did prove possible, however, to arrange for cooperation in notifying the forces of each country of possible raids and to station the troops in such a way that the fords could be more effectively policed.[1] In at least one case a reciprocal right of crossing was arranged.[2]
Impartially considered, it is plain that in the border incidents the shortcomings did not lie wholly on one side. At times each country found itself drawn into defending persons because of their nationality who deserved no protection from any one. Sometimes the rules of international law, which were intended to promote good relations among nations, seemed to be the chief cause of entanglements. For example, it was not always easy to differentiate border raids from "revolutions" or either of these from the Indian depredations, which even down to our own day have continued to be a source of disturbance along the boundary. In the discussions of pursuit of wrongdoers across the border there has been a conspicuous lack of willingness to recognize the fact that under the conditions that have existed it would be better for both parties to place considerations of public order and justice above insistence upon scrupulous observance of the "rights of sovereignty."
Where settlement is sparse, policing on account of great distances is difficult, and the boundary' itself often hard to locate, opportunities for the lawless flourish and shuttling back and forth across an imaginary line is an easy way to defy the law. The local population on both sides of the border frequently looks upon the bandit
