should earnestly unite in a movement which, it is hoped, will mark an historical epoch in South America, and exert its influence on countries beyond the seas, and on generations yet unborn.

Such an invitation to an American co-partnership, extended to the partners of the A B C league, together with several of the other stable republics, would, no doubt, be welcome and cordially accepted. The United States exchanges Ambassadors with Brazil and Mexico, thus recognizing them as equals on the highest plane of international society. A like exchange with Argentina and Chile would signalize our deserved respect for these potent nationalities and their welcome into the new American concert; a congress of these American ambassadors could readily consummate the "spiritual union" which President Wilson assures that we seek with the nations of America. The basis of such a union would be recognized friendly equality, and would necessarily carry the pledge of respect for their sovereignty and territorial integrity, so much desired by our neighboring republics. As said by the well-known Argentine political writer, Señor Leopoldo Lugones, in the Revue SudAméricaine:

Never has the realization of Pan-Americanism been more necessary in the New World than now. But Pan-Americanism means nothing without the United States, which represents in America the realization of the right to independence and the triumph of democracy. The first formula of Pan-Americanism, limited to the needs of the policy of defence, is the Monroe Doctrine. Its declarations constitute the most significant and decisive act towards guaranteeing the independence of the LatinAmerican states. Thanks to the Monroe Doctrine our territorial integrity has been preserved-and that in itself is enough to insure the United States our everlasting gratitude. If the Monroe Doctrine guar

antees to these states the integrity of their territories and their institutions, Latin Americans have nothing to fear, secure in the belief that the Monroe Doctrine, which yesterday assured our independence, will preserve it to us tomorrow.

I wish to close by quoting the eloquent words of Hon. John Barrett, Director General of the Pan-American Union, in a recent address which I heard him deliver in Washington:

I believe that the time has come when there can be evolved from the Monroe Doctrine itself as a principle, and there can be substituted for the "Monroe Doctrine" as a phrase, the principle and phrase of a "PanAmerican policy." The Pan-American policy would adopt, absorb and enlarge the Monroe Doctrine as an original policy of the United States

into a greater and "All-American" policy, where each nation would have the same rights of attitude, the same dignity of position, and the same sense of independence as the United States now has. By the substitution of "Pan-American" for "Monroe" and thus including all the American nations as sponsors; and by the substitution of "policy" for "Doctrine," and thus removing the hard, unyielding, dictatorial and didactic suggestions of the word "doctrine," a long step will be taken towards a new era of Pan-American comity and confidence. Then we will

have achieved that ideal, unselfish and fraternal relationship of the American governments and peoples which will give a new, worthy and permanently accepted significance to Pan-American relationship, Pan-American accord and Pan American Union.

I have sought to present a consensus of American opinion as to the Monroe Doctrine, its past signal services, its present significance and its high potentiality to the future welfare of all America. I trust to see the early transmutation of the Monroe Doctrine into a Pan-American policy.

American Society of International Law. Proceedings. 1914: 217-29

Should the Monroe Doctrine Continue to Be a Policy of the United States? George H. Blakeslee

During the past year there has been an epidemic of discussion regarding the Monroe Doctrine. This has been due probably to the dawning consciousness in the minds of the people of this country that there exist strong, stable nations in South America, which no longer need the protection of this traditional foreign policy, and which keenly resent its supposed spirit of guardianship. The problem whether it should be continued unchanged, or be modified or abandoned, has been a live issue in our newspapers and periodicals; it has been debated in schools, colleges and universities in all parts of the United States; it has frequently, at least in New England, been the topic at economic clubs; and, finally, it has been studied from nearly every aspect at three recent conferences of those especially interested in our foreign relations.

Yet there exists a certain feeling that this questioning of the infallibility of the Monroe Doctrine is merely a temporary fad, that it represents nothing substantial, and that it will soon be past, leaving the traditional American policy unchanged and un

shaken. This view was expressed only the other day by the Honorable Champ Clark, who said, "Every now and then somebody rises up and solemnly informs us that the Monroe Doctrine is dead. I answer such people as those in the words of Grover Cleveland.. Cleveland said, 'We are sovereign on this continent.' Mr. Clark added in a tone of absolute finality, "And we are." This idea that the Monroe Doctrine has still an unshakable hold on the American people is shown further by the recent words of a British essayist. "To the Americans," he says, "the Monroe Doctrine is like God or religion to a small child-something fearful, something to inspire awe, something, if necessary, to fight for." Is the keen British essayist correct? Is the Monroe Doctrine, after all, like God to the American people? Are we still content to accept as a matter of faith, without a question or a doubt, the inspiring and all-sufficient creed, "We are sovereign on this continent?"

In order to answer such queries as these it seemed very desirable to secure some definite evidence regarding the general attitude of thoughtful men in this country towards the Monroe Doctrine. But how might this attitude be discovered? Whose opinions should be asked? It was finally decided to obtain, first of all, if possible, the judgment of the lecturers on international law and American diplomacy in our colleges and universities, since these form almost the only body of men, all of whom as a class have given this subject professional study and whose opinions at the same time are almost entirely uninfluenced by political or party considerations. The writer therefore took the liberty of sending to each of these a set of questions. None were sent to any out of this class in order that no possible suspicion of personal bias in making the selection might affect the result of the canvass.

The questionnaire read:

I. Should the Monroe Doctrine, as now generally understood and interpreted in the United States and in Latin America, be continued without either modification or further definition? II. Does it need clearer interpretation?

(a) For the people of the United States?

(b) For the people of Latin America?

III. Should the stable Latin-American states (at present

Argentina, Brazil and Chile) be regarded by the United States as supporters of the Monroe Doctrine?

(a) Should this support be limited to the defense of their own lands from European conquest; or

(b) Should they be invited to cooperate with the United States in interpreting and enforcing the Monroe Doctrine wherever it may apply on this hemisphere?

IV. Should it be abandoned?

(a) Entirely?

(b) Below the Equator? or

(c)

Only so far as concerns the stable Latin-American states (Argentina, Brazil and Chile)?

V. Other views, comments and reasons, if any.

One hundred and forty-six replied, representing nearly all of our leading colleges and universities, and including seemingly the larger number of those best known as leaders in this field.

A study of these returns shows that certain general conclusions are agreed upon by a very large majority. These are: First, the present status of the Monroe Doctrine is unsatisfactory; of the total number who voted, only thirteen believe that it should be continued substantially as it now exists, that is, with its meaning somewhat indefinite and its interpretation and enforcement dependent upon this country alone. Second, it should nevertheless not be abandoned; only nine wish to give up the policy entirely. Third, it should be more clearly explained and decidedly modified in certain respects. The form of modification favored by a notably large majority is one which will recognize in some way the importance of at least such sister American republics as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and possibly Peru. It is held, five to one (104 to 20), that the United States should share with these stable republics the responsibility of enforcing the doctrine by adopting one of the three following policies, (1) complete cooperation with them, or (2) abandonment of the policy south of the Equator, or (3) abandonment so far as the stable states themselves are concerned. It is complete cooperation with them, however, which is generally favored; the large majority, eighty-five against thirty, believe that the stable Latin-American state should be invited to cooperate with the United States in both interpreting and enforcing the Monroe

Doctrine wherever it may apply on this hemisphere. This strong sentiment in favor of cooperation in its widest possible extent is the more surprising and the more significant in view of the fact that the doctrine has always been regarded as a policy to be interpreted and enforced by the United States alone.

These then are the views of a body of Americans who have made this subject a special study: the Monroe Doctrine should not be abandoned, but it should be more clearly explained, and it should be modified so as to rest upon a basis formed by the cooperation of all stable American republics.

In addition to this general summary, it will be valuable to consider the several propositions more in detail. First in importance is the question whether the Monroe Doctrine should be continued or abandoned. Typical comments from those who would renounce it entirely are as follows: "Not needed by United States; not desired by Latin America;" "The basis of the doctrine is gone, for we are in a world age and not a hemisphere age;" and "It is costly and dangerous; likely to embroil us in war; makes South America suspicious of our territorial cupidity and unfriendly. It implies an insult to a spirited people who do not ask for it or acknowledge it." Others would abandon the name, but retain the principle. "The words 'Monroe Doctrine' and "Monroeism,'". one writes, "have come to have such a disagreeable connotation among our neighbors that our policy towards Latin America ought to receive some other name."

Those who believe that the doctrine should be continued rest their contention, for the most part, so far as they have expressed their reasons, upon the belief that there is still danger of European or Asiatic acquisition of territory in this hemisphere. Some of the comments are: "No; it should not be abandoned, for the weaker states of South America would be seized and colonized by foreign Powers before half a decade;" "We should maintain the doctrine as it is, or strengthened, for another one hundred years, or until the danger of European invasion is past;" and "The greater danger after all lies rather in the possibility of a sale to some great Power by some South or Central American state. Therein lies the strongest argument for maintaining the general position of the doctrine." A particularly forceful statement of this view comes from a former diplomat, who says:

As one formerly engaged in the application of the Monroe Doctrine