the usages and practices of civilized nations amply justify its existence and purposes. Obviously no rule of international law can be violated by an American Concert undertaking to protect every American state against European or other foreign aggression. So it is difficult to contend that such a Concert's intervention in the affairs of an American state with no other aim and no other result than to bring about the performance of international duties is not calculated to strengthen the ascendancy of international law rather than to weaken it. And it is yet more difficult to believe that an American Concert for the maintenance and security of the Panama Canal should not be recognized as a fit subject for the protection of international law-on the contrary, as a neutralized canal inuring to the benefit of humanity at large, the Panama Canal might well be held as matter of international law to be under the guardianship of each and all of the civilized states of the world. Modern writers on international law concur in the principle which is thus stated by one of them — “Canals which connect great bodies of water and are international in character, modify the course of the commerce of the world, and their status is therefore a matter of international concern."

If opinions may differ as to the merit of any or all of the foregoing suggestions, there surely can be no difference as to the necessity of determining with the least delay practicable what our future Latin-American policy is to be. Preparedness" for defensive war is demanded by the country notwithstanding the immense burdens it entails. It involves many besides strictly military problems, and among them one of the most serious is for what contingencies we are to prepare and for what causes we are to be ready to fight. Shall we preserve unchanged our traditional attitude as the champion of every American state against foreign aggression without regard to its consent or request or its preference to take care of itself or to seek some other ally than the United States, and without regard to the surely

incurred hostility of the aggressive foreign Power? It has often been claimed and sometimes effectively asserted that the United States in its own interest and for its own welfare must firmly resist any surrender of independence or cession of territory by an American state to a foreign Power even if the same be entirely voluntary. Suppose, for example, that an American state undertakes to permit an oversea Power to plant a colony on its soil, or to convey to it a port or a coaling station, is the United States to resort to war, if necessary, in order to defeat the scheme? These are only some of the inquiries which go to show the necessity of a speedy and comprehensive revision of our Latin-American policy. The replies to them involve possibilities which must be taken into account in any intelligent estimate of the kind and measure of military "preparedness" the United States ought to initiate. Obviously our "preparedness" means one thing with the coöperation of Latin America secured through the American Concert suggested, and a wholly different and much more difficult and burdensome thing without such coöperation. The difficulties of arranging such a coöperation are not to be underrated. Yet the exigencies of the situation are apparent and threaten not merely the United States but all American states. It is matter of selfpreservation for each and each should realize the vital interest it has in supporting a Concert which is formed on lines broad enough to cover all measures essential to the security of all, which is wholly defensive in nature, and which carefully abstains from any unnecessary impairment of the sovereignty of each.

THE DEMOCRATIC IDEAL IN INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONSHIPS 1

BAINBRIDGE COLBY

[Bainbridge Colby (1869- ) was educated at Williams College and practices law in New York City. He was one of the founders of the Progressive Party in 1912, and is now a member of the United States Shipping Board. The following is an address delivered in May, 1917, before the National Conference on the Foreign Relations of the United States. It is valuable for its emphasis on the importance of economic factors in international affairs, especially as illustrated by the policy of the "open door."]

The supreme concern of mankind is justice. This is the aspiration of democracy, not only in its internal but in its international relations. Justice not only demanded for ourselves but freely accorded to others.

This is the keynote of President Wilson's epoch-making appeal to the nations of the world. This immortal address constitutes not only a satisfactory declaration of the principles for which we entered the Great War, but it is the latest and most authentic expression of the spirit of democracy. The inviolability of treaties, respect for nationality, the right of development along self-evolved and national lines, obedience to the promptings of humanity, in other words, international justice - these are the salients of his definition of democracy's aims and of the democratic ideal in international relations.

But nations are animated not only by theories but by conditions. And it is well for us to remember that a nobly defined ideal does not necessarily meet or vanquish a robust and persistent condition. The issue of the Great War is familiarly

1 From Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, July, 1917. Reprinted by permission.

defined as between autocracy or militarism on the one hand, and democracy on the other. But militarism or even autocracy, odious as they are, are only different lines of approach to, or treatment of, underlying conditions in the world.

I think it may fairly be said that the ailment which afflicts the world is economic and not exclusively political. The trouble with the highly industrialized nations of the temperate zone is that they cannot produce what they need to consume, and they cannot consume what they need to produce. The populations of the industrial nations are steadily growing. The nations of western Europe in a century have doubled their population. Germany is adding a million per annum to her population, and the United States even more. The nations of western Europe cannot produce the means required for their subsistence. They have not the agricultural basis which yields them their requirements in food and raw materials. These indispensables of national life must be obtained beyond their borders. They must, in other words, be purchased, and the means necessary to the purchase are manufactured products, which must greatly exceed in amount what the domestic market of the producing nation can absorb. From this universal need of nations, i.e. food and raw materials on the one hand, and a market for products on the other, arises the value of colonial possessions, particularly in the unexploited and highly productive regions in the tropics and the Orient.

These regions are in large part peopled by nations whose titles to the lands they hold are unassailable, yet the people are lacking either in industry or ambition, and the productive possibilities of their lands are incapable of realization unless the popular energies are marshaled and directed and even supplemented by the more progressive and colonizing nations. The world needs their produce, the life of Europe demands their raw materials, and mere rights of nations can with difficulty make a stand against necessities that are so imperious. There has thus arisen an economic imperialism, of which, strange to say, the most democratic of nations are the most

conspicuous examples. England throughout the world, France in Africa and the East, are deeply conscious of the relation to their industrial vigor of colonial expansion.

Economic advantage seems to follow in the wake of political control. It is the mother country which builds the railroads in the colonies, controls port privileges, fixes tariffs, and secures to her nationals the out-distancing advantages which make alien competition impossible. Theoretically this may not be true, but in practice it is uniformly true. Of Algeria's exportations seventy-nine per cent are to France, and eighty-five per cent of her imports come from France.

As the industrial nation grows in population, the pressure upon her means of sustenance increases, her need of raw materials grows greater, and she turns a ranging eye throughout the world for the means of satisfying this internal pressure.

Here is the motive of wars, here is the menace to world peace. And it is with reference to this condition, prevalent throughout the world, that we must determine the attitude of democracy in its international relations.

This economic pressure is but beginning to be felt in the United States, but its premonitory symptoms are already seen. It is only a question of time when our complacent sense of security will give way to a realization that our vast agricultural basis is not vast enough to sustain our even vaster industrial development. We shall then feel, if not so acutely as sister nations in the east, at least as truly, the need of expanding markets and enlarged sources of raw materials, if not of food. The spiritual aims of democracy, so perfectly defined by the President, will have to encounter the imperious economic necessities which drive all nations, which cannot be stayed, and which refuse to be silenced. The freedom of the seas, respect for international boundaries, observance of treaties, obedience to international law, recognition of the dictates of humanity -in short, all the aims which animate America and her allies in this great war, do not in and of themselves contain the promise of a complete tranquilization of the world. To end