first time at the exchange of ratifications, which materially altered its meaning as understood by the slender majority of Senators who had ratified it. It never had much real vitality, even before our Government formally denounced it in 1881; it had still less after England abandoned her pretended "Protectorate" in Nicaragua, fourteen years later; and it has now happily ceased to have even a nominal existence.

Strangely enough, the intervention by the United States in the Anglo-Venezuelan case, in 1895-6, already alluded to, has been cited as an instance in which we disregarded the principles of the Monroe Doctrine. The contention is that, since the controversy was over a disputed divisional line between a long established and duly recognized European colony and a free American state, our interests were in nowise involved; and that our interposition, contrary to the expressed wish of one of the parties to the dispute, even with the laudable purpose of bringing it to friendly arbitration, was at once a violation of our traditional policy of neutrality and of our pledge not to interfere with European colonies "already established." But this is a total misconception of the facts in the case, as well as of the real principles involved. The important feature of that controversy was, England's assertion of right to extend the area of her colony in Guiana over adjacent "unoccupied territory;" for she claimed sovereignty in virtue of alleged "British settlements" made as late as 1881, and she furthermore claimed eminent domain, even beyond those "settlements," in virtue of alleged "treaties made with the native Indian tribes." It needs no argument to show that both of these contentions were wholly untenable-one being a palpable violation of a well settled principle of international law, the other being in open defiance of the Monroe Doctrine. If either of them were once conceded with respect to a particular region in South America, it would have to apply to others; and, if applied to South America in general, it would have to be admitted with respect to North America as well. It was precisely this covert, but ever present, feature of the case which gave it such international importance. Hence, so far from being a violation of the Monroe Doctrine, our interposition was directly and affirmatively in support of it.

Nor was that interposition an attempt to "expand"the Monroe Doctrine, as has been thoughtlessly charged. England had seized

and forfeited whole districts hitherto acknowledged to be Venezuelan territory. She had done this in defiance of repeated remonstrances and formal protests; and had persistently refused to evacuate those places, or to submit her claim of title to impartial arbitration. Under such circumstances, her acquisition involved either an act of war or an act of piracy; and, in either case, it was as much a violation of the principles of the Monroe Doctrine as if those districts had been seized by British troops or covered by British guns. The situation, therefore, presented one of two alternatives-either the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, or its total abandonment.

Finally, as every one knows, or is presumed to know, the great body of what we call international law, like that of the English common law, is made up of precedent sanctioned by usage. In its last analysis, it is, as Lord Chief-Justice Russell once aptly expressed it, "little more than crystallized public opinion." And I think it has been sufficiently shown that the principles of the Monroe Doctrine are precedents as old as our Government itself. They have been sanctified by unbroken usage, and have given direction to our foreign policy for more than a century. Every one of our Presidents, from the first to the present, who has ever had occasion to refer to it, has specifically reaffirmed it. Every one of the Latin-American republics has, at one time or another, and in some form or other, affirmatively supported it. Not one of the European Powers has ever entered formal protest against it; on the contrary, all have acquiesced in it, and thus tacitly assented to it. It is, therefore, a valid part of the public law of this continent; and until abandoned by us, or until formally challenged by Europe, or until modified or abrogated by public treaty, it will continue to be recognized as part of the modern international code of the Christian world.

Outlook. 70: 371-4. February 8, 1902

Moral Aspects of the Monroe Doctrine. Edward Stanwood

The Monroe Doctrine is the one political principle which has been and is accepted by American statesmen of every party. Every President in whose administrative term any question involving the principle has arisen has repeated, enforced, and if

necessary extended the Doctrine, and has been applauded by his political opponents for so doing. There seems at present no reason to anticipate a change of view on the part of any considerable number of influential public men. Nevertheless, the occasions for maintaining the Doctrine, and for making a semiwarlike demonstration in enforcing it have lately been frequent. To one who reasons from the occurrences in Africa and Asia to what may take place in South America, large possibilities loom up in the not distant future. Should it become necessary for this Government not only to make a display of force, but also to use force to uphold the Doctrine, we may be sure that timid and ultraconservative men will seek reasons for abandoning the time-honored principle. In the search they will be assisted by those who carry to the extreme logical limit the principles denominated by its adherents anti-imperialism. They holdan anonymous writer lately published the opinions-that the Monroe Doctrine is a chip on the shoulder of a bully; that it has no foundation in international law or equity; that we are in no danger of foreign aggression; that our interference is unwelcome to those in whose behalf it is made; and that the Doctrine. menaces seriously the peace and prosperity of the world.

It seems worth while to anticipate a discussion that is likely to arise, and to consider if objections of the class just noted are fair and sound; in other words, leaving out of sight altogether the question of the relation of the Monroe Doctrine to our National security, to examine the moral basis of the doctrine. We are not to inquire whether or not any vestige of the original reasons for promulgating the Doctrine still remains, nor whether or how far the Doctrine has been modified in the course of time. All that concerns us is to know if the Doctrine in its present form and in its modern application represents a policy that can be defended as one justifies his individual conduct toward his neighbors, a policy that makes for the peace of the world, a policy that conduces to the independence of the nations affected by it, a policy that is generous, humane, and benevolent on the part of the Government which maintains it—or the contrary.

One answer of these questions is furnished by history. This Government has upheld the Doctrine for eighty years, and has asserted it on many occasions. In one case of its application it frustrated the attempt of the Emperor of the French to wrest the

Government of Mexico from the inhabitants of the country, and to set up an empire as the next-door neighbor of the United States. On another occasion it protected Venezuela from a forcible annexation of territory by Great Britain, and secured for it a peaceable hearing before a duly constituted tribunal. When De Lesseps's scheme for constructing the Panama Canal was about to be put in force, so mildly disposed and peace-loving a President as Rutherford B. Hayes sent a message to the Senate in which he took the ground that the smallest measure of political control or protection of the proposed canal by "any European Power or any combination of European Powers" was inadmissible; and his Secretary of State, Mr. Evarts, secured from the French Government a disclaimer of any attempt to give the enterprise support, either direct or indirect. Still later the action of the American navy in preventing a blockade of the port of Rio de Janeiro broke up a plot, to which the commanders of several European squadrons were consenting, to restore the imperial government of Brazil.

These are the most conspicuous, but by no means all, of the occasions when the United States has acted upon the Monroe Doctrine. In every case, not only in those mentioned but in every other, this Government has intervened not to destroy but to preserve the sovereignty of the weak members of the American family of republics. It has never exacted or claimed a penny of indemnity, nor has it ever asked or taken an inch of territory from any country whose sovereignty it has defended.

If all or any of the acts were acts of a bully among nations, then our dictionaries must be revised. The bully threatens and terrorizes those who are weaker than himself. Our Government in every case has taken the side of the weaker party against the stronger and has brought the schemes of the bully to naught. It has sometimes refused to interfere for the protection of the Spanish-American republics any further than it has lately signified its intention to do in the case of Venezuela. A debt is justly due to Germany; Venezuela ought to pay; this Government declines to ask more from Germany than that it refrain from exacting territorial indemnity. The present dictator of Venezuela is extremely unfriendly to the United States, and has taken especial pains to let his unfriendliness be known. Yet our Government not only overlooks his childish hostility, but seeks

and obtains from his powerful adversary an agreement not to overthrow the sovereignty nor to encroach on the territory of Venezuela.

We may answer our questions in another way quite as convincingly-although what would have happened in other circumstances can never be known so certainly as what has happened. During the last twenty years substantially the whole of the continent of Africa has been partitioned among the Powers of Europe. France picked a quarrel with Madagascar and took the whole of that island to redress its grievances. It found another cause of complaint, or rather a series of them, in southern Asia; and has Annam, Cochin-China, and Tonking as a reward of its activity in pressing its complaints. Germany, England, and Russia enjoy the possession of slices of China to soothe and heal the wounds inflicted by the warlike and aggressive Chinese. If there are any islands in the Pacific that have not been annexed by the colonizing countries of Europe, information regarding them will be thankfully received and suitably rewarded at London, Paris, or Berlin.

During the time all this appropriation of territory in every other part of the world has been going on, the continents of America have been wholly free from the exploits of European enterprise against native governments. Was it because Central and South America offer less enticing fields for such enterprises? By no means. There is not on the globe a region not already controlled by Great Britain of more importance to the Government which enjoys the sea-power of the world than the strip of territory between Mexico and Venezuela. The colonization of Germans in southern Brazil and northern Argentina— in a country abounding in resources and opportunities-is more than suggestive of aspirations that might be realized were there no other obstacle than native governments to be overcome. In the event of a beginning of the partition of South America, who can doubt that France and perhaps Italy would demand and receive a share of the territory?

But, says an objector at this point, the world, would be better and civilization would be advanced if we were to withdraw our pretensions and to allow Great Britain and Germany and the other countries to enter Central and South America and devolop the country. Would it be right, then, for the European Powers