OUR POLICY.

But when it comes to a consideration of the policies which we have pursued up to date or which we may adopt hereafter there is or may arise serious differences of opinion.

It has been a part of our political philosophy that we should "avoid entangling alliances with foreign countries." Washington, in his Farewell Address, said:

Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different

course.

Again, in this message, he added: "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world; but he added, significantly, "so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it."

And again in this same message he says:

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

66

Safety first" seemed to him then to be the law of our national life, and it ought to be our rule of conduct now.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE AS IT INFLUENCES OUR NATIONAL LIFE.

The Government of the United States was the first real experiment in democracy in modern times. Europe recognized the divine right of kings, America the divine right of the individual. Our thoughts, our acts, our traditions, our entire history, have been a constant effort and tendency toward the development of democratic government. Except the encouragement that we received from France during the War of the Revolution, the energies of every European Government were directed against the birth of democratic influence in the Old World, and for the most part toward the throttling of democratic tendencies in the New World. The dominating trend of European thought upon this subject reached its climax in the organization of the holy alliance in Paris, by which Prussia, Austria, and Russia united "to defend religion and morality as what they believe to be the only sure foundation for them-government by divine right." About the same time, or soon thereafter, the monarchy was restored in France, and at the Congress of Verona they resolved "That the system of representative government is equally incompatible with the monarchical principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people is with the divine right." And these nations engaged "mutually and in the most solemn manner to use all their efforts to put an end to the system of representative governments in whatsoever country it may exist in Europe and to prevent its being introduced in those countries where it is not yet known." Whatever its purpose may have been, this language was comprehensive enough to voice opposition to the fundamental principles of a republican or representative government in South America or wherever else attempted.

The fathers of the Republic, as well as the statesmen of our early history, were exceedingly jealous of the system of government we had established in this country and were determined to protect it by all reasonable means within their power.

Spain was struggling to continue her possessions in America. Russia was seeking to extend her domain along the Pacific coast, and France was looking with eager eyes to Mexico.

Our experience with the monarchical governments of the Old World were so unhappy that the United States sought by every means to protect itself against the extension of the political system of the Old World to the American Continent. The prevailing sentiment of the early part of the nineteenth century was crystallized into what later became known as the Monroe Doctrine. For the purposes of this address, it will not be necessary to go into the preliminary history leading up to the pronunciamento by James Monroe, but it will suffice to quote from him the following extract:

The American Continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.

*

*

In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. * The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments. And to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole Nation is devoted.

We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere, but with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it and whose independence we have on great consideration and on just principles acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of opposing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any other European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.

It may be urged that the nations of Europe and of South America are distinct sovereignties and, therefore, they have the right to control their own relations without let or hindrance from the United States. Within certain limitations, this is true, but experience has taught us to be on our guard against European aggressions whether aimed at our country directly or indirectly by their encroachments against neighboring peoples in America, similarly situated and organized. Our real purpose is not to interfere with the affairs of any nation so long as it respects our rights at home or abroad. Under the Monroe doctrine, our purpose is not to impose ourselves upon South America or unnecessarily to interfere with the relations between those countries and the governments of the Old World. The whole Nation, in the language of Monroe, is devoted "to the defense of our own." The extension of the European systems in this hemisphere was believed "dangerous to our peace and safety," and hence we declared very frankly, because we believed it necessary to our defense to say to the world, that "any interposition for the purpose of opposing" the independent nations of America by any European power would be regarded "as a manifestation of an unfriendly dis position toward the United States."

Later a dispute arose between Great Britain and Venezuela over the boundary line between Venezeula and British Guiana. Secretary of State Olney demanded arbitration of the claims of Venezuela and in discussing the Monroe doctrine, said:

That distance and 3,000 miles of intervening ocean make any permanent political union between a European and an American State unnatural and inexpedient can hardly be denied. The States of America, South as wel! as North, by geographical proximity, by natural sympathy, by similarity of governmental constitutions, are friends and allies commercially and politically of the United States. * To-day the United States is practically sovereign on this continent and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it contines its interposition. * There is, then, a doctrine of American public law well founded in principle and abundantly secured by precedent, which entitles and requires the United States to treat as an injury to itself and forcible assumption by a European power of political control over an American State.

*

This doctrine, of course, was denied by Great Britain, but it represented the American view that it was necessary for our own protection. It must be borne in mind that the United States is at all times a sovereign people, and it is at all times necessary to defend this sovereignty. No student of American institutions would for a moment attempt to defend our interferences in the relations between two sovereign powers unless, in his judgment, the exigencies of our national security required it.

President Cleveland said in this same controversy:

The Monroe doctrine finds its recognition in those principles of international law which are based upon the theory that every nation shall have its rights protected and its just claims enforced.

If, then, during our earlier history, when we were comparatively small, our limited intercourse with other nations required the promulgation of the Monroe doctrine for our safety, ought we not now, when we are confronted by other and even graver dangers, to stand ready to defend that doctrine and even to extend the application of the principles of this doctrine if the legitimate defense of American institutions should seem to require it?

Should not our international cares and concerns keep pace with our growth as a Nation and the extent of our commercial and political relations abroad, and the corresponding necessity to protect them?

We have always been very careful not to become involved in international matters which do not concern ourselves. We have been so very careful in this respect that even in the ratification of The Hague conventions the Senate consented to them, subject to the declaration made by the delegates of the United States before signing them that "nothing contained in this convention shall be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not intruding upon or interfering with or entangling itself in the political questions of policy or internal administration of any foreign state; nor shall anything contained in the said convention be construed to imply a relinquishment by the United States of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions."

And I assume that this principle of noninterference in the affairs of Europe and of our opposition to Europe's transgressing in the affairs of America is still the dominating conviction of the intelligent American thought. But it must follow that when the administration

of other nations is so conducted that it encroaches upon American rights, whether on land or at sea, they will become the object of our careful concern, to the end that America and American institutions shall be respected everywhere; and the extent to which we may be subjected to their aggressions will be the measure of our respectful attention to them.

EFFORTS TO MAINTAIN PEACE.

Our Government has never sought war. It has always aimed to maintain the peace of the world. Soon after hostilities began, the President, on behalf of this great American Republic, tendered his good offices to the belligerent powers, hoping and praying that some plan might be devised whereby the awful slaughter could be brought to a close, and there was not a day from that time until the Congress passed the joint resolution declaring a state of war that we were not ready to aid in the restoration of peace. Our commerce was interfered with by both Great Britain and Germany. Great Britain, having more regard for her military necessities than for her observance of her obligations to ourselves, continued to disturb our shipping, but promised indemnity wherever damage was done, and in many instances has paid it. Germany not only interfered with our commerce, but by her methods of warfare sank our ships, as well as other neutral and enemy ships, having on board our people, and sent to an untimely grave noncombatants, women and children, who were aboard. This was done without warning or notice, and without caring for the safety of those aboard, in violation of every principle of international law since history began.

When the Lusitania was destroyed on the 7th day of May, 1915, by order of the German Admiralty, the German press reported that a German submarine had sunk the "armed cruiser Lusitania" and the Berlin authorities gave a half holiday to the children in the schools to celebrate the great victory, thus making it an occasion for rejoicing. The instincts of humanity ought to have suggested the dropping of a tear for the innocent lives that had been lost and for those at home who had been bereaved.

After long delay and an exchange of many diplomatic notes over this incident, the German Imperial Government admitted that she was wrong and America was right. On the 4th of May, von Jagow, secretary of state for foreign affairs, advised our Government that the German naval forces were given the following orders:

In accordance with the general principles of visit and search and destruction of merchant vessels recognized by international law, such vessels, both within and without the area declared as naval war zone, shall not be sunk without warning and without saving human lives, unless these ships attempt to escape or offer resistance.

While there is a reservation in this note under which their former methods might be resumed in the event that we did not succeed in getting Great Britain to comply with the demands of Germany, everyone felt that a great diplomatic victory had been won and that the German Imperial Government, having recognized the rule of international law, would not resume its violation. It now transpires that the Kaiser's real purpose was to delay this method of warfare until his submarine fleet could be completed and then it would be renewed with a ruthlessness and frightfulness unprecedented.

Finally, without any previous notice of his intention, on the 31st day of January, 1917, when his submarine fleet was ready, notice was given that one day thereafter the former methods of warfare would begin and all ships met within forbidden zones would be sunk. These zones include the seas around Great Britain, France, Italy, and the eastern Mediterranean. They cover an area through which nine-tenths of our American shipping must pass. By this order American and neutral shipping is only permitted to navigate the Mediterranean Sea through a lane 20 miles wide leading to Greece. We can not go to Italy or France. We can only go to Holland, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden by sailing very far north. The barred zone in the Atlantic is about 1,400 miles long and 1,000 miles wide, and to Great Britain after February 1, 1917, the German Imperial Government munificiently provided that regular American passenger steamers could continue to sail undisturbed if the port of destination was Falmouth, if the course of sailing was via the Scilly Islands, and if the steamers should be marked—

"on ship's hull and superstructure three vertical stripes 1 meter wide, each to be painted alternately white and red. Each must show a large flag checkered white and red, and on the stern the American national flag."

The vessels must be well lighted throughout and one steamer a week can sail in each direction to arrive at Falmouth on Sunday and to depart from Falmouth on Wednesday, and no contraband can be carried.

Could any American with red blood in his veins and the memory of his fathers fresh in mind submit to this arbitrary rule by a military despot who for years has been obsessed with the belief that the entire human race was intended for his despotic sway and whose sole code of morals is the rule of might?

In the course of all these outrages the President was very patient and would not permit himself to believe that, in this age, the German Imperial Government, after admitting its former course was in contravention of every principle of international law, would resume the same methods of warfare. But experience has demonstrated that while the German Imperial Government has advanced in every field of art and science, it has forgotten the Decalogue and the Sermon on the Mount. What were a hundred millions of people to do? Surrender the freedom of the seas for which they fought the war of 1812? Abjectly submit to this would-be arbiter of the world? Or were we to speak like a nation of freemen, who have faith in right and justice as among all the peoples of the world? Could we continue at peace with such a nation and maintain our self-respect? Do we not know that Great Britain and France and Italy and the other allies are fighting the battles of humanity-our battles as well as theirs? Is it possible that any American does not have pride enough in his heart to say "We can not and must not allow these allies to fight our battles without taking part and going to the trenches if need be, to stand shoulder to shoulder with them while fighting for the freedom of the world"?

What manner of man is this German Kaiser? When Mr. Bryan was Secretary of State he negotiated and the Senate ratified 29 peace treaties, the purpose of which is to bring about settlement of international disputes without resorting to the arbitrament of arms. The