to which it could reasonably be thought to be entitled. The philosophy of government then prevailing in Continental Europe denied the fundamental rights of the individual and asserted that all rights of men were created by the nation. The republics of Central and South America having established themselves and having nominally accepted the American philosophy of government and to some extent the American system, the United States asserted that the people of these nations should be free to develop themselves, hoping and believing that in the course of time they would fully accept the American philosophy of government and apply it effectively in their national affairs. The Monroe Doctrine is thus a doctrine of freedom. It had its origin in a conflict of philosophies. It had for its purpose the protection of the Central and South American Republics in developing and working out a philosophy and system which they had freely chosen. The Monroe Doctrine will die when nations of the world accept the belief in the fundamental rights of the individual and make these rights practical and effective; for by the acceptance of this belief and by the adoption of a practical system in accordance with this belief, all motive for conquest ceases, and nations will refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of other nations, since intervention will carry with it the heavy responsibility of securing the fundamental rights of the people of the invaded country, without possibility of great gains, and with only an uncertain compensation.

The fact that the American people hold this philosophy of government in which the securing of the fundamental rights of the individual is regarded as the object for which all government is instituted among men, profoundly affects the attitude which American statesmen must take in respect to every question growing out of

our foreign as well as our domestic relations. The officials of our Department of Foreign Affairs-which for historical reasons we call the Department of Stateas well as our diplomatic officials, accustomed to regard the fundamental rights of the individual as the matter of prime importance, inevitably and properly apply our own constitutional tests to all proposals for joint action between the United States and any other nation, in the solution of questions arising between this nation and any other. To them the old conception of sovereignty, as a power of each nation to do what it wills, is impossible, since our philosophy compels us to hold that all national action is limited by the fundamental law.

The American philosophy and system of government -or more properly, the failure of other nations to accept our philosophy and system-particularly stands in the way of international arbitration and the judicial settlement of international disputes. With the drawing together of the whole world by the increased facilities for travel and communication, disputes tend more and more to be between an individual and a government or some branch of it. In every case of this kind there is a possibility that the question of the fundamental rights of the individual may be involved, so that in a similar case arising in the United States, the constitutional prohibitions for the protection of fundamental rights would be applied by the courts and the governmental action in question might be nullified. In this class of cases, when the United States is asked to submit to arbitration or judicial settlement, a grave difficulty arises. Inasmuch as the peoples of foreign nations do not impose constitutional prohibitions on their governments for the protection of fundamental rights and do not make these prohibitions the fundamental law of the land, the courts and the lawyers of European countries

are not accustomed to issues being raised concerning the validity of acts of government as respects fundamental rights. As it is necessary that European jurists should be in the majority on most arbitral or judicial tribunals in international cases, it follows that these tribunals are likely to treat some governmental acts as valid which we would hold invalid and nullify as infringing fundamental rights. Thus the United States must, for the protection and preservation of its own philosophy and system, refrain from submitting to the decision of such a tribunal any case which, if arising within the United States, would be considered as involving the fundamental rights of the individual under our constitutional prohibitions. So long as this difference in philosophies and systems continues, the only hope for the extension of international arbitration or judicial settlement would seem to be in making all action of international arbitral or judicial tribunals advisory to the nations which are the parties. This would permit these nations themselves to review the decision from every standpoint and to protect their own philosophies and systems. Acceptance of a decision by the parties would greatly increase its weight as a precedent for other nations, and would insure the execution of the decision by the defeated party.

The American philosophy of government also stands in the way of the codification of international law. No American can, consistently with his own fundamental beliefs, subscribe to a code of international law which does not contain constitutional prohibitions forbidding to all peoples, nations, and governments certain forms of action dangerous to or destructive of fundamental rights, and which does not make these constitutional prohibitions fundamental and supreme over all international and national law.

The United States is therefore at the present time in one sense a disturbing factor in the councils of the nations. Its disturbance is not of a physical kind, but of an intellectual and spiritual kind. It brings to the discussion of all international questions ideas of universal law, of fundamental rights of the individual as a created human being, of practical protection of these rights through constitutional prohibitions on all governments, based on popular and national recognition of fundamental law. To some these ideas may seem to be destructive, but they are really in the highest sense conservative and constructive; for the recognition of the rights of man is in no sense inconsistent with the recognition of the rights of nations. The American philosophy equally recognizes the rights of man and the rights of nations, holding that society can exist only through local organization, and that nations acting independently, but in concert, are the most appropriate means of securing the individual in his fundamental rights and in aiding him to extend his powers

over nature.

The philosophy of the United States makes for peace. The wars which the United States has fought have all been for the purpose of protecting the fundamental rights of the individual and maintaining the nation as the guardian of these rights. There can be no true peace except where the individual has his fundamental rights, and where these rights are secured to him by the power of a nation. It is unlikely that the United States will ever apply physical force externally in the future except for the same purposes for which it has waged wars in the past. Such protective and defensive action its philosophy permits and in some cases demands.