The result was that the policy of the government was, in the main, upheld. It was substantially decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that the Constitution did not extend to Porto Rico, except as it might be specially extended to it by Congressional enactment, and that therefore the island was not necessarily within the customs union of the United States. In brief, Porto Rico was a possession of the United States, but not a part of the Constitutional Union. That was in exact accord with the theories held by the best authorities, and acted upon by the government, in the cases of Louisiana and Florida, many years before. That principle now prevails, and Porto Rico is held as a territory outside of the Union and not destined to be admitted to the Union, though entire freedom of trade has been established between the two countries.

The same principle that was applied to Porto Rico was applied to the Philippines, the same contentions were raised against it, and the same victory for it was won in the courts. The system of government established in the Philippines differs greatly from that in Porto Rico, as is quite fitting. The Constitution does not prescribe uniformity of territorial government, but leaves it to Congress to give to each territory such a form of government as is best suited to its local requirements. The fundamental resemblance between the two is that they are both outside the Union of states and are intended thus to remain.

This is, as we have seen, no "new departure in American policy. It is merely the fulfilment and maintenance of the principle set forth in the Declaration of Independence, that the United States is competent to do anything which any independent nation may of right do—including, of course, the acquisition and government of colonies and outlying territories. It is in accord with the provisions of the Constitution, that it is a "Constitution for the United States of America" - not for alien lands, and not for what is elsewhere described in the Constitution as "the Territory or other property belonging to the United States," but for the United States, and for the United States alone.

CHAPTER X

RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

THE diplomatic results of our latest territorial annexations have chiefly to do with the Monroe Doctrine and with the extension of American interests and influence in Asia. It has been argued that by invading Asia, the United States has forfeited the Monroe Doctrine; that that Doctrine is a prohibition of European conquests in America and, of course, a renunciation of American rights of conquest in the Old World; and that so, if America ignores that renunciation and proceeds with conquests and annexations in Asia, the European powers are made free to do likewise in America. These strange views have been put forth in Europe, especially in Germany, and have even found an echo in America. We must regard them, however, as altogether unfounded and illogical.

The Monroe Doctrine was in no sense a selfdenying ordinance, excepting so far as Europe and European possessions then existing in America were concerned. There is not in it the slightest obligation, direct or implied, for the United States