The French Government proposed an international conference, which met in 1851, to deal with infectious disease; and a second conference met in 1856.  In 1865 the outburst of cholera in the East led to a third congress at Constantinople.  Great Britain opposed treaties for regulating quarantine, &c., because of the delay which might be caused to the pursuit of shipping interests.  But at last a treaty was made in 1892 at Venice for protection against cholera.  Further and more effective treaties were agreed to by civilized states in 1897 and 1903.  A bureau of information concerning infectious disease was established at Paris, and commissions to supervise were established in Turkey and Egypt.  With regard to sleeping sickness Great Britain took the initiative; and a conference met in 1907, in London, at which six countries were represented.  So much with respect to disease; we may now turn to examples of the joint action of states as regards crime.

The African slave traffic has been dealt with since 1885 (Berlin Conference) by the European States acting together on certain general principles.  And what is known as the White Slave traffic was the subject of arrangement between fifteen states in the conference at Paris in 1902.

Again, the reform of prisons and penitentiaries has been much assisted by international congresses since 1846.  The last was held in 1910 in America, at which twenty-eight states were represented.  A secretariat has been established at Berne for the exchange of expert opinion and for making suggestions to governments.

These are examples of a very numerous class of reforms undertaken by the joint action of governments.  They are all comparatively recent and most of the twenty-eight unions between governments for concerted action have been established during the years of European peace between 1871 and 1914.  In these instances the States of Europe have put their precious sovereignties into their pockets; although the lawyers and diplomatists explain the situation in the old terms.

With respect to all these movements for social reform three points must be noticed:  first, the initiative in most reform has come from private enterprise and not from diplomacy or governments.  Secondly, this private interest has spread from the few of one nation to the few of another before any effective result was attained.  Thirdly, the states have not acted together because of any general theory of international action, but simply because certain social evils could not be dealt with at all by any state acting separately.  Whatever hampers common action, then, also hinders effective reform in dealing with disease or crime.  I need not elaborate the conclusion.

* * * * *