than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States.

The principle of the Doctrine thus proclaimed has been so developed during the last hundred years that it now includes the prohibition of attempts by foreign nations, whether by war or purchase, or diplomatic intrigue, to make territorial acquisitions or establish new strategical footholds, upon or near the Western Hemisphere or to secure political advantage in the domestic affairs of American nations.

The Monroe Doctrine is not a principle of international law. It is a national policy based upon the right of every nation to protect itself against acts tending to embarrass it in preserving its own national interests or political institutions. It is founded upon the same right as the familiar concert of European powers, except that it affects a greater number of nations more widely separated geographically, and is asserted by a single powerful nation able, without the sanction of treaty stipulations, to maintain it. It does not become effective so much by

the acquiescence of the American nations subject to its operation as from its recognition by nations of other parts of the world as a political policy which cannot be disregarded by them except at the risk of war with the United States. Since the Monroe Doctrine is thus based upon an inherent national right, it is entirely consistent with the principle of mutual self-protection, underlying Article X of the Covenant of the League which seeks to check threatened "external aggression" affecting “the affecting "the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League."

While doubtless Article X was designed primarily to give protection to the seven new European republics and the four autonomous nations in the Near East, created under the Treaty of Peace, and probably also to France and Belgium in its broader aspect it was intended, to use the words of the Preamble of the Covenant, "to achieve international peace and security" by discouraging hostile aggression everywhere; and so far as it prevents a European or an Asiatic nation from interfering with the territorial integrity or

the existing political independence of any nation of the Western Hemisphere, it accomplishes in that part of the world precisely the result aimed at by the Monroe Doctrine. And, furthermore, quite independently of the new Article XXI, the United States would undoubtedly be the nation called upon under Article X to repel an aggression upon an American state, because, not only would its political interest be immediately involved, but also because, by reason of territorial proximity, it could most conveniently act.

It is in the light of these effects of Article X that the express recognition of the Monroe Doctrine in Article XXI should be examined.

It is argued that the Doctrine itself is inadequately reserved by referring to it as a "regional understanding." It need not be denied that this descriptive phrase was not the best that could have been selected to define the Monroe Doctrine, although the Doctrine is "regional" in that it relates to a particular region and is an "understanding" in that it is widely accepted by the nations of the world. Probably the draftsmen of Article XXI, the majority of whom were

European statesmen, thought it unwise to attempt to formulate a definition of an American political policy, concerning the limitations of which American statesmen have not always themselves agreed. But the important thing is that the Monroe Doctrine is declared to be "valid," thus rendering its continued existence unaffected by the Covenant; and, as the common understanding in this country of its character and effect is consistent with the principle of the general purpose of the Covenant, as indicated in Article X and the other articles designed to preserve the peace of the world, it is a far cry to argue that the somewhat inept use of the phrase “regional understandings" indicates that the high contracting parties intended by indirection to raise doubts as to the complete reservation of the Doctrine.

(Letter No. 22)

MONROE DOCTRINE (Continued)

No definition of the Monroe Doctrine having official sanction has ever been given except by Presidents or Secretaries of State; and, except in the few concrete cases that have required its application, they have generally contented themselves with describing its historical origin and the general principle on which it is founded. Even the Senate, in ratifying the Hague Convention of 1907, and in seeking to reserve the Monroe Doctrine, referred to it as our "traditional attitude toward purely American questions," leaving the character of that "attitude" as much subject to question by the signatories as it had been before the reservation was made. And, although, on the one hand, Secretary Olney in 1895, in the Venezuelan controversy, said: "To-day the United States is practically sovereign on this continent and its fiat