way round the globe. He did not mean such folly, any more than he meant the Thirteen Colonies to remain forever content with the Atlantic littoral. The fiery expansionist who led his rude and ungovernable conquistadors across the Alleghanies to do battle for the Ohio Valley, would, if he were living to-day, be foremost in extending American interests and American influence to the uttermost ends of the earth.

What Washington urged upon his countrymen was that it was best for this country, not as it might be at some future time, but as it was then, young, poor, and feeble, to refrain not from international relations and even alliances, but from permanent alliances with European powers. He said not a word against temporary alliances, even at that early date. Indeed, he explicitly mentioned them as in certain circumstances to be welcomed. Jefferson, too, is often quoted as an authority against entangling alliances. Yet, as we have seen, Jefferson explicitly suggested and urged an offensive and defensive alliance with one European power for the purpose of intruding ourselves into European complications and waging war against another European power. The simple fact is that the founders of this republic had no idea of making it a hermit nation, such as some Asian realms have been. They meant it rather to be a "world power," generous and active in the affairs which concern or should concern all nations. Their ideal

for it was that of a nation which should adopt and adapt to itself the words of the Roman sage, "Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto," saying for itself, "I am a humane nation, and whatever concerns mankind concerns me."

The diplomatic effect of our latest act of expansion is, therefore, more subjective than objective. It does not alter our attitude toward the world at large. But it serves, or should powerfully serve, to remind us anew of that attitude, of the privileges which it conveys, and of the responsibilities which it imposes. It is one of the benefits of contact with other nations, even of the rude contact of war, that it inculcates a sense of courtesy and of accountability, and of amenability to the customs and laws of the world at large. Our dealings with Spain and our acquisition of the remains of her colonial empire have, on the one hand, demonstrated to the rest of the world our power and growth, and have, on the other hand, taught us the necessity of courtesy and consideration in dealing with our neighbors, and of observing the rule of "do ut des."

Nor is there lacking a pregnant suggestion of the possibilities and limits of further American territorial expansion, whether by purchase or by conquest. We have seen that the entire process of our expansion, not only for a century, but since that first excursion through Swift Run Gap, has been coherent and sequential, each step prescrib

ing the next according to the law of cause and effect, and all made according to well-defined and reasonable principles. Whatever further acquisitions of territory there may be, therefore, should be in consonance with those same principles and in pursuance of the same consistent and established policy. On such grounds the limits of expansion are, perhaps, most clearly to be seen. We need no more territory for settlement and occupation, as we needed the Ohio Valley, wherefore we shall seek no more for that purpose. We need none and shall seek none for the opening of routes of commerce, as we did in the case of Louisiana; for it is to be assumed that free transit across the American isthmus will be secured by other means. If such transit were unreasonably and arbitrarily denied, however, the same natural law that required the opening of the Mississippi to commerce might be held applicable again. It will not be necessary to oust any more neighbors from this continent, as we did France, for fear lest they grow too strong for our safety; for neither Canada nor Mexico contains any such potentiality. Neither, seeing how well those neighbors maintain order and fulfil their neighborly obligations toward us, will there be any cause for treating them as we did Florida.

The one quarter, then, in which there seems to remain reason for further expansion, at least within the practically measurable future, is in the West

Indies. It was there that the cause of our latest conquests arose, and the same principle that made that cause operative still prevails. That is, the reversionary title of the United States to the islands lying off its coast. We have seen how consistently and effectively that principle was maintained in the case of Cuba that that island must not be transferred by Spain to any other power, but, if relinquished by Spain, must become independent under our protection or must become our property. Cuba has, in accordance with that rule, now become independent, under our protection; and if ever her experiment of independence shall fail, she will inevitably become our territory. The United States could not tolerate anarchy in Cuba, nor the acquisition of that island by any other

power.

The second island of the West Indies in point of size, Hayti, is now divided between two independent republics. They are pursuing a troubled course, which may decline into hopeless anarchy, or may happily lead upward into tranquil prosperity. If the latter, we shall be pleased to see them remain forever independent. If the former, it may become necessary for the United States to intervene and even to establish its authority over them. In any case, there must be an inexorable American prohibition of anything like European conquest or control of them. They must remain independent, and justify their indepen

dence, or else become territories of the United States.

The other islands are now possessions of European powers-Great Britain, France, Denmark, and the Netherlands. There is, under the capable and enlightened governments of those powers, no danger that we shall ever be called to intervene in them for humanity's sake, as we did in Cuba. But the same principle of reversionary right which we established in the case of Cuba long ago seems to be equally applicable to them. With their present ownership, in the words of the Monroe Doctrine, we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But it would not be compatible with American interests and welfare for such ownership to be transferred to any other power. So long as those powers wish to hold and can hold those islands, the United States will fully respect their right to do so. But whenever they relinquish them, the islands must either become independent or must become territories of the United States. Indeed, we may regard the latter as the sole alternative, since the islands are too small to form permanent and prosperous independent commonwealths. We may even go further than that, and say that no island in American waters can be permitted to share the fate of its present owner, should the status of the latter be changed in any way. For example, if one of the powers now owning some of these islands should be conquered and annexed by another European