the amendment to the Panama Canal act, that "repeal would mean practical abandonment of the Monroe Doctrine."

Although some German papers recently went so far as to express the opinion that the journey of Prince Henry of Prussia, the Kaiser's brother, to South America, was a protest on the part of the Kaiser against the Monroe Doctrine, and that he was thereby showing that he did not feel himself bound by it, nevertheless the people of Germany treat such a groundless statement with the contempt it deserves.

The chief difficulty the European experiences in interpreting the Doctrine lies in the fact that he unconsciously judges American conditions and affairs by European standards. It would require a conscious effort for the people of a continent whose political sense and feeling are at present influenced by an incessant rivalry for colonial expansion, to conceive that a state may have any other political ideal; that its ambition may not necessarily strive for increase of power by colonial acquisitions.

That the United States, until now, has not shared such ambitions is proved by the history of her foreign policy. This policy furnishes an almost unbroken line of examples to sustain such a contention, with the single exception of the wave of imperialism directed toward colonial expansion which arose at the time of the war with Spain, but which quickly subsided. It is impossible to understand American foreign policy, and with it the Monroe Doctrine, without thoroughly considering this difference between the political ideals of Europe and the United States-a difference which, at present, undoubtedly exists.

On the other hand, I may venture to say that the feeling in Europe towards the Monroe Doctrine is slowly changing. It is true, one sometimes reads, even now, heated arguments against this Doctrine, in which, unfortunately, is often quoted that remark made by Bismarck when he called the Monroe Doctrine "an international impertinence." But such arguments seem to become less frequent, and, on the whole, the number of sensible and more reasonable critics, who consider the merits as well as the weaknesses of the Monroe Doctrine, steadily increases. A convincing appeal may be made to the teachings of history. They refute the hitherto generally accepted argument raised against the doctrine, that its purpose was to give to the United States a monopoly of political expansion on the American continent. In fact, not one

instance can be proved in which the United States has added territory in America under the protection of the Monroe Doctrine. What she has done again and again, acting on this principle, is to prevent the over-sea expansion of any non-American state.

Of particular interest is the change of public opinion in Europe in another direction. Formerly discussion was chiefly centered on question of the justification, or rather the lack of justification, for the existence of the Doctrine. This question has now been relegated to the background by two others. One is whether the United States can and will maintain the Monroe Doctrine, or whether, in the course of time this principle will turn against the country which formulated it and become a burden. The second question involves the duty of the United States, resulting from the doctrine, to provide for peace and order in Central and South America, and a reasonable protection for nonAmerican interests. Events in Mexico, prior to the recent active measures on the part of the United States, chiefly the murder of the British subject Benton, have given a number of European newspapers the opportunity to remind the United States of her duty--to play the rôle of American policeman-a duty which ex-President Roosevelt, in particular, repeatedly emphasized as a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. When, however, the United States interfered in Mexico most of those newspapers had, unfortunately, already forgotten their former admonition.

It is clear that Europeans, becoming more and more reconciled to the Monroe Doctrine, accept it as an existing fact and begin to discuss its consequences.

The above refers only to the old style Monroe Doctrine, to the doctrine which wants to prevent the increase of political power of non-American states in America, and which may be styled the political Monroe Doctrine. The affair takes a different aspect when we consider that new tendency to extend the doctrine into a prevention or limitation of the purely economic activity of non-American states, or their citizens, in America.

But one cannot say that the Monroe Doctrine has actually developed in this direction, although such a development would not be inconsistent with its character. Its transformation into a "commercial Monroe Doctrine" is relatively easy, and signs are not wanting that it already tends toward a development in this direction. Recall the last stage of the Panama Canal affair, and

recall more especially the Magdalena Bay incident. It is clear that such a claim as "America for the Americans, economically as well as politically" would meet with an opposition and attack far more violent than any which the political Monroe Doctrine has ever aroused. It is probable that these attacks would come not only from the non-American camp, but also from American and even from the United States itself.

It is difficult to formulate a decided opinion as to the attitude of European diplomacy toward the Monroe Doctrine. Available material, necessary for that purpose, is lacking. One fact, however, is certain, viz., the Monroe Doctrine, to the present time, has not been expressly recognized as a rule of international law by any country.

The question as to whether it has been internationally recognized as a political principle of the United States is of no great importance. Since it is, in fact, a political principle of the United States which has been in practice for almost a century, such a recognition would be only the acknowledgment of an existing fact, and as such would have no real significance. It is of much greater importance to note that the other states evidently reckon Iwith the doctrine as a factor which must be taken into consideration.

The last instance in which a European state questioned the validity of the Monroe Doctrine was the controversy between England and the United States as to the boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana, commonly known as the "Venezuelan boundary dispute." In the settlement of this dispute the United States won its most brilliant diplomatic victory for the doctrine. The victory was so complete that the affair has repeatedly given occasion for the assertion that England, by her attitude, actually recognized the Monroe Doctrine as a principle of international law.

Since the time of the Venezuelan boundary dispute there has been only one dubious example of a disregard for the great American doctrine-the Magdalena Bay incident with Japan in 1912. Even here the Japanese government did not contend that the Monroe Doctrine could not hinder the acquisition by a Japanese syndicate of a concession of land from Mexico in lower California, to which the United States objected, but simply denied that such a transaction was being carried out.

The case of the Venezuelan debts of 1901-1904 gave the German government occasion for the celebrated declaration "that under no circumstances do we consider in our proceedings the acquisition or the permanent occupation of Venezuelan territory," a declaration which some, incorrectly, have construed as a recognition of the Monroe Doctrine by that government.

It is even reported that during the recent Mexican troubles some European governments have directly applied to the United States to act as intermediary in seeking redress for the injustice which their subjects have suffered in Mexico (consider in this connection the Benton case). Should these reports prove true it would be such a perfect acquiescence in the doctrine, of the governments concerned, that the jurist would have to consider seriously the question: Have not these powers actually conceded such a position to the United States on the American continent, that she is entitled to the general observance of the principle that the Monroe Doctrine proclaims?

Annals of the American Academy. 54: 66-83. July, 1914

Monroe Doctrine and Latin America. Joseph Wheless

The single purpose which moves me to a discussion of the phase of this subject indicated by the title of this paper is to endeavor to clear away the obscuring mists of misunderstanding which have been blown up around the' Monroe Doctrine in its immediate relation to Latin America. "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free," is the inspired text of the evangel of better understanding which I come to preach. It is the same high desire as actuated Mr. Calhoun in his great speech in the Senate on the same subject-"I remove a false interpretation, which makes safe and proper declarations improper and dangerous." To accomplish this, I shall rely not upon arguments of mine own, and but a few North American interpretations, but shall appeal to the best accredited utterances of the most authoritative statesmen and publicists of our neighboring states of Latin America.

That a false interpretation and misunderstanding of the Monroe Doctrine, and of the policy of the United States thereunder, do exist, and have been responsible for no little ill

feeling and irritation, is unfortunately true and cannot be ignored. This fact was regarded by President Roosevelt as of such importance as to be made the subject of special comment in a message to Congress. In his message of December, 1905, he refers to this fact, and seeks to dispel the error underlying it in emphatic language:

In many parts of South America there has been much misunderstanding of the attitude and purposes of the United States towards the other American republics. An idea has become prevalent that our assertion of the Monroe Doctrine implied, or carried with it, an assumption of superiority, and of a right to exercise some kind of protectorate over the countries to whose territory that doctrine applies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yet that impression continued to be a serious barrier to good understanding, to friendly intercourse, to the introduction of American capital and the extension of American trade. The impression was so widespread that apparently it could not be reached by any ordinary means.

Certainly no one has been more earnest or used more emphasis than has Mr. Roosevelt, in proclaiming the true gospel of the policy and mission of the United States in respect to the American nations, and in striving to allay the baseless fears of aggression and aggrandizement which many profess to feel towards the government at Washington. The truth of his so often repeated declarations of the good will and peaceful designs of the United States regarding Latin America cannot be gainsaid. From his repeated utterances on the subject two representative and official statements may be cited. In his message to Congress of December 3, 1901, the President said:

The Monroe Doctrine is a declaration that there must be no territorial aggrandizement by any non-American power at the expense of any American power on American soil. It is in no wise intended as hostile to any nation in the Old World. This doctrine has nothing to do with the commercial relations of any American power, save that it in truth allows each of them to form such as it desires.

Again in the message of December, 1904, President Roosevelt states strongly his views of the policy and duty of the United States':

It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any projects as regards other nations of the western hemisphere save such as are for their welfare. All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship.