withdrew her troops and Maximilian was overthrown. The second occasion was when a dispute arose between Great Britain and Venezuela over the boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela. The United States government notified Great Britain that this case came within the scope of the Monroe Doctrine and that the United States would not permit any European country to forcibly deprive an American state of the right and power of self-government and of shaping for itself its own political fortunes and destinies. As the question raised in this case did not seem to fall under the original meaning of the doctrine, the position thus taken by the United States threatened to strain friendly relations between the United States and Great Britain; but fortunately the matter was peaceably settled.

in the

Monroe

So far it might seem that the Monroe Doctrine was Necessary entirely one of friendliness for South American coun- changes tries and of protection of them; but it can be easily seen that it has possibly another side, for it seems to assume Doctrine that the United States has something to say about South America. When all the South American countries were young and weak this might not have called out any objection; but now that several of them have become strong, they are rather inclined to resent this claim on the part of the United States. And there is a further danger. Suppose a European power has difficulties with some American country over the payment of debts or other injury to European citizens. If the United States will not let the European countries interfere, must it not then assume some responsibility for debts and injuries? President Roosevelt

seemed to assume that it should. He declared:

"If a nation shows that it knows how to act with decency in industrial and political matters, if it keeps order and

pays its obligations, then it need fear no interference from the United States. Brutal wrong-doing or impotence which results in the general loosening of the ties of civilized society may finally require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the western hemisphere the United States cannot ignore its duty."

It is easy to see that this might come to mean that the United States would be a sort of policeman for the whole American continent, and this might easily involve us in trouble; hence some have urged that we ought to drop the Monroe Doctrine. Others suggest that instead of attempting to carry alone the responsibility of American liberty we coöperate with other American peoples in an effort to maintain peace and independence for all. Such coöperation was illustrated in the recent mediation between the United States and Mexico when the Argentine Confederation, Brazil, and Chile coöperated to make a peaceful adjustment.

President Wilson, in an address to the Pan-American Conference, restated our conception of the Monroe Doctrine:

"There is no claim of guardianship or thought of wards but, instead a full and honorable association as of partners between ourselves and our neighbors, in the interest of all America, north and south. . . All the governments of America stand, so far as we are concerned, upon a feeling of genuine equality and unquestioned independence. .

The moral is, that the states of America are not hostile rivals but co-operating friends, and that their growing sense of community of interest, alike in matters political and in matters economic, is likely to give them a new significance as factors in international affairs and in the political history of the world. It presents them as in a very deep and true sense a unit in world affairs, spiritual partners, standing together because thinking together, quick with common sympathies and common

ideals.

Separated they are subject to all the cross currents of the confused politics of a world of hostile rivalries; united in spirit and purpose they cannot be disappointed of their peaceful destiny."

The third policy was marked out in the great words of Washington's Farewell Address: "Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all."

faith and

justice

to all

As regards "good faith and justice," it would be (3) Good pleasanter for American citizens if we could forget our dealings with the Indians. "Good faith," as applied to the dealings of one nation with another, means particularly keeping treaties, for a treaty is a contract or agreement made with great care and in a solemn manner so as to bind both sides as strongly as possible. Justice means respecting the rights of others as if they were your own. It forbids taking away property by force or by tricks when one has no right to it. Any strong people, when dealing with a weaker people, needs to consider justice. At the same time it is easy to see that it is much easier to observe good faith and justice toward people who are at about the same stage of civilization as we are. we are. For both sides then understand each other better; they can put themselves more easily in the other's place; they sympathize more strongly with what the others claim as their rights.

faith

toward

In the case of the Indians the United States always Failure recognized that they had a "right of occupancy." in good That is, although the Indians did not have a system of owning land so that they fenced off farms or lots and kept written records of every change of ownership, they yet had regions in which they and their fathers had fished and hunted. They "occupied " these forests

Indians

and rivers, and the villages where they stayed. The early settlers made bargains with them for tracts of land, and later the states and the United States made treaties with various tribes to exchange their hunting grounds for other lands or for money. If a few Indians occupied a great tract of land it is clear that it would benefit more people if the land should be cultivated and made to feed a million people instead of a hundred. It was right to compel the Indians to give up some of the land they were occupying, provided they were taught how to live on less land. But, unfortunately, for a long time little was done for the education of the Indians. When treaties were made with them it was of the highest importance that these should be kept. Some white men did not think so. They did not hesitate to seize land which the government had granted to the Indians. If the Indians objected there would soon be a quarrel, and if the Indians attacked the white settlers this would be made the excuse for a removal of the Indians.

A commission appointed by President Grant in 1869 to examine Indian affairs reported:

"The history of the Government connections with the Indians is a shameful record of broken treaties and unfulfilled promises. The history of the border white man's connection with the Indians is a sickening record of murder, outrage, robbery, and wrongs committed by the former, as the rule, and occasional savage outbreaks and unspeakably barbarous deeds of retaliation by the latter, as the exception.

"Taught by the Government that they had rights entitled to respect, when those rights have been assailed by the rapacity of the white man, the arm which should have been raised to protect them has ever been ready to sustain the aggressor."

It is no wonder that a writer who had studied the records of our dealings with the Indians called her book A Century of Dishonor. For although the old military idea of honor is that the only very dishonorable thing is to be weak or afraid, there is another idea which makes it dishonorable to break your word, or to treat a weaker person unjustly. President Grant began a better way of dealing with Indians. Schools were encouraged. A particularly outrageous violation of a treaty with the Ponca Indians in 1879 aroused public feeling and associations were formed to aid the Indians. Unscrupulous individuals are still constantly aiming to defraud them. They frequently seek to do this by laws cleverly designed, so that they may outwit the Indians in a legal way. But those who believe in justice and good faith are stronger and more awake than formerly. Many of the Indians who have been educated are now helping the rest to understand and defend their rights. What is perhaps more important, many of the Indians have learned to farm, to raise cattle, to live in the white man's way, and so to gain more respect from those who did not have any scruple against cheating or robbing them when they lived so differently. It is the highest test of a strong man or a strong nation to be just to the weak.

In dealing with other nations it may be fairly said that we have for the most part observed good faith and justice. In deciding whether we have always done this it is not entirely safe to trust our own judgment. In a business transaction it often occurs that one man thinks he has observed good faith, whereas the other man in the transaction thinks differently. Such a case can be brought before an impartial court and decided. In the past there has been no way to compel a nation