I- ^^ 
 
 1416 
 H8 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 $B 5T3 TIS 
 
iUL 24 tq^ 
 
 SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF OUR 
 FOREIGN RELATIONS 
 
 By the honorable CHARLES E. HUGHES 
 
 [Reprinted from the American Journal of International Law 
 Vol. XVI, Number 3, July, 1922] 
 
 '% 
 
h<6 
 
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN 
 
 RELATIONS ^ 
 
 By the Honorable Charles E. Hughes 
 
 Secretary of State of the United States 
 
 I desire to take this opportunity to present some observations on the con- 
 duct of our foreign relations, not to define particular poUcies, but to consider 
 method and control. 
 
 Recent developments abroad have marked the passing of the old diplo- 
 macy and the introduction of more direct and flexible methods responsive to 
 democratic sentiment. Peace-loving democracies have not been willing to 
 rest content with traditions and practices which failed to avert the great 
 catastrophe of the world war. Public criticism in some instances overshot 
 the mark and becoming emotional enjoyed the luxury of a bitter and indis- 
 criminate condemnation. The most skilled diplomats of Europe were 
 charged with having become "enmeshed in formulae and the jargon of diplo- 
 macy"; with having "ceased to be conscious of pregnant realities". More 
 potent than the critics were the exigencies due to the war^hich required the 
 constant contact and direct interchanges of respo:88BBJppc^rs. The after- 
 math of problems has made necessary the frequent ^m of similar methods 
 permitting concert, flexibility, more frequent infornifpij^ercourse, and de- 
 cisions which, if not immediate, are relatively speedy. The international 
 
 * conference attests the new effort to achieve the necessary adaptation to new 
 demands. An eminent chronicler of European conferences tells us that he 
 has attended over five hundred international meetings since 1914. There 
 has been a corresponding stirring in foreign offices, modifications of the old 
 technique and a new sense of responsibility to peoples. 
 
 It would be a shallow critic who would associate the United States with 
 
 , either the aims, the methods or the mistakes of the traditional diplomacy of 
 Europe. To her "primary interests", as Washington said, we had at best 
 "a very remote relation". We have had no part in the intrigues to main- 
 tain balance of power in Europe and no traditions of diplomatic caste. From 
 the outset — from the first efforts of Benjamin Franklin — American diplomacy 
 has deemed itself accountable to public opinion and has enjoyed the reputa- 
 tion of being candid and direct. It has opposed circumlocution and unneces- 
 sary ceremonial. Its treaties have been open to the world. Indeed, instead 
 
 1 Address at the Commencement of the University of Michigan, at Ann Arbor, on 
 Monday morning, June 19, 1922. 
 
 365 
 
 (;75850 
 
366 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 
 
 of being burdened by the artificialities, reticences and intriguing devices of 
 an organization essentially aristocratic, instead of holding itself aloof from 
 the current influences of politics, the organization of our instrumentalities of 
 
 "foreign intercourse has rather suffered from too much regard for politicians 
 and too little attention to the necessity for special aptitude and training. 
 But, while we have thus been immune from most of the destructive criticism 
 visited upon old world methods, we also feel the pressure of a heightened 
 demand for popular control, and it is essential that we should carefully con- 
 sider the relation of public opinion to the conduct of our foreign relations, its 
 proper aims, the special dangers in this field if public opinion is unintelligent 
 or misdirected, and the conditions of the wholesome exercise of its authority. 
 In the sphere of international action, the people have peculiar obligations as 
 well as power, and education for citizenship implies a just appreciation of 
 civic responsibility when peoples are dealing with each other as peoples and 
 not merely determining domestic policy and settling internal disputes. 
 
 President Lowell has reminded us that, in asserting the final control of 
 public opinion in popular government, the opinion to which we refer must be 
 "pubUc" and must really be "opinion". It imports the conviction of the 
 people as a whole that the prevailing view expressed in the manner appro- 
 priate to our institutions should be carried out. It embraces deep-seated 
 convictions due to the influence of tradition, authority or suggestion. In 
 new conditions, where familiar standards are not involved, it is developed in 
 a rational process by consideration of what are supposed to be the facts of the 
 particular case. 
 
 It becomes at on^Papparent how difficult it is to develop true public 
 opinion in relation tcB|atters of foreign policy. There are, of course, certain 
 viewpoints of the An^ican people which are readily recognized, as they rep- 
 resent accepted postulates formulated and approved by generations of Ameri- 
 can statesmen and which could be changed only by a revolution of opinion. 
 But in a host of matters, indeed in most cases, there is no such criterion. 
 There are complicated states of fact which cannot be understood without an 
 intimate knowledge of historical background and a painstaking and discrimi- 
 nating analysis of material. There are situations of controlling importance 
 which are wholly unknown to the general public, and which cannot be appre- 
 
 • ciated without the special information available only to officers of the Gov- 
 ernment. The people cannot judge wisely without being informed, and the 
 problem is how to inform them. Lack of accurate information does not 
 imply any check upon the dissemination of what passes for fact or the with- 
 holding of comment or criticism however mistaken in its assumptions. The 
 multiplied facilities of communication are always in use, and the processes of 
 conjecture and suspicion go on uninterruptedly. In dealing with the prob- 
 lem of developing sound opinion, the fundamental consideration must 
 always be that misinformation is the public's worst enemy, more potent for 
 evil than all the conspiracies that are commonly feared. 
 
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS 367 
 
 Moreover, the difficulty of maintaining a true perspective and a distinc- • 
 tively American opinion in the field of foreign affairs is greatly increased by 
 the natural and persistent efforts of numerous groups to bend American * 
 policy to the interest of particular peoples to whom tjiey are attached 
 by ties of kinship and sentiment. The conflicts of opinion and interest in 
 the old world are reproduced on our own soil. Then there are the various 
 sorts of propaganda by which organized minorities and special interests seek 
 to maintain a pervasive influence. 
 
 Whatever the advantages of our governmental arrangements — and I 
 should be the last to under-estimate them — I think it should be candidly 
 admitted that they have the effect of kmiting the opportunities for the re- • 
 sponsible discussion which aids in the understanding of foreign policy. The 
 conduct of foreign relations pertains,xo the executive power, and the execu- 
 tive power of the Nation is vested in the President, subject to the exceptions 
 and qualifications expressed in the Constitution. Practice under the Con- 
 stitution has abundantly confirmed the initiative of the President in the 
 formulation of foreign policy. • 
 
 The wisdom of this disposition of power has been fully demonstrated, for 
 in view of the nature of the task, the delicacy of the negotiations involved, the 
 necessity for promptness, flexibility and unity of control, this authority ' 
 could not well be lodged elsewhere. But the separateness of the executive 
 power under our system, while it has advantages which have been deemed to 
 be of controlling importance, deprives the Executive of the opportunities, 
 open to parliamentary leaders, of participation in parliamentary debates. , 
 Official communications are made by the President in the discharge of his 
 constitutional duty. The Department of State, which is the instrumentality 
 of the Executive in connection with foreign affairs, makes its public an- 
 nouncements. The Secretary of State appears before committees from time 
 to time and gives the information which is asked. But there is lacking thd_ 
 direct personal relation to the discussions of the Senate when foreign affairsT , 
 are under consideration. The Secretary of State, acting for the President,\ 
 may negotiate an important treaty, but he has no opportunity to explain or 
 defend it upon the floor of the Senate when its provisions are under debate. • 
 The knowledge which is at his command is communicated in formal writing 
 or merely to those members who sit upon the appropriate committee. The 
 advantage of oral explication and of meeting each exigency as it arises in the 
 course of discussion and thus of aiding in the formation of public opinion in 
 the manner best adapted to that purpose is not open to him. There are 
 numerous situations in which an opportunity for the Executive through his 
 Department Chiefs to explain matters of policy would be of the greatest aid. 
 in securing an inteUigent judgment. As President Taft said, "Time and\_ 
 time again debates have arisen in each House upon issues which the inf orma- j 
 tion of a particular Department Head would have enabled him, if present, to » 
 end at once by a simple explanation or statement". This is especially true 
 
368 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 
 
 in relation to foreign affairs where the Department concerned has sources of 
 information which generally are not available to others. 
 
 I should not favor a change in the distribution of power or any modification 
 of practice which would encourage the notion that the Executive is responsi- 
 ble to the legislative branch of the Government in matters which under the 
 Constitution are exclusively of executive concern. I should also deplore any 
 method so contrived as to facilitate antagonism between the executive de- 
 partment and legislative leaders or which would merely provide opportunities 
 for the censorious. But speaking in my private capacity and expressing only 
 a personal opinion, I do believe in multiplying the facilities for appropriate 
 /jooperation between responsible leaders, who understand their respective 
 functions, in a manner suited to the full discussion of great international 
 questions when these fall within the constitutional competency of the Senate. 
 To enable Cabinet officers to vote in either House of Congress would require 
 a constitutional amendment and I should not favor it, but it is quite consist- 
 ent with our system that the Head of a Department should have the oppor- 
 tunity personally to be heard where important departmei;tal measures and 
 policies are under consideration. Indeed, the propriety of this method of 
 promoting a better understanding was recognized at the outset, and instead 
 of being foreign to our system it found for a time a place in our original pro- 
 cedure. You will remember that the long continued abstention from such 
 appearances followed the refusal of Congress in 1790 to hear Hamilton when 
 he desired to make in person his Report on the Public Credit. Mischiefs 
 will not be cured by methods which make misapprehension easy. Every 
 facility should be provided, consistent with our system, which will aid in 
 avoiding misconstruction, allaying suspicion and preventing unj ust aspersions . 
 The remedy for misunderstanding is explication and debate and the oppor- 
 tunity for thus informing the public judgment in a responsible manner should 
 not be curtailed by any unnecessary artificiality of method, 
 f The paramount importance of contact with the Press is fully recognized, 
 but in the nature of things, this contact for the most part must be informal. 
 Occasional public announcements are expected, but the representatives of 
 the press desire to write in their own way and to obtain material by their own 
 inquiries. What is desired is not control of news but accurate information. 
 To meet this demand, the President himself meets the correspondents twice 
 a week and Department Heads still more frequently. The Secretary of State 
 has two press conferences each working day at which either the Secretary or 
 the Under Secretary is present. The officers are not quoted, but there is 
 frank disclosure of facts and aims within the widest possible limits. There 
 is thus the most direct contact with those who are the principal purveyors of 
 information and the chief educators of the public. This is our substitute for 
 parliamentary interpellation. It is in this manner that, in substance, account 
 is rendered to the final authority. 
 
 But open diplomacy must still be diplomacy, and it cannot be open at the 
 
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS 369 
 
 cost of losing its essential character and of frustrating its proper purposes. 
 By diplomacy, I mean the art of conducting negotiations with foreign Powers, 
 and when we refer, with suitable discrimination, to open diplomacy, we have 
 in mind the appropriate publication of international engagements, and, with 
 respect to negotiations, the absence of intrigue, the avoidance of unnecessary 
 secrecy, candor and directness. The diplomacy of the United States has 
 been, and is, open diplomacy. 
 
 The management of negotiations with foreign Powers, however, has its es- 
 sential conditions which relate (1) to the interest of one's own State; (2) to 
 the requirements of honorable intercourse between States; and (3) to the 
 maintenance of international good will. These conditions impose a measure 
 of reticence in the course of negotiations, with which the most high-minded 
 negotiators cannot afford to dispense. Thus Washington, maintaining the 
 right of the President to refuse information with respect to pending negotia- 
 tions when he deems its disclosure incompatible with the public interest, said : 
 
 The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their success 
 must often depend on secrecy; and often when brought to a conclusion 
 a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions 
 which may have been proposed or contemplated would be extremely 
 impolitic; for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotia- 
 tions, or produce immediate inconvenience, perhaps danger and mis- 
 chief in relation to other powers. 
 
 Even the most democratic governments must desire to succeed in their 
 negotiations, and there is no reason why democracy should turn upon itself 
 and deprive its agents of its essential means of defense. Premature dis- 
 closures may prevent the accomplishment of the most enlightened aims, giv- 
 ing opportunity for the insidious efforts of selfish interests as well as favoring 
 opposition abroad. If both the peoples and governments concerned were 
 in complete accord, there would be no need for negotiations, and when they 
 are not in accord and are endeavoring to reach a basis of agreement, it is fatu- 
 ous to suppose that negotiations can be conducted without prudent reserva- 
 tions on each side. The observations that are sometimes made on this subject 
 seem to presuppose the existence of some dominant external authority which 
 can impose its will, whereas the peoples concerned are themselves sovereign, 
 and if they are not to resort to force, they must have opportunity to reach an 
 agreement mutually satisfactory. The wholesome pressure of world opinion 
 for peaceful solutions is quite consistent with such a conduct of negotiations 
 as will make peaceful solutions possible. 
 
 As the parties to the negotiations deal with each other upon the basis of 
 the equality of States, they must recognize the obligations of honorable inter- 
 course between equals. The confidence with which suggestions are received 
 must be respected. Each must be free to make tentative suggestions and 
 withdraw them. There must be opportunity for the informal discussion 
 which does not represent the final stand of governments, but reflects the 
 
 • 
 
370 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 
 
 proper desire to ascertain to what extent there is accord and the state of mind 
 of each party to the controversy. It is an essential condition of intercourse 
 that representations made by one government to another or the publication 
 of the details of negotiations must rest upon the express or implied consent of 
 both parties. Any government that refuses to recognize this basis of inter- 
 course would find its opportunities for suitable adjustment of controversies 
 seriously impaired and its influence and prestige greatly diminished. 
 
 Moreover, the maintenance of international good-will during negotiations 
 is of vital importance. While it is assumed that democracies are peace-lov- 
 ing, it cannot be forgotten that the activities of democracies frequently make 
 it difficult to arrive at a good understanding. The press in each country, in 
 large measure, is likely to voice extreme demands and to resist accommoda- 
 tions. Often the pseudo-patriotic spirit is developed, most probably in the 
 interest of local politics, and efforts are made to prevent settlements by in- 
 flammatory appeals to passion in one or more of the countries concerned. It 
 is most desirable that such endeavors should not be facilitated by information 
 of mere proposals, arguments and tentative positions; by disclosures which at 
 the best, pending the efforts at adjustment, can but afford gUmpses of the 
 situation. At least we may appreciate the fact that peoples cannot deal 
 directly with peoples; that there must be agents of negotiation; and that 
 when these are selected as wisely as may be practicable, there must be a rea- 
 sonable freedom to enable them to secure results. They cannot adequately 
 perform their task under a fire of criticism or successfully conduct negotia- 
 tions which are practically taken out of their hands and directed by a 
 clamorous public. 
 
 With all these considerations, it remains true that there should be no 
 secrecy for its own sake; that general policies should be made clear; that par- 
 ticular aims should be appropriately disclosed; that there should be public 
 announcement of all proceedings to the extent consistent with the essential 
 requirements of negotiation; and that nothing should ever be done by our 
 ■diplomatic agents which so far as its actual character is concerned could not 
 he publicly proclaimed and justified as being free from artifice and deception 
 and in full accord with American principles. 
 
 The attitude of the public toward foreign relations is almost as important 
 as the securing of adequate information; that is, there should be a suitable 
 appreciation of the objectives of diplomatic effort. There is, of course, the 
 fundamental matter of national security, and the instinct of self-preserva- 
 tion causes a quick response to any appeal on this score. Indeed, the danger 
 is not that the people will become indifferent to the essential conditions of 
 their security, or will lack information as to any policy or procedure which 
 actually threatens it, but that the endeavor will be made to frustrate peace- 
 ful settlements which are eminently judicious, and which really promote the 
 safety of the country, upon the ground that in some indirect way they will 
 diminish the opportunities for protection. We have had recent illustration 
 
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS 371 
 
 of this. The need for enUghtenment, in this aspect of the matter, is with 
 respect to what really makes for national security. 
 
 However, in emphasizing the importance of public appreciation of the aims 
 of our diplomacy, I do not mean to imply that there is any great lack of 
 understanding or of support of our historic policies or of the economic inter- 
 ests, the protection of which has become more and more the object of diplo- 
 matic effort. It is rather my desire to emphasize the importance of peace 
 as the object of diplomacy, and the necessity of intelligent opinion, not merely 
 as to the desirability of peace as an abstract conception, but with respect 
 to the conditions that are essential to the maintenance of peace. With these 
 conditions public opinion should be deeply concerned. Attention has been 
 directed to formal institutions, to international agreements relating to the 
 maintenance of peace. But the fundamental fact is that, however well-de- 
 vised, these will be of little worth in the absence of that state of international 
 feeling which will promote amicable cooperation and permit the removal of 
 the causes of discord. 
 
 It must be remembered that only a small portion of the controversial 
 matters of great consequence, which are now engaging the attention of for- 
 eign offices, admit the application of juridical standards. They are matters 
 demanding not legal decisions but adjustments by mutual consent. It is not 
 simply the dispositions of old controversies that are needed, but understand- 
 ings with respect to new situations and novel enterprises. In this world of 
 intimate relations, you are likely to have either hostility or cooperation. 
 There is no artificial method by which adjustments can be reached in the 
 absence of a sincere desire for accord, and the cultivation of the spirit of 
 mutual friendliness is thus the primary consideration. Without it, even the 
 most direct contacts and the flexible arrangements of Conferences will be of 
 no avail. 
 
 The nation that can most easily settle its differences and promote its in- 
 terests, the nation that can look most hopefully for a recognition of its claims, 
 is the nation that by its reasonable and friendly disposition, its poise and 
 sense of justice, inspires confidence and wins esteem. Here we touch the 
 point where the authority of sound public opinion is most necessary. It 
 must frown upon the constant efforts to create suspicion, distrust and hatred. 
 There can be no assurance of peace, and few of the necessary and just settle- 
 ments which make for peace, in a world of hate. It should be recognized that 
 what is more necessary than formulas is a new sense of civic responsibility 
 in matters of international concern. The chief enemies of peace are those 
 who constantly indulge in the abuse of foreign peoples and their governments, 
 who asperse their motives and visit them with ridicule and insult. We resent 
 attacks upon American character and motives when they come from abroad 
 and we should remember that other peoples are quite as sensitive as ourselves. 
 Intercommunication is so easy that domestic discussions of foreign affairs are 
 not confined within the three-mile limit but are immediately published abroad 
 
372 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 
 
 as indicative not of the sentiment of particular individuals, who may be of 
 little relative consequence, but as indicating the sentiments of our people. 
 It is in this way that peoples become separated by a mutual distrust, even 
 while their responsible agents of government are endeavoring to bring about 
 beneficial settlements and mutual confidence. The public-spirited and well- 
 informed American, the intelligent patriot, will approach all discussions of 
 foreign affairs with the full understanding that every reckless attack upon 
 foreign peoples and governments reacts upon his country's prestige, impairs 
 its influence, and to some degree threatens its peace. The principal difficulty 
 at this time in our conduct of foreign affairs is not with method, or organiza- 
 tion, or aims, but with the untruthful, prejudiced and inflammatory discus- 
 sions in which some of our citizens and certain portions of the press permit 
 themselves to indulge. 
 
 If there is to be less reticence in diplomacy, there must be, if not a greater 
 reticence, at least a keener sense of responsibility in the discussion of inter- 
 national questions. Open diplomacy and blatant and injudicious utterances 
 will not go well together. The corrective can only be found in that state of 
 the public mind which will unsparingly condemn and ostracize those who by 
 their base imputations imperil our friendly relations with other nations. 
 
 An intelligent attitude toward foreign affairs will also take account of the 
 essential instrumentalities of intercourse and of the importance of making 
 these as efficient as possible. The many millions of our people cannot con- 
 duct their foreign relations, and the inescapable conditions to which I have 
 adverted make it necessary that our people should have at their command 
 the most expert diplomatic organization. I shall not at this time review, as 
 I have had the privilege of doing recently, the requirements of our diplomatic 
 and consular service. I merely wish again to emphasize the point that intel- 
 ligent opinion will demand that there should be an opportunity for career in 
 this service which will draw to it as many as may be needed of the best of the 
 educated young manhood of the country. This is not in the interest of the 
 evelopment of a caste ; it is in the interest of the American people and public 
 opinion should demand it. 
 
 It is apparent that this attitude of the public mind, this instructed public 
 opinion, cannot be had save as it is produced by the conscious endeavor and 
 constant influence of men and women who have had the special advantages 
 of higher education. It is the interaction of the influences of the university 
 on the one hand and of the many schools of experience on the other, that 
 produces that clear, practical and intelligent view of affairs which we call the 
 dominant American opinion. With respect to matters the importance of 
 which is not immediately or generally perceived, where special study and 
 instruction are needed, it is especially the example and influence of those who 
 have had the advantage of college or university training that is imperatively 
 needed. 
 
 It is not my purpose to dwell upon ideals in American education further 
 
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS 373 
 
 than to say that they may be open to the criticism of being too individuaHs- 
 tic. It goes without saying that a young American should be able to make 
 a living and should have every opportunity for vocational and technical 
 training. There is no question, of course, but that it is this training of the 
 individual which makes for the enrichment of society. And I am one of 
 those who believe that the cultivation of the spirit, that one may have life 
 more abundantly, is quite as important as the equipment which will enable 
 one to secure the primary necessities of food and shelter or the means of a 
 comfortable existence. 
 
 But along with the appropriate consideration of individual needs, there 
 should go a more definite appreciation of the necessity of meeting the de- 
 mands of training for citizenship. This implies adequate knowledge of our 
 institutions, of their development and actual working. It means more than 
 this in a world of new intimacies and perplexities. It means adequate knowl- 
 edge of other peoples, and for this purpose there is nothing to take the place 
 of the humanities, of the study of literature and history. When I speak of 
 the study of history, I do not mean a superficial review, but the earnest en- 
 deavor to understand the life of peoples, their problems and aspirations. 
 Nor is it simply or chiefly the history of a distant past that it is now most 
 important to know. It is recent history that is of first importance, with suffi- 
 cient acquaintance with the past to understand the happenings and the de- 
 velopments which have taken place in our own time. In our many years of 
 schooling how difficult it is to give to our young men and women the knowl- 
 edge that is worth while, which through a just and clear discernment will 
 properly relate them to the duties and opportunities of their generation! 
 
 There are those who view the dislocations caused by the war, the present 
 widespread impoverishment, the assaults and too frequent triumphs of 
 unreason, the controversies over superficialities and the ignoring of the causes 
 of distress and instability, with a feeling of hopelessness. But this is not the 
 end of the world; rather it is the beginning of a new era, a formative period 
 when it is the highest privilege to live and perform one's part. We need 
 young men and women who are profound students of these developments, 
 who are ready not only to grapple with the problems of our domestic life but 
 who understand the origin and course of international difficulties and con- 
 troversies and thus are able to take an intelligent and helpful part in forming 
 a sound public opinion which will control America's conduct of foreign affairs. 
 Above all we need the spirit of reasonableness which men and women of 
 good sense and culture may bring to public discussion, — that calm judgment 
 which proceeds from wide knowledge and keen insight. 
 
 Power and opportunity are yours. They are not confided to impersonal 
 institutions. What will you do with them? Our ultimate security and the 
 assurance of our progress will not be found in constitutions or statutes or 
 treaties or conferences, important as these may be, but in the self-respect 
 that will not permit abasement; in the national pride and just self-interest 
 
374 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 
 
 that will not tolerate interference with independence ; in the spirit of helpful- 
 ness which seeks not alliances but honorable cooperation; in the love of jus- 
 tice which will not permit abuse of power and which scorns to profit by unjust 
 accusation; in the insistence upon the processes of reason by which alone we 
 can avoid the mistakes of prejudice; in the detestation of the demagogue and 
 all his works, the most dangerous enemy of the republic ; and in the sympathy 
 with the weak and oppressed and in the dominant sentiment of human 
 brotherhood through which we shall be able to reconcile our national aspira- 
 tions with the full performance of our duty to humanity. 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 LOAN DEPT. 1 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 3APR^59CB 
 
 
 gccy**/^^ < I 
 
 
 iVfAir 3 1959 
 
 
 
 REC'D UD 
 
 
 APR 24 1959 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 ^fsiix^.'B- .js^2B'^"'" 
 
x3Sj^.o.-° 
 
 ,-««^ 
 
 s^>' 
 
\