[19] Such as the intervention in Greece in 1827 by Great Britain, France and Russia. See Hertslet's Map of Europe by Treaty, Vol. I, p. 769. [20] See the Message of President McKinley, April 11, 1898, Foreign Relations, 1898, p. 750 at p. 757. [21] The Ethics of the Panama Question, Sen. Doc. 471, 63rd Congress, 2nd Session, p. 39. [22] There is a reference to the _status quo_ in the General Report (Annex C, p. 181), which uses this language: "There is a third class of disputes to which the new system of pacific settlement can also not be applied. These are disputes which aim at revising treaties and international acts in force, or which seek to jeopardise the existing territorial integrity of signatory States. The proposal was made to include these exceptions in the Protocol, but the two Committees were unanimous in considering that, both from the legal and from the political point of view, the impossibility of applying compulsory arbitration to such cases was so obvious that it was quite superfluous to make them the subject of a special provision. It was thought sufficient to mention them in this report." [23] For the view that this includes acts of force, even in the absence of a state of war, see _infra_, p. 55. [24] The other exception "when acting in agreement with the Council," etc., is not here material. It is discussed _infra_, p. 50. {46} CHAPTER VIII. DOMESTIC QUESTIONS. The treatment in the Protocol of so-called domestic questions aroused a great deal of discussion not only at the Assembly, last September, but since the adoption there of the text. It may be remembered that there was a similar public discussion at the time of the drafting of the Covenant; in that document[1] a domestic question is defined as "a matter which by international law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction" of a State. Among instances of domestic questions which have been mentioned from time to time, perhaps the two most commonly referred to in this country are the tariff and immigration. Of course it has been pointed out very often that even such questions as these, however inherently domestic, may become international as soon as they are made the subject of a treaty, as they so frequently are. It should be added that almost any question, no matter how "domestic" in its nature originally, _may_ become the subject of international cognizance by virtue of a treaty. There are many treaties of the United States which have related to such questions as the inheritance of land, the right to administer the estates of decedents, etc.; a very recent instance is a treaty between this country and Canada regarding the protection of migratory birds, a treaty which has been upheld as valid by the Supreme Court.[2]