ommended that "the various states should give to their municipalities the authority, upon popular vote under reasonable regulation, to build and operate public utilities, or to build and lease the same, or to take over works already constructed." The effect of such authority, the committee believed, would be that public-utility companies would be more inclined to furnish adequate service upon fair terms and would thus make it unnecessary for the public either to take over existing utilities or to acquire new ones. In addition, it was recommended that private companies operating public utilities should be subject to public regulation and examination by a competent public authority, who should have the power to require of all public utilities both uniformity in the system of records and accounts and full publicity of all data relative thereto.

A more recent statement as to the advisability of municipal ownership, viewed from the standpoint of city officials, is that made by the Conference of American Mayors at Philadelphia in 1914. This body unanimously recommended that "no general conclusion be formulated upon the abstract question of municipal ownership," but urged "that municipalities should be given, in all instances, the power to municipalize public utilities, the expediency of its exercise being at any time and place, and with regard to any particular utility, a matter for local determination."

SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS

C. L. KING, The Regulation of Municipal Utilities (D. Appleton & Co., 1912).

"State Regulation of Public Utilities," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May, 1914.

"Public Policies as to Municipal Utilities," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, January, 1915.

FRED L. HOLMES, Regulation of Railroads and Public Utilities in Wisconsin (D. Appleton & Co., 1915).

CARL D. THOMPSON, Municipal Ownership (B. W. Huebsch, 1917). FREDERIC C. HowE, European Cities at Work (Charles Scribner's Sons, 1913).

"Public Ownership of Railroads." Statement of Albert M. Todd, Hearings before the Committee on Interstate Commerce, United States Senate, Sixty-Fifth Congress, Third Session, February 21, 1919.

Pamphlet by the Merchants' Association of New York "Opposing Government Ownership and Operation of Public Utilities" and "Advocating Exclusive Regulation of all Railroads by the Federal Government," November, 1916.

Report of the Federal Electric Railways Commission to the President, August, 1920 (Government Printing Office).

CHAPTER III

PROBLEMS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND WORLD

POLITICS

THE UNITED STATES AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

THE range and magnitude of the problems arising from the relation of the United States to other countries can be suggested in no better way than by reference to the notable words of one of the greatest authorities on international law, John Bassett Moore. He prefaces a very interesting discussion of American diplomacy as follows:

Nothing could be more erroneous than the supposition that the United States has, as a result of certain changes in its habit, suddenly become, within the past few years, a world power. The United States has in reality always been in the strongest and highest sense a world power. The record of its achievements in the promulgation of humane doctrines is one in which no American need hesitate to own a patriotic pride.1

The Beginning of Foreign Relations.-From the inception of the United States as a separate government and an independent state it has been the policy of the nation to establish and foster relations with foreign countries. The Declaration of Independence and the advocacy of the theories and policies involved marked the beginning of an era in the development of international relations.

Of this theory and policy the keynote was freedom: freedom of the individual, in order that he might work out his destiny in his own way; freedom in government, in order that the human faculties might have free course; freedom in commerce, in order that the resources of the

1 John Bassett Moore, American Diplomacy (Harper & Brothers, 1905), Prefatory note.

earth might be developed and rendered fruitful in the increase of human wealth, contentment and happiness.1

Soon after the formulation of these principles in the Declaration of Independence an effort was made to enter into diplomatic relations with other powers. For this purpose a "Committee of Secret Correspondence" was appointed by the Continental Congress, and agents were at once sent to negotiate with certain European nations which were thought to be friendly to the American cause. On February 6, 1778, the advent of the United States into the family of nations was signalized by the signing of two treaties, one of commerce and one of alliance. It is significant that in the latter of these treaties the United States, in return for aid from France in the establishing of independence, agreed that, in the event of war between France and Great Britain, the United States would aid France in every way, including military assistance if necessary. It was this alliance which brought France to the support of the United States with money, munitions of warfare, and military and naval forces. The success of the American Revolution was hastened, if not, indeed, made possible, by the aid thus secured from France. The career of the United States was begun through the medium of a very important "entangling alliance" with one of the foremost powers of the world. Diplomatic representatives were dispatched to other European countries, but only one other treaty was signed prior to the treaty of peace-namely, one of amity and commerce with the Netherlands. The period immediately following the Treaty of Paris in 1776 and closing with the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 was one of more extended and successful negotiations with foreign countries. Within this time fourteen treaties had been entered into by the United States: six with France, three with Great Britain, two with the Netherlands, one each with Switzerland, Prussia, and Morocco. The atti

'John Bassett Moore, American Diplomacy (Harper & Brothers, 1905),

tude toward foreign relations maintained during this period, says Professor Fish,

was recognized by the intelligent to be as essential to the establishment of our national existence as arms; diplomats were as carefully chosen as generals; the news of the negotiations of Franklin, Adams, and Jay was as anxiously awaited as that from the army, and their success brought almost as great a reward of popular acclaim as did those of commanders in the field.1

THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES IN THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS

The Isolation Policy.-The signing of the treaty of peace at Paris, when the United States commissioners broke faith with France as the ally of the United States and entered into separate negotiations with Great Britain, was regarded as a diplomatic triumph. It was the beginning of a somewhat selfish policy, which was later formulated into the noted American "isolation theory." When in the course of the French Revolution France became involved in a general European war, she called upon the United States to fulfill the terms of the treaty of alliance of 1778 and to come to the aid of the French cause. American opinion was greatly divided. Washington submitted the question to his chief advisers in the Cabinet, Hamilton and Jefferson. Hamilton contended that the changes in the government of France and other changes in conditions since the treaty of 1778 was signed released the United States from any obligation to aid France. Jefferson, on the other hand, regarded the treaty of 1778 as in full force and effect, and advised that it was the duty of the United States to furnish aid to France. Washington, regarding the treaty as purely defensive in character, followed the advice of Hamilton, and in his neutrality proclamation announced a policy which later became known as the isolation policy. In his proclamation Washington declared it as the intention 1 C. R. Fish, American Diplomacy (Henry Holt & Co., 1915), p. I.