any non-American power at the expense of any American power on American soil. It is in no wise intended as hostile to any nation in the Old World. Still less is it intended to give cover to any aggression by one New World power at the expense of any other. It is simply a step, and a long step, toward assuring the universal peace of the world by securing the possibility of permanent peace on this hemisphere.

"During the past century other influences have established the permanence and independence of the smaller states of Europe. Through the Monroe Doctrine we hope to be able to safeguard like independence and secure like permanence for the lesser among the New World nations.

"This doctrine has nothing to do with the commercial relations of any American power, save that it in truth allows each of them to form such as it desires. In other words, it is really a guaranty of the commercial independence of the Americas. We do not ask under this doctrine for any exclusive commercial dealings with any other American state. We do not guarantee any state against punishment if it misconducts itself, provided that punishment does not take the form of the acquisition of territory by any non-American power." In the message of December 6, 1904, President Roosevelt

says:

" 20

"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.'

921

In the actual strain of diplomatic relations consequent upon the controversy over the boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana, the United States formally declared in 1895 the intention to support the Monroe Doctrine. President Cleveland said:

"If the balance of power is justly a cause for jealous anxiety among the governments of the Old World, and a subject for

20 Foreign Relations U. S., 1901, p. xxxvi. 21 Foreign Relations U. S., 1904, p. xli.

our absolute noninterference, none the less is an observance of the Monroe Doctrine of vital concern to our people and their government.

"Assuming, therefore, that we may properly insist upon this doctrine, without regard to 'the state of things in which we live,' or any changed conditions here or elsewhere, it is not apparent why its application may not be invoked in the present controversy.

"If a European power, by an extension of its boundaries, takes possession of the territory of one of our neighboring Republics, against its will and in derogation of its rights, it is difficult to see why to that extent such European power does not thereby attempt to extend its system of government to that portion of this continent which is thus taken. This is the precise action which President Monroe declared to be 'dangerous to our peace and safety,' and it can make no difference whether the European system is extended by an advance of frontier or otherwise." 22

The principles set forth in the Monroe Doctrine have been variously interpreted.28 Foster, reviewing American diplomacy from 1776 to 1876, says:

"From the foregoing historical review I think it may be fairly deduced that the principle or policy of the government of the United States, known as the Monroe Doctrine, declares affirmatively:

"First. That no European power, or combination of powers, can intervene in the affairs of this hemisphere for the purpose, or with the effect, of forcibly changing the form of government of the nations, or controlling the free will of their people.

"Second. That no such power or powers can permanently acquire or hold any new territory or dominion on this hemisphere.

"Third. That the colonies or territories now held by them cannot be enlarged by encroachment on neighboring territory, nor be transferred to any other European power; and, while the United States does not propose to interfere with existing

22 Foreign Relations U. S., pt. 1, 1895, p. 542.

23 6 Moore, §§ 927-969.

colonies, 'it looks hopefully to the time when

ica shall be wholly American.'

Amer

"Fourth. That any interoceanic canal across the isthmus of Central America must be free from the control of European powers.

"While each of the foregoing declarations has been officially recognized as a proper application of the Monroe Doctrine, the government of the United States reserves to decide, as each case arises, the time and manner of its interposition, and the extent and character of the same, whether moral or material, or both.

"The Monroe Doctrine, as negatively declared, may be stated as follows:

"First. That the United States does not contemplate a permanent alliance with any other American power to enforce the doctrine, as it determines its action solely by its view of its own peace and safety; but it welcomes the concurrence and co-operation of the other in its enforcement, in the way that to the latter may seem best.

"Second. That the United States does not insist upon the exclusive sway of republican government; but, while favoring that system, it recognizes the right of the people of every country on this hemisphere to determine for themselves their form of government.

"Third. That the United States does not deny the right of European governments to enforce their just demands against American nations, within the limits above indicated.

"Fourth. That the United States does not contemplate a protectorate over any other American nation, seek to control the latter's conduct in relation to other nations, nor become responsible for its acts." 24

In 1902, in a note, Mr. Drago, the Minister of Foreign Relations of the Argentine Republic, referring to the collection of loans by military means, said that this practice upon the part of the European states as regards South American states implied territorial occupation of South American states. He stated that: "Such a situation seems obviously at variance with the principles many times proclaimed by the nations of

24 Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy, 1776-1876, p. 475.

* * *

America, and particularly with the Monroe Doctrine, sustained and defended with so much zeal on all occasions by the United States, a doctrine to which the Argentine Republic has heretofore solemnly adhered. In a word, the principle which she [the Argentine Republic] would like to see recognized is: That the public debt cannot occasion armed intervention, nor even the actual occupation of the territory of American nations, by a European power." 25 This principle is known as the "Drago Doctrine." The United States announced that, without expressing assent to or dissent from the propositions, the general position of the government had been expressed in the President's message of December 3, 1901: "We do not guarantee any state against punishment if it misconducts itself, provided that punishment does not take the form of the acquisition of territory by any non-American power."

This principle, brought before the Hague Conference of 1907 by the American plenipotentiary, General Porter, after discussion, took form in a Convention Respecting the Limitation of the Employment of Force for the Recovery of Contract Debts:

"Art. I. The contracting powers agree not to have recourse to armed force for the recovery of contract debts claimed from the government of one country by the government of another country as being due to its nationals."

The United States did not in this convention, as in the case of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, enter the reservation embodying the Monroe Doctrine.

RIGHT OF EQUALITY.

25. Each state of the family of nations is regarded as having similar privileges, immunities, and duties, as regards international law, though inequalities may exist in the amount of power which each may exercise in interstate relations.

The breaking up of the political unity of Christendom in the sixteenth century brought new theories of the state. Bodin's

25 Foreign Relations U. S., 1903, p. 3.

theory of sovereignty as absolute, indivisible, and inalienable made comparatively simple the development of the doctrine of the equality of states under the influence of the concepts of natural law current at that period. Grotius (1583-1645), strongly influenced by the theory of natural law, emphasizes the necessity for the recognition of equality in the domain of law. The equality was not of power, territory, population, influence, or honor, but equality in the sense of having the same attributes as states. On the ground of equality, regardless of extent of territory or number of population, each state of the family of nations has a similar status at international law.

26

The doctrine of equality has been denied by many writers upon international law, and certainly in wealth, in age, and in many other respects states are not equal. However, whether wisely or unwisely, in the two recent international conferences at The Hague in 1899 and in 1907, the equality of states taking part in the conferences was fully recognized in voting upon the matters under consideration.

In actual practice, inequalities exist in the amount of influence exercised by different states. Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and Russia are recognized as the Great Powers in Europe. Certain others are recognized as the Minor Powers. In recent years, those states which have possessions of such wide extent as to involve them in relations with many other states have come to be called "World Powers." Not all the Great Powers of Europe are included among the World Powers, and other than European states have equal claim to be regarded as Great Powers.

Other inequalities are manifest in matters of ceremonial and precedence. Such marks of inequality frequently have their bases in conditions which have ceased to exist, as when kingdoms claimed precedence over republics, because kingdoms were regarded as entitled to royal honors, or when kings and emperors claimed the sole right to send diplomats of the rank of ambassadors.

Each state now claims equal right to determine the form of its internal government, whether monarchical or republican, the

26 Grotius, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, Prolegomena xxiii.