Foreign Affairs. In its issue of October 24, 1923, the account of your London speech is given on pages 1 and S. It does not quote your entire speech, as you will see, if you look at it. It makes quotations of various parts, and then occurs the paragraph to which I referred, which reads as follows:

"The Ambassador then said that the national American policy was to have no foreign policy. He discussed the Monroe Doctrine, which he incidentally declared was of American origin exclusively and absolutely and continues to this day a purely American principle,” etc.

It is rather odd that the correspondent in transmitting it should have failed to quote just what you said, as you give it in your letter of the 28th ultimo, and attempted to summarize it so inaccurately, but you will readily understand from this how I read the communication.

Foreign Affairs is a Quarterly Review published by Council on Foreign Relations, Inc., of which the Hon. John W. Davis is President. Its Editor is Professor Archibald Cary Coolidge of Harvard, and its Editorial Advisory Board comprises Messrs. Tasker H. Bliss, John W. Davis, Harry A. Garfield, Edwin F. Gay and George W. Wickersham.

The first number of Foreign Affairs to appear following the above correspondence was published in March, 1924, and a second number was published in June, five months after the receipt of Mr. Wickersham's two letters. Neither contained any reference to the matter.

In view, therefore, of Mr. Wickersham's inability to persuade his associates to insert his brief note in correction of the misquotation, for whose publication they were responsible, conformably to the established custom of reputable public journals, the only course left to the one most concerned seems to lie in printing in this REVIEW the above letters and the portion of his speech bearing upon the subject mentioned, to wit:

THE AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

It is not unusual, especially, in democracies, for a political Opposition to chide an existing Government for having "no foreign policy". The accusation is made frequently in my country of whatever Administration happens to be in power. But it has no basis in fact. The United States has a National policy with respect to foreign relations,—a distinct and clearly defined policy, from which there has been no deviation in a century of

time. Indeed, as a circumstance not devoid of current interest, it was promulgated just one hundred years ago, come the second of December, when the event will be duly celebrated throughout the length and breadth of our land.

It is not, technically and precisely speaking, a National policy. It is an American principle. We are accustomed to refer to it as a doctrine, the Monroe Doctrine; it is really a dictum, the only dictum ever declared by a President of the United States, without legislative sanction, which possesses the full authority of fundamental and international law. The Constitution is the chart and the Dictum is the compass of our Declaration of Independence. The three comprise a matchless whole in the development of modern civilization resembling the trilogies of antiquity. Each is unique, yet perfectly adapted to its respective purpose and closely related to the others. First appears recognition by the Declaration of inherent rights, then regulation by the Constitution of liberties attained and, finally, segregation by the Dictum of a hemisphere, all essential to the preservation of political freedom throughout the New World.

The mere survival of these bold and original tenets of government, without material change, for so long a period of time affords sufficient evidence of the wisdom of the early statesmen of America. But that is not all. When we consider further the development of a few scattered colonies comprising barely three million souls into the mighty Republic of today, with more than a hundred millions sheltered by its flag, the outcome can be regarded as hardly less than one of the marvels of the world.

With the Declaration of Independence is associated the name of Thomas Jefferson; with the Constitution, that of James Madison; but both were composite documents, enriched and fortified by scores of minds working unjealously in unison to a common end. So, too, with the great Dictum. It bears the name of James Monroe, as indeed it should, since its definite promulgation fell to his lot and rightfully yielded signal fame. But the records indicate plainly that he did not regard the pronouncement as his own when he made it. He spoke his own belief, truly, but also the beliefs of others and only after earnest consultation with his Cabinet.

"Indeed," writes one competent historical authority, "if it had been his own decree or ukase, it would have been resented at home quite as vigorously as it would have been opposed abroad."

One misapprehension, however, should be dispelled. That is the impression conveyed by careless recorders of history that the principle is of European origin. Such is not the fact.

The Monroe Doctrine is of American origin exclusively and absolutely and continues to this day a purely American principle.

It has also become as distinctly a part of our fundamental law as if it had been written into the Constitution. Although lacking specific legislative sanction, the Congress has invariably taken its validity for granted and on more than one occasion has constructively reaffirmed it. Never, in point of fact, has a resolution or a measure bearing upon the Doctrine been even introduced in Congress except in support of it; never has there been one opposed to or questioning it. Every President, moreover, who has referred to it at all has reasserted it with steadily increasing emphasis.

It is sometimes urged that even though thus ingrained by usage in our fundamental law, it has never received formal acceptance by European Powers, and therefore cannot be regarded as holding international recognition. To which, the answer is that international law, like the English common law, is no more than precedent sanctioned by usage, "little more," in the words of Lord Chief Justice Russell, "than crystallized public opinion."

Applying the accepted test, we find that the principles underlying the Dictum are as old as our Government itself; that each of the Latin-American Republics has at some time adhered to it; that no European or Asiatic Power has ever formally protested it but rather, by acquiescence, has tacitly assented to it; and that, therefore, at this closing of a full century of its existence in enhanced strength and vigor, the United States is fully warranted in considering and upholding the Monroe Doctrine as a part of the modern international code of the civilized world.

And what precisely is this dictum of the United States, this unique possession of the Western Hemisphere? Its original scope and meaning may be stated simply in three parts:

1. No more European colonies on the American continents; no interference with those already established, but no territorial expansion thereof.

2. No incorporation or extension of European political systems on the Western hemisphere.

3. No interposition by Europe in the political affairs of the American Republics; no participation by the United States in the political broils of Europe.

This is the living part of the Monroe Doctrine which confronts us today. It comprises two distinct pledges, of which each is the essential corollary of the other, a fact which in logic and in morals constitutes the basis of the structure. In theory, as at the beginning, the one precept perfectly balances the other. But in practice we now observe for the first time a complete reversal of respective attitudes. A century ago and for long thereafter probable encroachment by Europe was a menace to America; the United States, with a total population of barely ten millions, boldly forbade it. Today the probability of interference has ceased to be even a possibility, in the face of an invincible hundred millions. Then, the only question considered by a European Power in contemplation of aggression in America was one of prospective profit and loss, rather than of success or failure. Now, the mere thought of such an undertaking would never enter the most adventurous of minds. Prescient, indeed, was the inspired Milton when, turning his sightless eyes to the West, he murmured:

"Methinks I see in my mind a noble and puissant nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks: methinks I see her as an eagle mewing her mighty youth, and kindling her undazzled eyes at the full midday beam.”

To perceive in this remarkable vision our own Republic of today, is to indulge in no idle boast; it is merely to recognize what all the world knows to be the simple truth.

Reverse the picture. When our sagacious elder statesmen pledged, in return for their demand for "no interposition by Europe" in American politics, "no participation by the United States in the political broils of Europe," the great Powers on this side of the ocean could but smile indulgently at their pre

sumptuous tender of payment in kind so trifling as to be negligible. Of what value to them was such an offering? What had they to fear from a few ill-knit colonies thousands of miles away? What harm or what help could ever spring from a land so distant and so desolate?

What ill or good, indeed, then! But now! How marvelous is the transformation wrought by a short century of time! We have not changed. We keep our promises. We would not impose our will upon Europe or upon any part of Europe. And we shall not now or ever hereafter "participate in the political broils of Europe." Let that be understood.

The Monroe Doctrine is no less sacred in our eyes now when we are rich and powerful than when we were poor and weak. It continues to be, in all its phases, the cornerstone of our National policy, and must be recognized and accepted as such in all international transactions.

Does this involve or imply selfish aloofness from the trials and tribulations of the world, or unwillingness to help our friends? Not at all. Your own philosopher-poet expressed to perfection the American aspiration when he wrote, with that touch of genius which only Kipling now retains:

"Help me to need no aid from men,

That I may help such men as need."

More prosaically, but with no less sententious accuracy, our Secretary of State, Mr. Hughes, only the other day epitomized the same idea in even fewer words:

"Not isolation, but independence, is the cardinal principle of the Republic."

One further declaration I would add to complete the thought and emphasize the purpose. It is by President Coolidge. These are his words:

"The constant need of civilization is for a practical idealism which does not attempt to perform the impossible, which does not seek to reform merely by an act of legislation, thinking that it can unload its burden on the Government and be relieved from further effort; which does not undertake to assume responsibility for all humanity, but realizes that redemption comes only through