mark and was supported on a popular vote by the inhabitants of the islands, but the Senate refused to sanction the transfer of jurisdiction. It was not until the close of the Spanish War that the United States began to secure a foothold in the Caribbean Sea, but by a succession of acts American control was rapidly extended.

As previously stated, by the treaty of peace at the close of the Spanish War the United States acquired Porto Rico and established a protectorate over Cuba. By the HayPauncefote Treaty of 1901 England relinquished her claim to an equal right of control over an Isthmian canal on which she had insisted for half a century. This treaty resulted in the transfer of naval supremacy in the West Indies to the United States1 and in the formulation of new policies involved in the determination to build and control an Isthmian canal. These policies relate to the territory comprised within a sphere of influence of the Panama Canal and include "the establishment of protectorates, the supervision of finances, the control of all naval routes, the acquisition of naval stations, and the policing and administration of disorderly countries." In the execution of these policies the United States acquired the Canal Zone in 1903, and in 1904 the President established financial supervision over the Dominican Republic. To these acquisitions were added control over Haiti, in 1915, and special privileges and a naval station from Nicaragua, while the Virgin Islands were secured by treaty from Denmark in 1917. In 1910, after a series of revolutions in Central America, President Taft took steps to place Nicaragua and Honduras under the financial supervision of the United States; but, as in the case of Santo Domingo, the Senate refused to concur in the treaties drawn for this purpose and the executive was compelled to act independently. Despite the failure of the treaty, American marines have remained in Nicaragua,

1 J. H. Latané, The United States and Latin America, pp. 267-268. 2 Ibid., p. 267.

and a treaty was finally approved by the Senate which established a limited protectorate over the country. Costa Rica, Salvador, and Honduras protested the ratification of this treaty and carried their case to the Central American Court of Justice, established at the instance of the United States in 1907, which, however, declined to declare the treaty void, on the ground that it had no jurisdiction over the United States.

A series of incidents in the carrying out of the Caribbean policy of the United States appears to bear out the prophecy of President Roosevelt voiced in his annual message to Congress in 1904. The President said:

Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society may, in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.

One of the most recent acts in the American policy of expansion was the encouragement of the administration given to the revolt of Panama and the precipitate recognition of the Republic of Panama. Under the protection of an American squadron the new state was formed and Colombian authorities were prevented from interfering. This action was held to be justified by the refusal of Colombia to sign a treaty containing a reasonable offer for the right over Panama necessary for the construction of a canal.

The new republic granted to the United States a zone of five miles on each side of the proposed canal. The protection of the United States was to extend over Panama and was recognized in the Panama constitution, which states that

The government of the United States of America may intervene anywhere in the Republic of Panama for the re-establishment of constitutional peace and order if this should be disturbed, provided that

by virtue of public treaty said nation should assume or have assumed to guarantee the independence and sovereignty of this Republic.

Thus, while objecting to territorial aggrandizement in America by foreign powers, and while disclaiming any intention to acquire and govern large colonial dominions, the United States has come into possession of extensive territories in North America and has brought under her control by annexation, protectorates, or spheres of influence islands in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and portions of Central America.

PROBLEMS OF COLONIAL GOVERNMENT

Among the difficulties which confront modern governments are those which have to do with the control of dependencies or subject territories. Since the time of the Greeks, parent states have maintained close connections with and some form of political control over outlying provinces or over distant territories. While the colonies of Greece were politically free and self-governing units, those of Rome were brought under the centralized dominion of the Roman government. Subsequent territorial governments have followed one or the other of these main types. One of the greatest movements of modern times was the result of the persistent effort to parcel out and to secure control of all the portions of the world not under the dominion of great political powers. By means of commercial agents, missionaries, and other emissaries, an entering wedge was acquired for the first form of political control known as the sphere of influence. Thus a nation acquired by treaty or by mutual concessions "the exclusive privilege of exercising political influence, or concluding treaties or protectorates, of obtaining industrial concessions, and of eventually bringing the region under its direct political control." The sphere of influence is always regarded as a transitional stage, and it is usually expected that it will be followed by occupation and political conquest or the establishment of a protec

torate. Large parts of Africa have been brought under the sphere of influence of European powers, and Japan now claims portions of China as being within her sphere of influence.

The protectorate differs from the sphere of influence in that the state holding the protectorate exercises control over certain foreign relations. Subject to some restrictions affecting foreign affairs, local government is not interfered with unless the local peace is disturbed by uprisings or revolutions. England's relation to Egypt has for a long time been that of a protectorate, and such is the relation of the United States to Cuba. The protectorate is, also, a temporary condition and normally leads to the next step, that of direct dependency.

Direct dependencies are of three main types: 1. Selfgoverning colonies; 2. Colonies with representative government; 3. Colonies under direct control of the mother country. In the first class are Canada, Australia, and South Africa, which possess rights and powers of self-government amounting almost to independence, yet have very close relations with the home government, based largely upon mutual ties of interest, race feeling, and political sentiment. When the home government permits the establishment of a representative body in the colony but retains control through the governor, his council, and appointed representatives, the arrangement is known as the representative type of colonial government. Canada and Australia had representative governments prior to the establishment of self-government, and numerous English colonies have been governed in this way. The first regular form of government granted to the Philippines and to Porto Rico was of this type. Representative government frequently proves unstable, and it is customary for the colonies to demand greater freedom amounting ultimately to a modified form of self-government. In the third group are those colonies in which the government is completely in the hands of officials appointed by the home govern

ment. This type is usually established after conquest or cession of territory until a regular form of government may be provided, and it is also the form of colonial government maintained for the control of savage or semibarbarous communities. One of the best examples of direct control is England's government of India.' But the unstable conditions which obtain under a government of this type generally lead to an effort to establish a modified form of representative government or self-government.

The government of the United States in the acquisition and settlement of a vast territory has developed a somewhat unique colonial policy. When the Northwest Territory was acquired, the announcement was made, by way of explanation of the general principles of the system, that the territory "shall be disposed of for the common benefit of the United States, and be settled and formed into distinct republican states, which shall become members of the Federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other states." This general principle was made a part of the Ordinance of 1787 and the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty enjoyed by the citizens of the original states were granted to the inhabitants of the Northwest Territory. They were assured likewise that representative government would be granted and that in due time the territory would be admitted as states. The plan of government arranged by the Ordinance and the whole tenor of its provisions suggest the view that Congress was making these regulations in the execution of a solemn trust, and that the inhabitants were to be protected in their rights until state constitutions should be prepared and application should be made to Congress for admission as states. The acts providing for the organization of subsequent territory embodied these principles. Prior to 1898 treaties of acquisition generally contained clauses granting the advantages,

1Recent reforms in the government of India are designed to change direct colonial government to a type of representative government.