To disperse this impression was part of Secretary Root's mission on his journey through South America, and he was partially successful, but the logic of the situation still remains.

If we are the big-brother-with-the-club who will not permit any outsider to spank our irritating or troublesome younger brothers, we must accept the natural corollary of keeping them in order ourselves, for we cannot allow the American family to become a nuisance. And some members of it have a decided tendency in that direction. Is this task worth while? Is there not a better way out of the difficulty?

Furthermore, Europe knows that in order to continue to execute our self-imposed and responsible mission we must run counter to the most approved principles of the law of nations.

The Right of Independence is so fundamental and so well established a principle of international law, and respect for it is so essential to the existence of national self-restraint, that armed intervention, or any other action or policy tending to place that right

in a subordinate position, is properly looked upon with disfavor, not only in Latin America, but by all the family of civilized nations.

The grounds upon which intervention is permitted in international law differ according to the authority one consults. But in general they are limited to the right of selfpreservation, to averting danger to the intervening state, and to the duty of fulfilling engagements. When, however, the danger against which intervention is directed is the consequence of the prevalence of ideas which are opposed to views held by the intervening state, most authorities believe that intervention ceases to be legitimate. To say that we have the right to intervene in order to modify another state's attitude toward revolutions is to ignore the fundamental principle that the right of every state to live its life in a given way is precisely equal to that of another state to live its life in another way.

In the last analysis, no intervention is legal except for the purpose of self-preservation, unless a breach of international law has taken place, or unless the family of civilized states concur in authorizing it.

If, then, our adherence to the Monroe Doctrine means, practically, disregard of the principles of the accepted law of nations, is it worth while to continue? Why should the United States not abandon the Monroe Doctrine, and publicly disclaim any desire to interfere in the domestic quarrels of the American republics? Why should our government not publicly state to Europe that this nation will not intervene except at the request of a Pan-American Congress, and then only in case we are one of the members which such a Congress selects for the specific purpose of quieting a certain troublesome neighbor?

IV

From the Latin-American point of view, the continuance of the Monroe Doctrine is insulting, and is bound to involve us in serious difficulties with our neighbors. We seem to be blind to actual conditions in the largest and most important parts of Latin America, such as Brazil, Argentina, and Chile. We need to arouse the average citizen to study the commercial situation and the recent his

tory of those three republics. Let him ponder on the meaning of Brazil's one hundred million dollars of balance of trade in her favor. Let him realize the enormous extent of Argentina's recent growth, and her ability to supply the world with wheat, corn, beef, and mutton. Let him examine Chile's political and economic stability. Let him consider whether or not these nations are fit to take care of themselves, and are worthy of being included in an alliance to preserve America for the Americans, if that is worth while. Let him ask himself whether or not the Argentine, Brazilian, and Chilean governments deserve our patronizing, we-willprotect-you-from-Europe attitude.

We are not an imaginative people. Unlike our Southern neighbors, it is difficult for us to visualize the meaning of printed statements about countries that we have never seen. When the South American hears the figures of our commerce, learns the height of our sky-scrapers, and listens to the extent of the benefactions of our leading philanthropists, he cannot help conceiving an overpowering sense of the greatness of the United

States, and is even inclined to exaggerate its power for interference and intervention.

We, on the other hand, really need to visit South America in order to get a vivid idea of present conditions in the leading republics. Fortunately, the number of those who travel southward is increasing every year. The Boston Chamber of Commerce took a long step in the right direction recently by making it possible for its members and friends to enjoy a comfortable tour through the leading South American cities. But individual tourists have nothing to fear. The luxury-loving American traveller can even find four Ritz-Carlton hotels on the east coast. The steamers that take him to them are as comfortable as any in the world. Conditions on the west coast will soon be equally good.

Furthermore, our Southern neighbors are rather more fond of certain kinds of luxury than we are, and in their present prosperous condition they seem to be abundantly able to pay. In fact, perhaps one of the best ways of getting an idea of Argentina's economic status is to look at the question of taxi-cabs.