the legislature to accord aid to various classes of individuals in the community, the courts have been called upon to determine whether such attempts are forbidden by the principle requiring that the purpose of the legislature shall have been public or whether they fairly come under the exception to the rule which has been shown always to have existed.

Liberia will long be a source of permanent interest to the government and people of the United States, not only because it was founded and fostered by American citizens, but because there is going on there in the interest of the African races one of the unique struggles in modern state-building, in an endeavor to perpetuate in West Africa a government fashioned after the American democracy in which liberty shall be limited and regulated by law.

Under the most unfavorable circumstances the Liberian people have entered upon a grave and stupendous undertaking. The high political ideas and principles which they represent, the ardor and fidelity with which they have maintained them for nearly three quarters of a century against European opposition and in the midst and in the presence of the overwhelming numbers and dissimilar civilization of their African kinsmen, entitle them to the sympathetic consideration and good will of all liberty-loving nations.

A leading English economist once said, “It matters nothing to the seller of bricks whether they are to be used in building a palace or a sewer; but it matters a great deal to the seller of labor, who undertakes to perform a task of given difficulty, whether or not the place in which it is to be done is a wholesome and a pleasant one, and whether or not his associates will be such as he cares to have.”

This statement strikes the keynote of the activity in the field of labor legislation during 1910. All down the ages the worker has been protesting against being required to sell his life or his health in addition to his labor, even though he was assured by most political economists that he was getting higher money rewards for dangerous or disagreeable work; and the moralist, too, was telling him that accident and disease were acts of God to be met by prayer and fasting.