840 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIX. No. 1014 



versal peace, should within so short a space of time 

 sacrifice this enviable position and come to be 

 looked upon by all nations of western civilization 

 as an uncertain factor in the orderly development 

 of international relations? 



Every student of international law and of world 

 politics has been deeply impressed by the impor- 

 tant part played by the United States, in placing 

 the conduct of international relations on a dis- 

 tinctly higher plane. It seems, at first glance, ex- 

 traordinary that during the first half century of 

 its national existence a nation so weak and in many 

 respects so unorganized should have been able to 

 exert so important an influence on international 

 law. When, however, we stop to reflect that dur- 

 ing the first decades of the nineteenth century the 

 United States held the balance of power, the ap- 

 parent paradox is really explained. 



The far-seeing statesmanship of the founders of 

 the republic led to the adoption, as a cardinal 

 principle of American foreign policy, of the rule 

 that the United States must be kept free not merely 

 from entangling European alliances, but from any 

 participation in the conflicts then raging in Eu- 

 rope. This principle of aloofness from European 

 entanglements led to the assertion of those prin- 

 ciples of American neutrality which, while serving 

 primarily the interests of our national integrity, 

 accomplished the still larger purpose of laying the 

 foundations for the modern law of neutrality, 

 which has done so much toward eliminating the 

 causes of international irritation and, therefore, 

 of promoting the interests of world peace. 



It has been the laudable ambition of successive 

 Secretaries of State to continue and to strengthen 

 those lofty and noble traditions which gave to the 

 country a position of such unique power amongst 

 the nations of both eastern and western civiliza- 

 tion. In spite of these efforts, however, there is 

 noticeable, during recent years, a distinct falling 

 off in our international prestige. Little by little, 

 the confidence of the peoples of Europe and of the 

 American continent has been undermined until to- 

 day we find ourselves in a situation which pos- 

 sesses none of the elements of that splendid isola- 

 tion which so long characterized the position of 

 Great Britain and which, if not remedied, is likely 

 to deprive us of the possibility of continuing a 

 mission which constitutes the chief glory of Amer- 

 ican foreign policy during the first century of our 

 national existence. It is, therefore, a matter of 

 real national moment to inquire into the causes 

 that have brought about this change, and to seek a 

 remedy, if such exists. 



Of the elements contributing to the present situ- 

 ation, some are of long standing, the cumulative 

 effects of which are now being felt, while others are 

 of comparatively recent development. Amidst the 

 splendid record of achievement during the first 

 century of our national existence there looms up 

 one aspect in our policy which has been a source 

 of deep concern to successive Presidents and 

 to successive Secretaries of State. I refer to 

 the inadequacy of our national legislation for 

 the protection of aliens resident within our 

 borders. A long series of massacres, beginning 

 with the Chinese massacre at Bock Springs, Wyo- 



ming, in 1895_ and ending with the lynching of 

 Italians in 1899, 1901 and 1910, have placed our 

 national government in the humiliating position of 

 acknowledging to foreign powers that although the 

 sole responsibility for the conduct of our foreign 

 relations rests with the federal authorities, they 

 lack the power to fulfill that primary and funda- 

 mental international obligation, namely, that the 

 persons responsible for such crimes shall be 

 brought to justice. 



It is clear that no nation can shirk the re- 

 sponsibilities of its international obligations with- 

 out arousing widespread opposition. The con- 

 stitutional authority granted to our federal gov- 

 ernment is sufficiently broad and comprehensive 

 to include all powers necessary to meet our 

 international obligations. We can not permit 

 our states, which occupy no international status, 

 to plunge us into irritating controversies with 

 foreign countries. The dignity of the national 

 government and the demands of national self- 

 respect require that the federal executive be 

 given statutory powers and that the federal judi- 

 ciary be given jurisdictional authority sufficiently 

 broad to enable the national government to do its 

 full duty in the protection of the persons and 

 property of aliens resident within our borders. The 

 first step in this direction is the enactment of a 

 law giving the federal courts jurisdiction over all 

 cases in which the treaty rights of a citizen or sub- 

 ject of a foreign country are involved. A bill to 

 this effect has been before the congress of the 

 United States on several different occasions. 



The remedy for this situation is so simple that 

 there is no excuse for further delay in making it 

 effective. 



A second influence which has played an impor- 

 tant part in estranging the good-will of foreign 

 countries is the widespread belief that there exists 

 in the congress of the United States a marked tend- 

 ency to force upon the executive a narrow and 

 technical interpretation of treaties. Secretary Hay 

 once said of certain senators who attempted to de- 

 feat every treaty presented to the senate that their 

 idea of a treaty was a document which gained 

 everything for the United States and gave nothing 

 to the other party. The ruthless way in which the 

 congress of the United States has at times swept 

 aside treaty obligations, and the unwillingness to 

 bring national legislative policy into harmony with 

 our international obligations have created the im- 

 pression that the promises of the United States can 

 not be depended upon, and that even the best in- 

 tentions of the President and his advisers are apt 

 to be thwarted by the action of congress. 



The culminating point of a series of instances 

 was reached in the provision of the Panama Canal 

 Act exempting American coastwise shipcing from 

 the payment of Canal tolls. Whatever may be our 

 views as to the desirability of the exemption clause 

 viewed as a question of domestic policy, it is clear 

 from the history of the Clayton-Bulwer and of the 

 Hay-Pauncefote treaty and from the testimony of 

 those who assisted in the negotiation of the latter 

 that the United States made no attempt to reserve 

 to itself the right to give preferential treatment to 

 its own merchant vessels. The privileges acquired 



