to the extent to which it was proposed to deal with questions of a contentious nature, such as national and racial groupings and other political arrangements, and above all that prolific and continuing source of strife-commercial and industrial competition. Moreover, when we remember that force and its effective exercise are subject to physical limitations, and that proximity and remoteness, by which all human relations are so profoundly affected, have often been recognized as furnishing the test and the measure of political and other interests, it is not strange that the readiness to assume and even more to perform responsibilities, or to admit others to share them, has not infrequently been found to depend upon considerations of that character, as well as upon other conceptions, in regard to which habits of thought have more or less been formed and preserved. Even in the United States, where "society" is sometimes slightingly said to "lack traditions," such habits are not unknown in public affairs. We have seen that when the Executive Council of France, during the turbulent aftermath of the great revolution, proposed through Genet to replace the then existing alliance with the United States with an agreement "to defend the empire of liberty wherever it may be embraced," and "to guaranty the sovereignty of the people,"1 the proposal was not entertained. In the circumstances the proposal was not inexplicable. In making it 1 American State Papers, Foreign Relations, folio, I, 705, 708-709.

the Executive Council frankly stated that, besides "the advantages which humanity in general" would draw from such a measure, France had a "particular interest" in preparing to act against England and Spain, who were believed to be about to attack her, because of what Gouverneur Morris called "those general declarations against all kings, under the name of tyrants," which the National Assembly had enunciated. Nor did the Executive Council lose sight of the restrictions to which the then prevailing system of colonial monopoly subjected the foreign trade of both countries, when, in order to reënforce its proposal, it included in it the suggestion that France and the United States, by excluding from their ports the ships of powers that still maintained "an exclusive colonial and commercial system," would "quickly contribute to the general emancipation of the new world," even though it coupled with the suggestion an appeal to the United States to make "common cause" with France in taking such steps as exigencies might require "to serve the cause of liberty and the freedom of the people."

The attitude of the United States towards questions of this character, as expressed by successive administrations, assumed in the popular as well as in the official mind the form of an established rule of policy. Especially was this the case in regard to the political arrangements of Europe, which, as we have seen, were treated as belonging to what was called the European system, while those of the

independent nations of America were jealously guarded as belonging to the "American system." This distinction the United States, as its author, proponent, and champion, sought not to efface, but to impress upon the world as a derivative of the principle of political non-intervention and a pledge of its consistent observance. No other principle has so distinguished the foreign policy of the United States; and while policies are proverbially subject to mutation, it is probable that the ramifications of that principle will not be wholly overlooked in the consideration of any future plan of concert.

References:

Bacourt's Souvenirs d'un Diplomate;

As to etiquette, "uniform," etc., see

Moore's Digest of International Law, IV, 430–678. As to the question of a League for Peace, see Goldsmith's (Robert) A League to Enforce Peace; Phillips's (W. A.) Confederation of Europe;

Phillips's (W. A.) President Wilson's Peace Programme and the British Empire (The Edinburgh Review, April, 1917); National Federations and World Federation (Id., July, 1917); Articles by Sir Herbert Stephen, Bart., and Sir Francis Piggott, in The Nineteenth Century, April, 1917;

Chabrun (César), Kant et M. Wilson (Revue des Deux Mondes, Feb., 1917, p. 53);

The Peace Problem (Columbia University Quarterly, June, 1916; reprinted in North American Review, July, 1916).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADAMS, CHARLES FRANCIS, The Struggle for Neutrality in America. An address delivered before the New York Historical Society, December 13, 1870. New York, 1871.

Works of John Adams. Io volumes, Boston, 18501856. ADAMS, CHARLES FRANCIS, 2d, Life of Charles Francis Adams. American Statesmen Series. Boston, 1900. Lee at Appomattox and other Papers. Boston and New York, 1902.

ADAMS, HENRY, The Writings of Albert Gallatin. 3 volumes, Philadelphia, 1879.

History of the United States During the Administrations of Jefferson and Madison. 9 volumes, New York, 1889-1891.

ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY, The Duplicate Letters, the Fisheries and the Mississippi: Documents relating to transactions at the negotiations at Ghent. Washington, 1822.

Memoirs, Comprising Portions of His Diary from 1795 to 1848. 12 volumes, Philadelphia, 1874-1877. ALLEN, GARDNER W., Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs. Boston and New York, 1904.

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, The Foreign Policy of the United States, Political and Commercial. Philadelphia, 1899. The United States and Latin America. Philadelphia, 1903.

AMERICAN STATE PAPERS, FOREIGN RELATIONS, folio, 6 volumes, Washington, 1832-1859.

BACOURT, ADOLPHE DE, Souvenirs d'un Diplomate: Lettres Intimes sur l'Amérique. Paris, 1882.