Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance. Adequate guaranties given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety. A free, open-minded and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined. . . A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guaranties of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike. The treaty of peace signed at Paris containing a Covenant for a League of Nations involves some international problems of the greatest concern to the United States. Among the characteristics of the Covenant it is prescribed that all nations joining the League shall co-operate in "the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among governments' and in "the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealing of organized peoples with one another"; that plans shall be formulated for the reduction of armaments; that members shall agree to submit controversies to inquiry and arbitration before going to war; and that a permanent international court of justice be established to determine questions of a justiciable character. Two of the chief provisions of the Covenant are Article X, which obligates the members of the League to "undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all mem bers of the League"; and Article XVI, which provides that the members shall join in severing diplomatic relations with members who refuse to abide by the terms of the Covenant, shall sever all trade and financial relations, and shall, in case of necessity, "contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the League." Although the important nations of the world, with but a few exceptions, joined the League soon after its formulation, the Senate of the United States, returning to the former theories of isolation and national independence, rejected both the Covenant and the treaty of peace. Objections were raised principally to Article X and to the obligations which it was thought the League involved in the way of rendering military assistance in the maintenance of peace and order in Europe. The election of Senator Harding, the nominee of the Republican party, to the office of President, on a platform which practically condemned the League of Nations and asserted again a policy of national isolation or the principle of entering into an association of nations largely dictated in its terms and conditions by the United States, raises anew the question whether the American nation should aim to act to a large degree independent in its foreign interests and obligations or whether international co-operation should be fostered and extended. It may well be asked whether the policy of isolation which was the aim of some American statesmen in the early part of the nineteenth century is compatible with the new interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, with the colonial expansion of the United States in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and with mutual international obligations previously assumed. It remains, then, to be determined whether with increasing international co-operation in commercial and industrial affairs, in education, art, and literary attainments, in labor and economic conditions, and in travel and social intercourse, it is good policy for the United States to hold itself aloof from a full and frank policy of international political co-operation. SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS JOHN BASSETT MOORE, The Principles of American Diplomacy (Harper & Brothers, 1918). CARL RUSSELL FISH, American Diplomacy (Henry Holt & Co., 1915). America as a World Power, American Nation Series, Vol. XXV (Harper & Brothers, 1907). The United States and Latin America (Doubleday, Page & Co., 1920). ALBERT BUSHNELL HART, The Monroe Doctrine: An Interpretation (Little, Brown & Co., 1916). A. C. COOLIDGE, The United States as a World Power (The Macmillan Company, 1908). CHAPTER IV WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT? PARTIES AND THE FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT THOUGH the subjects considered in the previous chapters are of special significance in the organization and operation of modern governments, many other principles and problems worthy of consideration have had to be omitted, necessarily, in the compass of a single volume. Before concluding this survey it is necessary, however, to present a short account of one of the fundamental issues as to the purpose and scope of the entire process of government. This issue has engaged the attention of political thinkers and practical statesmen ever since the organization of governments. Differences of opinion on this and related issues have led to the formation of parties whose aim it has been to secure government control to carry into effect their respective views. This cleavage can best be understood by a comparison of the general basis of political divisions in Europe and America. 1 The party circle is based on the practice in European legislative chambers (the seats of which are frequently arranged in a semicircle) for the parties to be seated in groups with the conservatives on the right and the radicals on the left. 2 Normally the center, or the bloc, is the dominant group in European Though the Democrats or Republicans, or parties corresponding to these designations, have been in continuous control of state and Federal governments in the United States, the dominant center, or bloc, has been influenced at all times by the extremes in the party circle, the individualists, on the one hand, and the liberals, or socialists, on the other. It is necessary, therefore, to undertake a brief analysis of the political doctrines of these extreme groups and to trace some effects of their doctrines in the formulation of governmental policies.2 Individualism.-The doctrine of individualism is an ancient one and has been a dominant motive behind the policies of government since the middle of the eighteenth elective chambers and, with an adhesion of support either from the Liberals and Radicals or from the Conservatives, can control the policies of the government. In France the Radicals and Moderate Socialists, with the support of the left center, have for a long time maintained control in the Chamber of Deputies. In Germany the bloc with the Moderate Conservatives has been the controlling party. The chief differences in parties in European countries are that the number of groups varies considerably and that the nations differ especially as to the strength of the Syndicalists and Socialists on the one hand and the Extreme Conservative groups on the other. 1 The dominant party group in the United States has been almost invari ably the center, or bloc, the policies of the controlling party shifting on occasion either to the liberal left or to the more conservative right. The Democratic party began as a liberal and radical party and the Federalists were the Conservatives. For a long time, due to peculiar conditions, sectional feeling, race problems, etc., the standard division of parties along liberal and conservative lines was overshadowed by somewhat unnatural party groupings. A return to the former grouping seems to be indicated in the tendency for factions to develop in each of the major parties, the basis of division apparently being conservatism, otherwise known as "standpatism" and liberalism-a liberal and a conservative wing being found in each party. Cf. part ii, chap. ii, for consideration of parties and party methods. |