peace, and for other similar purposes, Señor Casasús declared that the labors of the Pan-American Conferences were for concord and peace; that they did not seek, like the Congress of Laibach or that of Vienna, to restore a form of government and authorize a nation to reconquer her colonies; that they were not inspired, as was the Congress of Panama, with the necessity of uniting the persecuted to resist the attacks of a common aggressor; but that they sought rather the union of all in common effort, and the establishment of a basis of peace by means of the amicable solution of international conflicts.16

In an address which he made upon his election as permanent president of the third International American Conference, Senhor Nabuco, for many years Brazilian ambassador to the United States, declared that the aim of the conferences was intended to be the creation of an American opinion and of an American public spirit. He believed that they should never aim at forcing the opinion of a single one of the nations taking part in them; that in no case should they intervene collectively in the affairs or interests that the various nations might wish to reserve for their own exclusive deliberation. "To us," he said, "it seems that the great object of these conferences should be to express collectively what is already understood to be unanimous, to unite, in the interval, between one and another what may already have completely ripened in the opinion of the continent, and to impart to it the power resulting from an accord amongst all American nations." 17

Two years later Senhor Nabuco declared on the occasion of the laying of the corner stone of the building of the PanAmerican Union at Washington, that there had never been a parallel for the sight which that ceremony presented" that of twenty-one nations, of different languages, building together a house for their common deliberations." Continuing, he said:

16" Proceedings of Special Session of the Am. Acad. of Pol. and Soc. Science, February 24, 1906, 7.

17 Int. Am. Conf. (1906), report of the delegates of the U. S., 57.

"The more impressive is the scene as these countries, with all possible differences between them in size and population, have established their union on the basis of the most absolute equality. Here the vote of the smallest balances the vote of the greatest. So many sovereign states would not have been drawn so spontaneously and so strongly together, as if by irresistible force, if there did not exist throughout them, at the bottom or at the top of each national conscience, the feeling of a destiny common to all America." 18

At the opening session of the third International American Conference, the Brazilian statesman, Baron de Rio Branco, in adverting to the fact that the meeting of the conference might, perhaps, give rise to the suspicion that an international league against interests not represented was being formed, declared: "It is necessary therefore to affirm that, formally or implicitly, all interests will be respected by us; that in the discussions of political and commercial subjects submitted for consideration to the conference it is not our intention to work against anybody, and that our sole aim is to bring about a closer union among American nations, to provide for their well-being and rapid progress; and the accomplishment of these objects can only be of advantage to Europe and the rest of the world." 19

At the special session of the third International American Conference held in honor of Mr. Root, to which reference has been made above, Señor Cornejo, a delegate for Peru, made in the course of a short address the following remarks:

"These congresses, gentlemen, are the symbol of that solidarity which, notwithstanding the ephemeral passions of men, constitutes, by the invincible force of circumstances, the essence of our continental system. They were conceived by the organizing genius of the statesmen of Washington in order that the American sentiment of patriotism might be therein exalted,

18 Pan-American Union Bulletin, May, 1908.

19 Int. Am. Con. (1906), report of the delegates of the U. S., 56.

freeing it from that national egotism which may be justified in the difficult moments of the formation of states, but which would be to-day an impediment to the development of the American idea, destined to demonstrate that just as the democratic principle has been to combine liberty and order in the constitution of states, it will likewise combine the self-government of the nations and fraternity in the relations of the peoples.” 20

On the occasion of Mr. Root's visit to Uruguay, the president, Señor Battle y Ordóñez, said in the course of an address that America will be the continent of a just peace, founded on the respect for the rights of all nations, a respect as great for the weakest nations as for the most vast and most powerful empires. A Pan-American public opinion would be created and made effective, he thought, by systematizing international conduct with a view to suppressing injustice, and to establishing amongst the nations ever more and more profoundly cordial relations. Continuing, he declared that the Pan-American conferences were destined to become a modern Amphictyon to whose decisions all the great American questions would be submitted.

Dr. Luis M. Drago, the well-known Argentine publicist, author of the Drago doctrine, speaking on the occasion of Mr. Root's visit to Buenos Aires, said:

"Enlightened patriotism has understood at last that in this continent, with its immense riches and vast, unexplored extensions, power and wealth are not to be looked for in conquest and displacement, but in collaboration and solidarity, which will people the wilderness and give the soil to the plow. It has understood, however, that America, by reason of the nationalities of which it is composed, of the nature of the representative institutions which they have adopted, by the very character of their peoples, separated as they have been from the conflicts and complications of European governments, and even by the gravitation of peculiar circumstances and wants, 20 Root, Latin America and the U. S., Addresses, 12.

has been constituted a separate political factor, a new and vast theater for the development of the human race, which will serve as a counterpoise to the great civilizations of the other hemisphere, and so maintain the equilibrium of the world." 21

In 1910, at the opening session of the fourth International American Conference, the Argentine Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. V. de la Plaza, said:

"It had come to be the inveterate custom of the powers to deliberate among themselves on the destinies of incipient and weak nations, as if dealing with states or sovereignties possessing neither voice nor weight in the control and development of the rules, principles, and declarations inherent in human societies, recognized as independent and sovereign in their international relations. This condition of precarious autonomy and liberty of action, and the constant danger of being subjugated or of suffering the mutilation of their territory, would have continued among these weak states but for the wise and famous declaration of President Monroe, to which we ought to render due homage; and but for the constant action of other continental powers of somewhat greater strength in the defense of their territory and sovereignties as well as their declared intention to coöperate for the protection of those states which were endowed with less strength and fewer means of selfdefense." 22

The foregoing statements made by responsible men in public life in the Hispanic American republics may be fairly considered as representative of the best thought in that section of the continent. It is not to be inferred, however, that unanimity of opinion exists. On the contrary there is much diversity and not a few writers of more or less note, and occasionally men in public life advocate a closer union of the Hispanic states for the purpose of resisting the threatening (as they believe) encroachments of the United States. These views

21 Root, Latin America and the U. S., Addresses, 95.

22 Int. Am. Conf. (1910), report of the delegates of the U. S., 46.

A

need not be discussed at length. A bare reference to two or three of the best-known writers of this group will suffice. Illusão Americana by a Brazilian, Eduardo Prado, is typical. Appearing some three decades ago, soon after the establishment of the Brazilian republic, this book expressed great skepticism respecting the fraternity of the American nations in general, and manifested particularly a hostile spirit toward the tendency of the Hispanic republics to establish more intimate relations with the United States. More recently an Argentine writer, Manuel Ugarte, has gained an extensive notoriety by his propaganda against Pan-Americanism. His ideas are set forth in a book which he published in 1911 under the title of El Porvenir de la América Latina. Finally, an article by Jacinto López on what he calls Monroismo y Pan-Americanismo, appearing in Cuba Contemporánea for April, 1916, may be taken as representative of the more serious adverse criticisms which have in recent years been made in Hispanic American periodicals. Monroeism, according to this writer, means empire, and PanAmericanism is the mask of imperialism. The significance of Monroeism, he thinks, is clear; but Pan-Americanism is ambiguous, incomprehensible, susceptible of all sorts of interpretations. The remedy for the situation, in López's opinion, is to be found in the union of Hispanic American states as a counterpoise to the preponderant influence of the United States.

On the other hand such opinions are offset by those of other Hispanic American writers and publicists who in a private capacity maintain and justify the existence of Pan-Americanism. Alejandro Alvarez, a Chilean publicist, viewing the subject from the historical standpoint, is of the opinion that the notion of international solidarity is essentially American and that it manifested itself in most brilliant fashion in the struggle of the Spanish colonies for independence. This sense of unity which existed between the belligerent Spanish colonies was, he believes, different in its origin and in its manifestations from the sentiment of international fraternity about which certain of the