nineteenth century. Following the impulse of nationalism the idea of internationalism began to develop. It appeared to be an increasing influence throughout the civilized world, when the present war of empires, that great manifestation of nationalism, stayed its progress in Europe and brought discouragement to those who had hoped that the new idea would usher in an era of universal peace and justice. While we are not actual participants in the momentous struggle which is shattering the ideals toward which civilization was moving and is breaking down those principles on which internationalism is founded, we stand as anxious spectators of this most terrible example of nationalism. Let us hope that it is the final outburst of the cardinal evils of that idea which has for nearly a century spread its baleful influence over the world. Pan-Americanism is an expression of the idea of internationalism. America has become the guardian of that idea, which will in the end rule the world. Pan-Americanism is the most advanced as well as the most practical form of that idea. It has been made possible because of our geographical isolation, of our similar political institutions, and of our common conception of human rights. Since the European War began, other factors have strengthened this natural bond and given impulse to the movement. Never before have our people so fully realized the significance of the words "peace" and "fraternity." Never have the need and benefit of international coöperation in every form of human activity been so evident as they are to-day. The path of opportunity lies plain before us Americans. The government and people of every Republic should strive to inspire in others confidence and coöperation by exhibiting integrity of purpose and equity in action. Let us as members of this congress, therefore, meet together on the plane of common interests, and together seek the common good. Whatever is of common interest, whatever makes for the common good, whatever demands united effort is a fit subject for applied Pan-Americanism. Fraternal helpfulness is the keystone to the arch. Its pillars are faith and justice. In this great movement this congress will, I believe, play an exalted part. You, gentlemen, represent powerful intellectual forces in your respective countries. Together you represent the enlightened thought of the continent. The policy of Pan-Americanism is practical. The Pan-American spirit is ideal. It finds its source and being in the minds of thinking men. It is the offspring of the best, the noblest conception of international obligation. With all earnestness, therefore, I commend to you, gentlemen, the thought of the American Republics, twenty-one sovereign and independent nations, bound together by faith and justice, and firmly cemented by a sympathy which knows no superior and no inferior, but which recognizes only equality and fraternity. THE MONROE DOCTRINE AND THE GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON THERE have been some arguments against the platform of the League to Enforce Peace. One of the most frequently advanced of these arguments is that the carrying out of the platform of the league would violate the so-called Monroe Doctrine. These words, the Monroe Doctrine, have been used to designate or to conceal such a variety of ideas and practices that it is necessary to start with some premise as to what the Monroe Doctrine may be. If the Monroe Doctrine is, as Professor Bingham says, an "obsolete shibboleth," it is clear that the relation of the platform of the league to the content of the doctrine would be one of historical and speculative interest only. If on the other hand it is, as M. Pétin says, the substitution by the United States of an "American law for the general law of nations," the relation of the Monroe Doctrine to the platform of the league would be a fundamental question. If the Monroe Doctrine is an assertion of the "supremacy of the United States in the Western Hemisphere" or "supremacy in political leadership," there would also be reason for careful deliberation. 1 This paper, by the Professor of International Law at Harvard University, was read at the First National Assemblage of the League to Enforce Peace at Washington on May 26, 1916, under the general topic "Practicability of the League Program." In any case, a careful investigation would show that the Monroe Doctrine is not a part of international law. The statement of the doctrine has varied. Early discussions in the Cabinet before the doctrine was set forth in Monroe's Message seem to have been as lively as some later ones upon the same subject. Jefferson, when consulted upon the advisability of a policy which would not "suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs," comparing the Declaration of Independence with this doctrine, said: “That [the Declaration] made us a nation, this sets our compass and points the course which we are to steer through the ocean of time opening on us." In the early days of the Monroe Doctrine the aim was to avoid further European interference in American affairs. Later, particularly from the days of President Polk, the doctrine assumed a more positive form. Bismarck is reported to have called the doctrine a piece of "international impertinence." In 1901 President Roosevelt in his Annual Message declared: "The Monroe Doctrine should be the cardinal feature of the foreign policy of all the nations of the two Americas, as it is of the United States," and in 1904 he said that "the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence to the exercise of an international police power." President Taft intimated in his Message in 1909 that "the apprehension which gave rise to the Monroe Doctrine may be said to have already disappeared and neither the doctrine as it exists nor any other doctrine of American policy should be permitted to operate for the perpetuation of irresponsible government, the escape of just obligations or the insidious allegation of dominating ambitions on the part of the United States." The construction of the Panama Canal gave rise to new problems. The rumor that foreigners were making purchases of land about Magdalena Bay in Mexico led to pronounce ments in the United States Senate, in 1912, that the United States could not view foreign possession of this or any such harbor "without grave concern," and it was admitted that this is a "statement of policy, allied to the Monroe Doctrine, of course, but not necessarily dependent upon it or growing out of it.' As in the early days the United States considered it within its rights to assert a policy defensive in its nature, but for the preservation of its well-being, so in later days the same general policy has taken differing forms. President Wilson early in his Administration endeavored to assure the Americas of his desire for the cordial coöperation of the people of the different nations, and a little later he asserted, "we are friends of constitutional government in America; we are more than its friends, we are its champions"; and, in the same message, he declared that the United States "must regard it as one of the duties of friendship to see that from no quarter are material interests made superior to human liberty and national opportunity." President Roosevelt had in 1901 asserted that the doctrine referred not merely to European, but to "any non-American power." This was recognized abroad, as Sir Edward Grey said in 1911 of the United States: "They had a policy associated with the name of Monroe, the cardinal point of which was that no European or non-American nation should acquire fresh territory on the continent of America." In December, 1913, Mr. Page, the American Ambassador to Great Britain, announced a late form of policy, saying: "We have now developed subtler ways than taking their lands. There is the taking of their bonds, for instance. Therefore, the important proposition is that no sort of financial control can, without the consent of the United 1 Since this paper was written President Wilson has proposed a "Monroe Doctrine for the whole world." [Author's note.] |