fectionate harmony and of everlasting friendship between our countries."1 It is still rather early to judge the attitude of the Harding administration towards a closer relationship with Latin America. The appointment of Senator Fall to a position in the cabinet was widely taken to indicate a rather uncompromising Mexican policy. Yet, with Mr. Hughes at the head of the state department, it would be unwise to lay too much stress upon Mr. Fall's influence on the President. Unquestionably, the successful effort of President Harding to make some reparation to Colombia for her loss of sovereignty over Panama, by insistence upon the immediate passage of the Colombian treaty, was a real contribution to better relations. It may prove the first step leading to a Pan-Americanism based on mutual confidence and respect. Perhaps the President's personal attitude may be fairly gaged by these expressions taken from his address of April 19, 1921, in commemoration of the unveiling of the monument to Bolivar: "I would like this date to be the cornerstone of a new era for South and North America in the mutual trust, in the fellowship of freedom and democracy, and in a new confidence and a new mutuality of purpose in achieving the things which independence and fellowship so naturally inspire. . I know I speak the spirit of the United States when I say that no self-consciousness impels, no envy exists, no hatred is actuating . . . Pan-Americanism means sympathetic and generous Americanism." 2 its th diplom War h -on th been r Bands Tery c republ standi The States the g The entrance of the United States into the World War, despite every effort to remain neutral, was conclusive proof that in the present condition of world politics no great nation can withdraw itself from an active participation in international affairs, and yet maintain its position and prestige. This is especially true in the case of a nation that aspires to leadership in the western hemisphere. New York Times, Jan. 28, 1921. 1Ibid., April 20, 1921. Noblesse oblige must be an important factor in the policy of great nations, just as it has been in the lives of great men; and before undertaking obligations it behooves a nation to understand clearly the responsibility it is assuming. If the policy of non-interference in European affairs permits the United States to pay little attention to European diplomacy,—and surely our participation in the World War has proved the lack of foresight in such a policy, -on the other hand, the Monroe Doctrine, which has rightly been regarded as the backbone of our foreign policy, demands as an absolute condition of its maintenance, not only very careful attention to the affairs of the Latin-American republics, but also a thorough and comprehensive understanding of their problems and their policies. The most casual study of the relations between the United States and the Latin-American republics will indicate that the great republic in the north has made little effort either to understand the difficulties that have sorely tried her younger and less powerful neighbors or to study their racial characteristics and customs with the friendly appreciation necessary to good relations between states. Nor is it sufficient in a democracy where public opinion plays an important part in foreign affairs to confine knowledge of foreign policies and peoples to the select few who make up the government. Such understanding should be widespread among the peoples themselves, so that public opinion, based upon an intelligent comprehension of the facts, can act as a lever towards more friendly coöperation, rather than as a spur to jealous and rival aspirations. To bring about this better relationship, which can be accomplished only by a better mutual understanding, every possible point of contact and every avenue of approach should be utilized. The first and most important means of understanding and knowing foreign peoples is to be acquainted with their language. Hitherto this aid to an understanding between ourselves and South America has been almost completely overlooked. Only recently have our schools and colleges given Spanish the recognition long accorded German and French, and even to-day Portuguese, the language of the greatest of all the South American states, appears in the curricula of few of our educational institutions. One noteworthy effect of the World War has been to reduce the study of German in American institutions and to stimulate the study of Spanish and French. The reaction against all things German was one of the principal causes of this turn towards the Latin tongue. The aversion of war-time will not, and should not, endure. None the less, the wider study of the Romance languages may be expected to be sustained both by the increased appreciation of the great store of exceptionally worthy French and Spanish literature, and by the practical advantages of a knowledge of Spanish and Portuguese in maintaining and increasing our Latin-American trade. It is not sufficient to know the language of a foreign country. There must be also some understanding of that country's history, institutions, government, and policies. It must be confessed that the educational institutions of the United States have done very little to stimulate interest in these aspects of Latin America. A glance at the courses of study announced by the various institutions and colleges of the United States in recent bulletins clearly indicates the scant attention paid to Latin-American history and affairs. The University of Chicago, listing more than one hundred courses in history, does not devote one to the study of the Latin-American states. Princeton offers none in either graduate or undergraduate departments. Columbia offers one course on Spanish and Portuguese America out of approximately seventy-five given in its history department. The University of Wisconsin presents a course on the United States and Latin America in its political science department, but no course dealing with Latin-American history. The University of Michigan offers two courses on Latin-American history and institutions, Yale offers four, while Harvard stands near the top of the list with five. The University of California deserves great credit for recognizing the value of a knowledge of Latin-American history and institutions, as is evidenced by the offering of nine or ten courses of this character. When our great colleges and universities manifest so little interest in bringing Latin-American affairs to the attention of their students, it is not surprising that in the secondary schools even less interest is shown. As a consequence, the ignorance of the ordinary well educated American citizen concerning all things south of Panama is veritably limitless. The North American press shows the same tendency to confine its attention to that part of the world lying north of the equator. A recent coup d'état in Bolivia, which was of such importance as to justify Chile in mobilizing in the north, and which provoked great excitement and warlike preparations in Peru, was given a part column on an inside page of a few of the metropolitan papers. In the press of the smaller cities such an event was not regarded as of sufficient importance to call for space. Yet the foreign policy of the United States was most vitally concerned, because our recognition of the de facto government would have the greatest influence upon its success or failure. It may be noted in passing that only since the World War has the press of the United States attempted to concern itself with foreign affairs in anything like the way in which such subjects are treated in foreign newspapers. Even today, in contrast with the press of London, Paris, and Buenos Aires, our metropolitan press, with few exceptions, is most decidedly provincial. Undoubtedly there has been a remarkable increase in the attention devoted by the average American citizen to European and Asiatic affairs during the past few years; but the affairs of the great nations of South America, with whom his real interests are far more closely related, have not yet been brought to his attention for the consideration which they merit. Before we can expect to interest the American public in the problems and policies of its neighbors on the south, an educational campaign must be waged which will give the people some conception of the actual situation in the great Latin-American republics. It can hardly be expected that a proper realization of the importance of maintaining cordial relations between the United States and South America would exist in the mind of the American business man who wrote to the United States legation in Buenos Aires to inquire whether the shops there used glass in their windows.1 If this Denver merchant had realized that Buenos Aires was approximately seven times as large as his own city, and was the capital of a country that did business to the amount of more than a billion and a quarter dollars in 1918, he would not have wondered whether the South Americans had yet reached the stage of civilization in which they were no longer content to use oil-paper for their windows. A well known South American commercial authority has declared that the great work of Pan-Americanism can be accomplished only if based upon close commercial relations, which are the proper foundations for continental harmony in America. The World War gave the United States a marvelous opportunity to seize the position long held by Great Britain as the leading trader with the South American republics, and at the present time she still holds that position. The following figures, reported by the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, show the situation very clearly. In 1913 the United Kingdom exported merchandise to the South American republics to the value C. H. Sherrill, Modernizing the Monroe Doctrine (N. Y., 1916), p. 17. "N. Pinheiro, "Pan-Americanism and the Commercial Expansion of the United States," in the Pan-American Magazine, Vol. XXXI, p. 103 (July, |