Perhaps the greatest difficulty to overcome in handling all international questions, is in securing a just rule of conduct that will be acceptable to the people who have little voice in establishing the rule and whose notions of how foreign affairs should be conducted are usually exceedingly selfish.

National ideals with reference solely to domestic policies may be one thing; but with reference to foreign affairs, quite another thing. It is often the case, if not the rule, that the two are as different as right and wrong. The functions of government operating intrastate may be guided by the eternal principles of right and justice as expressed in the Golden Rule; but operating internationally, may be controlled by a selfishness and a greed that would be considered both immoral and even criminal, if the acts were those of a private citizen. Admiral Decatur's familiar toast-"Our Country! In her intercourse with Foreign Nations, may she always be in the right; but our Country, right or wrong"-is a fine expression of patriotism and a guarantee of national solidarity. However, the sentiment is merely a refinement of that primitive tribal religion which nationalized the deity, made polytheism a necessity and limited the rule of right and justice to tribal or national boundaries; hence the sword as the final arbitrament of international disputes.

Nations have made more progress in placing the rule of right above the power of might in domestic or national

affairs than in international affairs. Therefore, the greatest problem of the statesman is to make international questions square by the same ethical standards that national questions are measured by. But as long as the difference between the two ideals is so great, civilization will be retarded by international jealousies and destructive wars.

When President Wilson was inaugurated he was at once confronted with certain very perplexing foreign problems: (1) A revolution in Mexico; (2) The relation of this government to Latin American Republics; and (3) The attitude of the European nations toward America because of the Panama tolls act which exempted American coast-wise vessels from the payment of tolls in passing through the Panama Canal.

The New Executive was an untried man, only a political philosopher, and not only the people of America but of the whole civilized world were asking themselves this question: How will the new President approach the solution of these problems?

The American people were demanding in one breath that the President hold the balances even when weighing matters of strictly domestic concern. But when considering international questions, the vocal part of the American public seemed to be ready to heap reproach upon the administration if the balances failed to dip low on the American side, and such is the traditional attitude of the human race to international disputes. No executive

had been able to establish a precedent the justice of which was convincing to all nations without drawing upon himself the censure and even ridicule of a large part of his own people. Therefore, nations have too often resorted to might rather than right in the settlement of international disputes. It is the easier mode, though not a remedy.

President Wilson, however, announced very emphatically at the beginning of his administration that it would be his policy to set up the rule of right and justice in all international questions. This was a departure. A new precedent was about to be established. Was this nation entering a new era in diplomacy? Men were wondering.

CHAPTER IX

THE PRESIDENT BROADENS THE MEANING OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE

The revolution in Mexico was the most perplexing international problem that confronted the new administration. However, it had to be solved not with reference solely to Mexico and to the United States, but with reference to all the other Latin American Republics. Therefore, it became necessary to establish first a new Pan American policy, or, in other words, to give the American people a broader meaning of the Monroe Doctrine.

A few days after his inauguration, President Wilson outlined the policies that should guide him in all of his relations with the Latin American states, including Mexico. Each state was assured that "one of the chief objects of my administration will be to cultivate the friendship of all the Latin American states," and he declared, "I earnestly desire the most cordial understanding and cooperation between the people and the leaders of America." He then made this brief statement not only for North Americans, but for Central and South Americans to read and ponder over:

"Cooperation is possible only when supported at every turn by the orderly processes of just government, based upon law and not upon arbitrary or irregular force. We hold, as I am sure all thoughtful leaders of republican government elsewhere hold, that just government rests always upon the consent of the governed, and that there can be no freedom without order, based upon law and upon public conscience and approval. We shall look to make these principles the basis of mutual intercourse, respect, and helpfulness between our sister republics and ourselves.

"We shall lend our influence of every kind to the realization of these principles in fact and practice, knowing that disorder, personal intrigue and the denial of constitutional rights weaken and discredit government and injure none so much as the people who are unfortunate enough to have their common life and their common affairs so tainted and disturbed.

"We can have no sympathy with those who seek to seize the power of government to advance their own personal interests or ambitions. We are the friends of peace, but we know that there can be no lasting or stable peace in such circumstances. As friends, therefore, we shall prefer those who act in