Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

strove to augment the vote to which he was entitled by securing, through inheritance, marriage, or conquest, the votes of as many others possessing Reichstandschaft as possible. Here Kur-Brandenburg (Prussia) obtained a position of vantage, with Hanover, the Palatinate, Saxony, Bavaria, and Austria as rivals, Austria being in the lead. It is of interest to note that Prussia was destined to absorb much of Hanover (Brunswick-Lüneburg), Saxony, and the Palatinate (Pfalz), and is now preparing, to all appearance, the absorption of her chief rival of RomanoGermanic days. When the German Bund was formed in 1815 at Vienna, the leading states of the old Empire were given a voting preponderance based on their standing in the former Reichstag, and this scheme passed into the Constitution of the North-German Confederation of 1867, whence it was adopted in 1870 for the present Empire. It thus became an easy matter to claim for Prussia the former federal votes of Hanover, Hessen, Holstein, Nassau, and Frankfort, to which Waldeck has been silently added. Of the Bundesrat, Professor Arndt, the ablest German constitutional text-writer of our day, says: "In any case the rulers (Landesherren) of the individual states retain in undiminished measure their personal sovereignty and all state and international sovereign rights pertaining to it; they participate in the Imperium of the Empire since they are in their totality (also comprising the free cities) the sovereign of the German Empire. (Verfassung des Deutschen Reichs, page 53.)

Lastly, it is to be noted that no measure proposed by the presentday Reichstag can become law without first receiving not merely the Bundesrat's assent but its sanction, this latter term referring to the controlling power of the princely organization which the Federal Council essentially is. It is not to be imagined for a moment that a people which has found its happiness and prosperity for so long under such a system will readily entertain plans of any essentially democratic innovation. Even in the stormy days of 1848-49 the revolutionary constitution of March 28, 1849, proposed as head of the government a Kaiser clothed with power to declare war and conclude peace.

Chapter VI of our work is concerned with international organization, and Dr. Hill well reminds us that a world readjustment as the indispensable sequel to a great war is no new conception, citing (page 175) well-known elaborate but futile plans proposed with such an end in view. Assuredly something more than organization is required. A solution, our author thinks, would lie in the direction of first finding

an acceptable body of world-law supported by judicial decision and enforceable by truly constitutional governments. Still, we are reminded, "There remain, of course, many international questions that cannot be reduced to formulæ of international law or submitted to the decision of judicial tribunals. These are the questions of national policy which every nation must reserve for its own determination." (Page 198.)

The problems are many, and it would appear difficult at the moment to propose any final solution not open to serious criticism, or easily seen to be impracticable in its ultimate working efficiency.

Europe at the outbreak of the present war presented a truly extraordinary complex of governments great and small. What is to be the fate of the neutralized territories, once thought so secure under the ægis of international law? Perhaps the least known of such territories is that of neutral Moresnet lying between the Belgian and German frontiers not far from Aix-la-Chapelle and dowered with a fatal wealth of mines. It was the first district to be occupied by the advancing German arms in August, 1914, although its neutrality had been solemnly sanctioned by Prussia and the Netherlands, June 26, 1816.

Must we not, in truth, if seeking an effective world-arrangement when peace finally comes, and even long prior to that, fix our thoughts upon those deeper problems which concern the mainsprings of all human action? Not, indeed, until both individual men and governments of all political complexions determine, to align themselves with the principles of eternal justice and a recognition of the undeniable fellowship of mankind can any lasting basis of settlement be reached.

Dr. Hill's book is worthy the attention of all readers who would clearly grasp present-day world problems. It is an admirable introduction to a subject that must commend itself to every intelligent man.. GORDON E. SHERMAN.

The Monroe Doctrine: An Interpretation. By Albert Bushnell Hart. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. 1916. pp. xiv, 445, including map, bibliography, and index.

A library of no small proportions and no mean quality could easily be assembled from the writings books, monographs, pamphlets, not to mention articles in the periodical and daily press - by authors of various nationalities, countries and races, representing North and

South Americas, Europe, and Asia, about this most important fundamental doctrine of American foreign policy and diplomacy. The subject is perennial, and the flood of literature that flows around it is so constant that no especial apology is needed for only one more volume, particularly when its laudable purpose is to throw light into the darkness of alien interpretations and to bring order into the chaos and confusion of mind that unreasonably, but not inexplicably, seem to master especially the European and Asiatic whenever he speaks or writes about this subject. Many of these foreign, and some domestic, speakers whom it has been the reviewer's lot to hear, profess a childlike ignorance of what the doctrine really is, liberally asserting this both for themselves and for the rest of humanity, including the AmeriTheir purpose is not far to seek; namely, disparagement, and even in some instances ridicule, of the Monroe Doctrine and in fact of our whole policy toward Latin-America and the Caribbean and towards such parts of North America as we compliment with any conscious policy.

cans.

We have here an unquestionably valuable book from a well-known teacher, editor, and author of historical and political works many and good. He is a welcome commentator on the "Doctrine," and he speaks from a wealth of experience in the study of American history and government that not only makes interesting and profitable reading, but such as commands respect by an apparent weight of authority that impresses the reader. It will be questioned by many of these, however, after they have read the work in its entirety, whether many of the observations and views expressed by the author himself are in any true sense authoritative as distinguished from mere personal opinion. The main thesis of the book, if not in fact both its major premise and conclusion, is that the Monroe Doctrine as such does not exist; that the doctrine called by that name was in reality chiefly the John Quincy Adams doctrine, and that even this was short-lived and merely temporary in effect on our real policies; that the various doctrines labeled with the name "Monroe," including those which subsist up to the present time, have practically as little to do with "Jimmy" Monroe and his name as with "Chimmie Fadden."

In Part I of the volume the author admits that a doctrine in our policy toward Latin-America existed and was officially stated, whether it is entitled to the name of one man or another, or more than one. In Parts II and III he discusses the growth of American relations and

the framing of "new forms of doctrine to correspond with them" by "Presidents, Secretaries of State and other statesmen," and whether appropriately or not, as the individual reader may decide, he calls these forms of doctrine by the names of the individuals who put them forth in their writings or speeches rather than in official acts of government, whether these individuals were persons charged by law and practice with formulating our foreign policy, or were mere senators or former senators or, in fact, it would seem, the American public in general. While it would be captious to object to the catch-phrase "paramount interest," employed by Secretary Evarts in his report of March 8, 1880 (p. 170,) as fairly descriptive of one of the fundamental premises in the mind of the Secretary concerned, the author's view and adoption of these words as coextensive with a new doctrine supplanting the principles of the Monroe Doctrine entirely will not be readily accepted. This new doctrine Professor Hart says, should properly be called, the "American Doctrine" because it was subscribed to and applied from 1869 to 1884, and then ran on through what he calls the "Olney Doctrine" (1895), the "Cleveland Doctrine" (1895), the "Lodge Doctrine" (1895), and presumably on through the "Roosevelt Doctrine" (1901), the "Taft Doctrine" (1909), the "Root Doctrine," ascribed to Mr. Root when he was no longer in office, and culled from the remarks of this private citizen in an address given before the American Society of International Law, April 14, 1914. In these Mr. Root clearly showed "his unwillingness to admit the alteration of circumstances since 1823," Professor Hart admits. Further Mr. Root most ably defended a thesis the exact contrary of that here attempted to be established by Professor Hart, who denies the permanence of the principles of the Monroe Doctrine by means of, and together with, apparent extensions recognized by most of the Presidents and Secretaries of State since Monroe and Adams. The author would even carry his new and so-called American Doctrine through the "Wilson Doctrine" of 1913 to 1915. All of this suggests an exaggerated and fantastic imagination whose flights probably cannot be followed by the credulous vision of the average reader, such as "journalists, writers, and public men," who, the author admits, "have generally found it more convenient to keep on using the old term 'Monroe Doctrine' because," he says, "it was hazy and because it seemed to make earlier generalizations responsible for the purpose and motives of the present time." (p. 162.) Whatever the correct name may be for the doctrine

of the present, whether it be that of President Wilson's firm adherence to the principles and name of the Monroe Doctrine, even though it may be eventually broadened into a policy accepted by and applied to the world, or whether it be Secretary Lansing's doctrine of "special interest," as expressed in his Lansing-Ishii agreement, Professor Hart, in his Search for the Doctrine of the Future, has discovered the name and "Doctrine of Permanent Interest" which advises the world that our policy is not temporary, transient, nor radically changeable, after it has been adopted, but that it is here for all time as respects LatinAmerica and the Caribbean regions and perhaps certain Pacific and Asiatic territories. (pp. 349-403.) Many things in the book, and especially Part IV ("Present-day Doctrines"), in which he discusses not only the "Latin-American," the "Drago," and "Calvo" doctrines, but also the "German Doctrine" and "Pacific and Asiatic Doctrines," and a portion of Part V ("Present World Conditions"), which contains a chapter on the "Doctrine of American Protectorates" in which Professor Hart speaks of the "protectorates" of Cuba, Panama, Santo Domingo, Nicaragua, and our attitude toward Mexico in the same direction, as if the United States' "Fixed Policy of Protectorates" was as definite in intent and as decided in quality as the relations of England to Egypt or of France to Morocco - these phrases of the author's own coinage, let me repeat, and other of his statements seem to indicate clearly that what the author has in mind oftentimes when he speaks of the Monroe Doctrine is the entire sum total of the foreign policy of the United States outside of specifically British and Continental relations of Europe with us respecting their own local and African affairs. He seems to forget that the Monroe Doctrine, important as it is, is but a part even of our relations with Latin-America.

In only one, but a serious, respect the work bears a remote but definite resemblance to such unscholarly, not to say unhistorical and ridiculous, productions as The Monroe Doctrine: An Obsolete Shibboleth, and portions of Pan-Americanism, and The Challenge of the Future, the example and deductions of whose authors, it is safe to say, Professor Hart would be the last consciously to approve or imitate. But apparently, scholarly and patriotic as he is, and advocating a strong American policy in reality, he has allowed himself loosely to ramble into a forest of verbiage and imaginings where, pottering more or less with descriptive titles and names for a policy and its various phases and expansions as if they were different things and realities in themselves,

« AnteriorContinuar »