interested. With undoubted justice other people smile at our attempts to question the plain fact that Germany was the leader in sanctioning and upholding the principle of might in international relations, and by foolish explanations and constant reference to the secret archives of enemy nations, to shift the responsibility for the war. And just as ineradicably, and with the same undeniable justice, they cling to the belief that the misdeeds of the German conduct of the war can find their counterpart only in the far-off days of the migrations of nations, and represent crimes against humanity and civilization the magnitude and extent of which cannot be even partially offset by counter-charges.

Thus the great majority of the allied nations feel that a rehabilitation of the German nation will not be possible until the German people, instead of constantly and loudly demanding its former leadership and holding to its military traditions, shall thoroughly and searchingly renounce that spirit which isolated Germany from the rest of the world and which precipitated it into the present catastrophe. Instead of grasping this fundamental necessity for the moral reconciliation of nations, and acknowledging this as the preliminary hypothesis for the completion of any league of nations, the German people have allowed themselves to be led into the mortal delusion, through malevolent as well as well-meaning counsel, that the question of guilt was disposed of and that any admission of guilt now would only retard the revision of the treaty of peace. May the German people awaken, before it is too late, to the fact that they have been ill advised; that Germany cannot again take up its best and oldest mission until it has overcome the moral isolation into which it was plunged, not only because of what happened, but even more be

cause of the lack of any frank and truthful attitude toward what happened. Have the persons responsible for the Belgian deportations and the deportations of French women and children, or have the persons responsible for the senseless destruction of French coal mines and fruit trees been called to an accounting before the German people?

Through such blind and stubborn solidarity Germany may bleed to death and the League of Nations be broken. Only if this people, who within recent years and with greatest cynicism opposed an understanding between nations, will pay its debt by setting a high example of a complete change of heart.

only then can the ban be lifted which has fallen upon the world. Such a desire to take the opposite course, such an emergence from national egoism, can at present and under existing circumstances be achieved only if we at last begin to feel more keenly and to regret more deeply the sins we committed against others than the fate which has befallen our own people. Only so can a new sense of justice reach the light of daynot by constant talk about justice to ourselves.

Our simple Landsturm soldiers wept when they were compelled to carry out the work of destruction in France. Such tears for the harm done to others are the very fundamentals for a league of nations. Only through such emotions can we and the rest of the world be healed. Is it not the height of bad taste when the very same people who most scorned the idea of establishing international justice now use the speech of outraged morality when speaking of the harshness of the victors, and cannot say enough of the rights of Germany? Have they totally forgotten that German rights can exist only in the framework of a moral conception of the life of nations, and that without it only the ra victis is possible? Those

who, like ourselves, did practise, and wish still further to practise this same va victis, had better not make our plea in the name of those moral requirements whose value we ourselves had forced to the zero-point.

No! The German people can prepare themselves for a society of nations only by directing their sense of justice for once against themselves; by passing judgment from a moral standpoint on the machinations of their philosophers of force and propagandists of power during the past decades; by subjecting the horrible and short-sighted selfishness of their method of warfare to the judgment of an awakened conscience. Only then will their appeal be heard and their conversion find belief. What good can come from a constant appeal to the conscience of the world when we have shown no genuine sense of responsibility for the condition in which the world finds itself, and to this day speak only in terms of nationalism?

'Leave your country and your friends and go ye into a land which I will show thee' - this Biblical saying applies to the German of to-day. He needs to give to the world an example of selfabnegation, instead of hardening the already general disfavor of the whole world into chronic opposition, by continuous blind propaganda in behalf of his own interests. He must learn to judge German things from the viewpoint of Europe. He must do justice to the sentiment of those who have suffered from the brutality of his former methods. He must emerge from the provincialism of his nationalistic emotions, in order that he may become once again truly German and capable of bringing honor to the German name. Only in this way- not by shouting, scolding and nagging a world unfavorably disposed toward us can we again create a place in the world for our right to life, and so prepare ourselves for adoption into a society of nations.

THE differences of opinion exhibited at the League of Nations Assembly in Geneva, and the unexpected withdraw al of the Argentine delegation, have called attention to the conflict of sentiment which existed in Latin America during the war, and to the new position in which its governments have been left by the regrouping of the Great Powers.

Men ask why the young democracies

across the ocean, moral children as they are of France, and bound to her by strong spiritual ties, did not rally unanimously and enthusiastically to her support in her hour of trial. Looking to the future, they ask what the dominant sentiment in those countries is to-day and in what orbit they will revolve during the new period we are entering. These are the questions which we pro

pose to examine briefly and dispassionately with a sole eye to truth.

For centuries Europe has been the centre of the civilized world and quite justified in believing that other countries rotated about it as an axis. Unhappily for that continent, and above all unhappily for us, new centres of diplomatic and economic attraction have been created in the Orient and the Occident, and nations of secondary rank, by virtue of their smaller population, wealth, and military strength, must now rank the practical needs of their geographical situation higher than their natural sympathies.

As a result of the world decentralization which has now occurred, a little Europe has sprung up in the Western Hemisphere.

When the war came, each Western republic viewed this disturbance in the normal rhythm of international life from the point of view of its interests in America instead of in the world at large. The effects of the shock upon its next-door neighbors, possible financial crises, and the prospective strengthening of imperialist ambitions against which every Latin-American country stood on the defensive, naturally occupied first place in their minds. 'Every pilot thinks first of his own vessel,' was the dominant idea of those political leaders who saw in the catastrophe something more than a theme for eloquent speeches and ephemeral European notoriety.

If these republics had already had such a politico-racial understanding as we have urged for many years, they might have agreed on a common policy and made their voice heard effectively in favor of France and their own rights. As it was, they were surprised in the midst of their habitual discord, thrown into confusion, and induced to shape their policies in conformity with limited and local objects. Some of them ser

VOL. 310-NO. 4017

vilely copied the United States. Others mistakenly sided blindly with one of the belligerents, hoping thus to gain an advantage in some old feud with their neighbors.

Three of the most highly individualized nations of Latin America, namely Argentina, Chile, and Mexico - we will speak of Brazil presently spontaneously exhibited a disposition to strike out upon an independent SpanishAmerican policy. Colombia, Venezuela and other governments followed in their wake. It is the impulse of the weak to make capital out of emergencies; and the spirit of Pan-Americanism grew perceptibly feebler in face of a world crisis which promised almost anything.

We did not exactly think that the Allies would draw a draft against our future under the pressure of war, by leaving our great Northern neighbor a free hand in the New World in return for its support; but we could not avoid reflecting that if the great Anglo-Saxon republic had shown itself aggressive and grasping in Central America and the West Indies as a purely commercial power, it would probably exhibit the same tendencies as a victorious military power. What Mr. Wilson said about the right of nations to control their own political destinies was not enough, in spite of the authority his words carried, to remove this fear; for just at the time he was expatiating on this ideal, a North American squadron landed troops in the little republic of Santo Domingo, deposed the president, imposed martial law and a censorship, and set up a government of intervention which continues to rule that country up to the present.

In no case was it our intention to join Germany, but rather to maintain a prudent reserve in face of events which might seriously compromise our future. France had the strongest hold of any of

the Allies upon our hearts. But there were countries like England, which had not yet seen its way to restore to us Honduras and the Falkland Islands, and like the United States, which had no idea of restoring to their Spanishspeaking people New Mexico, Texas, Porto Rico, Panama, and the rest. Even assuming that this was to be the last great war, and that its purpose was to establish final justice in the world, we still had cause to stop and ponder.

Naturally someone will immediately cite Brazil. But Brazil has always been a sort of outsider in Latin America. When the rest of the continent struck for independence, Brazil remained faithful to its mother country; when we set up republics, it established an empire; when we abolished slavery, it maintained that institution. Without passing judgment on the right or wrong of these acts and I agree with those who believe that, by deferring its separation from Portugal, Brazil escaped the anarchy which wrought such ruin in the former Spanish colonies - one must agree that this nation has always pursued a different course, whether for good or ill, from that of the Spanishspeaking republics. Its relative isolation has induced it to adopt a dissenting policy, so that it has never coöperated with its neighbors except in repressing Paraguay a few years ago, and in concluding more recently a triple entente with Argentina and Chile. Neverthe less, the profounder minds of Brazil, with Mr. Oliveira Lima at their head, show sympathy for the idea that the welfare of Latin America demands that there be in Europe, Asia, or it makes no difference where, some power capable of equalizing in the Western hemisphere the feebleness of the South and the strength of the North.

In order to understand this, we must remember that for the last hundred years, many movements in Latin Amer

ica and more than one revolution have been caused by foreigners. We all agree that the revolt of the Spanish colonies in 1810 was inspired by the French political ideals of 1789 and by the local need of reform. But these incentives might not have been powerful enough if they had not been nursed along more or less unconsciously by the discreet encouragement of foreign governments seeking commercial expansion and political leadership in Spanish America. In their expansive political enthusiasm of the time, our fathers did not see that political independence without commercial independence was a paradox, and that no government could be free unless it was master of its economic life. Otherwise, its heroic sacrifices only changed it from a political colony to a commercial colony, and it remained as much as ever the plaything of foreign control.

This initial disadvantage might have been partly remedied, considering the wonderful fertility of our soil, had we possessed enlightened and far-sighted governments. But in Central America and in portions of South America the new administrations exhibited little else than inexperience and incompetence. Our mines, oil wells, railways, raw materials, and banks are to-day for the most part controlled by foreign owners, who shrewdly promote domestic discord and frontier disputes to ensure themselves a mastery over us more absolute than Spain ever exercised in the best days of its colonial rule.

Naturally there are countries in Latin America whose development and solid progress lift them above this category. But even countries like Argentina, prosperous as they are, cannot escape entirely the contagion of their neighbors. Their loans, their foreignowned railways and shipping lines, and their great alien commercial establishments tend to make them likewise feu

datories of powerful foreign nations, and only their sound health and stable balance enable them to exercise real initiative in foreign affairs and to look the world squarely in the face.

Latin Americans do not like to hear these things discussed but, since they exist, we must face them frankly. We by no means intend to suggest that the Spanish colonies have utterly failed to emancipate themselves, the way the English colonies have done. But we have become involved in growing conflicts which may easily defeat the ideals of Bolivar, of San Martin, and of our other rebel patriots of a century ago.

We Latins, incurable dreamers, are not content to sacrifice our future thus helplessly, particularly in an age when other nations lay stress on practical facts and policies determined far more by material ends than by sentimental ties. In striking a balance between what it has gained and what it has lost during the past century, Spanish America is beginning to see that it has sinned through an excess of trust in others. The moment has come when we are asking if it would not have been better had we relied from the outset on the support of France, or even of England.

Of late, both those countries have seemed to show due consideration for our national rights. France has always been very friendly. But France has shown little interest in us. England constantly yields to its great AngloSaxon rival, in compliance - it is said it is said - with an agreement the terms of which we do not know. In case of Panama when the Colombia treaty was under discussion, and of Mexico when the petroleum issue was acute, and in all other instances, the young democracy has had its way at the expense of the ancient empire whose commercial and diplomatic prestige have been unable to withstand the dexterity and energy of its young competitor. However,

that is the attitude of all Europe toward this new centre of economic and political energy which tends to extend its control unhindered over the whole globe.

We had recent confirmation of this when La Nación of Buenos Aires remarked in an editorial: 'Faced by the choice of abandoning the League of Nations or the Monroe Doctrine, the Latin-American nations would probably sacrifice the latter.' The New York Herald replied sharply on November ninth, under the heading, "There is but one nation that can abandon the Monroe Doctrine,' to the effect that no republic of South or Central America need trouble itself over what La Nación called a dilemma. Others could join the League of Nations, or refuse to join, as they wished, but they could not modify or abandon the Monroe Doctrine. That doctrine could be abolished by only one nation- the United States. The Union would never surrender it because its people, by a majority of many millions, had just decided to maintain it. Were all the republics of Central and South America to vote unanimously against the Monroe Doctrine, that would have no effect whatever upon its validity, because it is not a regional pact, as stated in the League Convenant. It is a policy of the United States government, a determination of its people that the Western hemisphere shall not be subject to European policies. The people of the United States have been gratified because the republics of South America approved that policy. They are displeased that some of them now take a different attitude. But the rampart which has been erected between South America and Europe for nearly a century is the rampart of the United States, and while its sister republics are free to enjoy the protection of that rampart, none of them will be allowed to cast it down. That is something which the United States alone can do.