States, but I am convinced that conditions in Europe just at that particular moment had a powerful influence in causing him to abandon his Mexican scheme. Within a few days of the receipt of Seward's ultimatum Napoleon was informed of Bismarck's determination to force a war with Austria over the Schleswig-Holstein controversy. Napoleon realized that the territorial aggrandizement of Prussia, without any corresponding gains by France, would be a serious blow to his prestige and in fact endanger his throne. He at once entered upon a long and hazardous diplomatic game in which Bismarck outplayed him and eventually forced him into war. In order to have a free hand to meet the European situation he decided to yield to the American demands. As the European situation developed he decided to withdraw his troops before the dates agreed upon and to leave Maximilian to his fate.

Let us take next President Cleveland's intervention in the Venezuelan boundary dispute. Some 30,000 square miles of territory on the border of Venezuela and British Guiana were in dispute. Venezuela, a weak and helpless state, had offered to submit the question to arbitration. Great Britain, powerful and overbearing, refused. After a long correspondence, ably conducted by Secretary Olney, had failed to move the British Government, President Cleveland decided to intervene. In a message to Congress in December, 1896, President Cleveland reviewed the controversy at length, declared that the

acquisition of territory in America on the part of a European power through the arbitrary advance of a boundary line was a clear violation of the Monroe Doctrine, and asked Congress for an appropriation to pay the expenses of a commission which he proposed to appoint for the purpose of determining the true boundary, which he said it would then be our duty to uphold. Lest there should be any misunderstanding as to his intentions he solemnly added: "In making these recommendations I am fully alive to the responsibility incurred and keenly realize all the consequences that may follow." Congress promptly voted the appropriation.

Here was a bold and unqualified defiance of England. Yet before the American boundary commission could make its report England signed an arbitration agreement with Venezuela.

Here again the true explanation is to be found in events that were happening in other quarters of the globe. Cleveland's Venezuelan message was sent to Congress on December 17. At the end of the year came Dr. Jameson's raid into the Transvaal and on the third of January the German Kaiser sent his famous telegram of congratulation to Paul Kruger. The wrath of England was suddenly diverted from America to Germany, and Lord Salisbury avoided a rupture with the United States over a matter which after all was not of such serious moment to England in order to be free to deal with a question involv

ing much greater interests in South Africa.

In 1902 Germany made a carefully planned and determined effort to test out the Monroe Doctrine and see whether we would fight for it. You will remember that in that year Germany, England, and Italy made a naval demonstration against Venezuela for the purpose of forcing her to recognize as valid certain claims of their citizens. Through the mediation of Herbert Bowen, the American minister, Venezuela agreed to recognize in principle the claims of the foreign powers and to arbitrate the amount. England and Italy accepted this offer and withdrew their squadrons. Germany, however, remained for a time obdurate. This much was known at the time.

A rather sensational account of what followed next has recently been made public in Thayer's "Life and Letters of John Hay." The significant fact, that Germany withdrew from Venezuela under pressure, is, I am satisfied, established. Admiral Dewey stated publicly that the entire American fleet was assembled at the time under his command in Porto Rican waters ready to move at a moment's notice. Why did Germany back down from her position? Her navy was supposed to be at least as powerful as ours. The reason why the Kaiser concluded not to measure strength with the United States was that England had accepted arbitration and withdrawn her support and he did not dare attack the United States with the British navy in his

rear.

Dr. Latané is not content with examining past examples of the effectiveness of the Monroe Doctrine; -he looks into the future.

It must be abundantly evident to all that our historic policy of isolation has been rendered possible only by the existence of the balance of power in Europe. We have never been too weak to tip the scales. But in recent years a new element has entered into the international situation and that element is the naval and military power of Japan. Formerly we had the European balance plus the United States. Recently we have had the European balance plus the United States plus Japan. Scarcely had the United States acquired Hawaii and the Philippines and committed itself to the open door policy in China when Japan emerged victorious from the war with Russia as a full-fledged world power ready to contest with us supremacy in the Pacific. American diplomacy, hitherto limited in its aims to the American continent, was suddenly confronted with complex problems which were world-wide in their ramifications. The Anglo-Japanese alliance has been in effect a guarantee of peace between Japan and the United States, for England would never consent to back Japan in a war with us. But the Anglo-Japanese alliance appears to be doomed. Japan and Russia have recently formed an alliance. If the new Russo-Japanese alliance supplants the older alliance with England, as now seems likely, our position in the Pacific will be very seriously weakened. The Japan

ese shift from England to Russia will naturally force England and the United States into closer accord. How far the Russian revolution will weaken the Russo-Japanese alliance cannot yet be foreseen.

If the old system of alliances and balances of power is to prevail after the war, we shall have not a revival of the old European balance, but a new world balance, England, France, and the United States forming the basis of one group, Russia and Japan of the other, with Germany for the time being isolated, like France after the overthrow of Napoleon. Such a condition would mean the indefinite continuance of large armaments, secret diplomacy, and endless intrigue. The only other possibility is that before the war ends Germany will weld the opposing powers into such a firm league that peace will not dissolve it but rather transform it into some form of permanent world federation. This is the hope of mankind, and the more closely we ally ourselves with England, France, and democratic Russia, the more surely will this dream of a federation of the world become a reality.

It is useless to advocate a strict adherence to the traditions of the fathers. The old order has already passed away. The United States stands already committed to worldwide democracy and internationalism. Hitherto we have stood de

On

fensively for these principles and we have been willing to fight for them only in America. We are now to fight for their universal recognition. President Monroe's declaration in favor of guaranteeing to free states the right of self-development will be given a world-wide application, and the American policy of avoiding entangling alliances will become the corner-stone of the new league. no other basis can we go into a league to enforce peace. The other states must go into the league on the same basis that we go in on, that is, without any treaty obligations to any other power or group of powers within the league. The adoption by all the great powers of the American policy of isolation should be the first step toward a League to Enforce Peace or any sort of world confederation.

After the war, then, our choice lies between a world balance of power based on two great alliances, in one of which we must take our place, or some form of world confederation; in other words, between two leagues or one. Can any one have any doubt as to which system is preferable? The one means militarism and the economic burden of even larger armaments than the world has yet seen; the other means international democracy, responsible diplomacy, and, eventually, a just and durable peace.

-Chicago Tribune.

of creating this institution. There is no disadvantage; on the contrary, there is advantage for each continent to maintain its distinct action and individuality in this political institution, so that the solutions agreed upon should conform with the special conditions of the continent, which solutions are very difficult to establish in an assembly of world - wide character.

In this way may also be realized the almost unanimous desire of the countries of our hemisphere that the countries of Europe should not interfere in our affairs and that in our turn we should not interfere with European questions when they do not interest us directly; to act otherwise might cause more disturbances and complications than advantages.

Therefore the body to be created must be continental and its attributions might be:

a) To watch over the general interests of the continent.

b) At certain times-every five years, for instance the countries of the same continent, which would have strifes of political character disturbing their good relations, would submit them to the Union or Council; the latter might either provide a definite solution or a "modus vivendi"; or it might refuse to interfere.

*"Le Droit International de l'Avenir," page 79 and following.

war

c) Consequently, in the future no could break out between the countries of one continent, before the country declaring war had exhausted all means of conciliation proposed by the Union or Council; if the Union or Council judges the situation to be embarrassing it might provide a solution to the difficulty but could not impose it.

d) War being declared, none of the countries of the continent could take part in it without having been previously authorized by the Union or Council which would take all necessary measures to that purpose.

e) During the war the Union would see, with the assembly of the neutrals, that all belligerents observe the laws and customs of war.

f) The war over, peace would be negotiated with the intermediary of the Union or Council.

g) To take adequate measures against the countries which would violate in bad faith the international law or which would act in bad faith in the execution of a sentence of arbitration or which would not respect the decisions of the Union. These measures might consist in public blame, commercial boycott, rupture of diplomatic relations, retaliation and even armed intervention, either collective or entrusted to one or several countries acting in the name of the others.

In this system of continental Union or Council, we must foresee a case of conflict between countries of different continents; then the Union or Council of each continent would name a commission, which, assembled in full session, might take the same measures as the Union or Council might take in case of a conflict between countries of the same continent.

"No settlement of 'the map of Europe' on lines of nationality can suffice to establish peace. The effective liberty of every people demands freedom of commercial intercourse with other peoples. A refusal or hindrance of such intercourse deprives a people of its fair share of the common fruits of the earth, and deprives the other people of the world of any special fruits which it is able to contribute to the common stock."-John A. Hobson.

Men

"The nation has entered the war. differ as to the wisdom of going into the war, but the government has acted, and there is no longer division. The people are one-they all stand behind the President and Congress who bear the grave responsibility of leading the country through war to peace. 'Our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor'-all these are pledged to support of the government through every hour until the end."-W. J. Bryan.