not be aggravated and matters may remain in the same state pending the rendering of the report by the Commission.

"With respect to the third object, that of Conference, it would seem that the continuance of the present plan of holding Pan American Conferences would adequately afford the desired opportunities for interchanges of views and the discussion of matters of common interest. There is no special advantage in creating machinery which is either unnecessary or too elaborate. It is a mistake to attempt to commit nations in advance with respect to their action in unknown contingencies, aside from disputes of a justiciable nature, as such attempts either are abortive or lead to disappointment, but it is highly important that every facility for conference should be provided.

"The more important need is the arrangement for cooperation in technical services, for the coordination of expert investigation, for facilities for negotiations leading to uniformity of action where that is desirable, and for the promotion of the vital interests of health and education. This Government strongly favors any arrangements which may be effective to these ends."

PROHIBITION OF THE SALE OR EXPORT OF ARMS AND MUNITIONS OF WAR AND PREVENTION OF THE TRANSIT OF ARMS AND MUNITIONS WHICH ARE NOT DESTINED FOR GOVERNMENTS

Such proposals would require legislation by the Congress to make them effective (and it is doubtful whether such legislation could be obtained). This Government would undoubtedly desire to discourage the exportation of arms for the purpose of fomenting revolution but it is doubtful if legislation could be enacted in this country going beyond the existing provisions of law which enable the Executive in an appropriate case to declare an embargo. Whatever may be said. with respect to the merits of such proposals it is important that this Government should not be in a position of entering into agreements which it has reason to believe it would have difficulty in making effective through the necessary legislative action.

AN AGREEMENT TO RESPECT THE TERRITORIAL AND POLITICAL INTEGRITY OF THE LATIN AMERICAN NATIONS

Such an obligation would be quite acceptable to this Government, which has frequently given public and emphatic assurances that it does not covet the territory of any other nation. (Any obligation, however, not to intervene under any circumstances in the internal affairs of another country or not to go to war until after the pronouncement of an arbitral award, while commendable so far as the general purpose in view is concerned, would be likely to encounter opposition in this country as inconsistent with the constitutional authority of Congress and thus would give rise to unnecessary controversy. The object can be obtained, it is believed, by the adoption of

suggestions already made for an Arbitral Tribunal and Commissions of Inquiry.)

This Government could not, of course, undertake to limit or bind its action in future unknown contingencies regarding the measure of protection which it might deem it incumbent upon it to exert on behalf of American citizens and property endangered by revolution or other civil turmoil in a foreign country.

You will of course understand that should this Government be obliged thus to afford protection to its nationals abroad its action would, as in the past, be limited to this object alone. When this object has been obtained and the danger is removed, the forces of the United States would of course be withdrawn. This has been the traditional policy of the United States.

DEFINITION OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE

It is not the desire of this Government that the Monroe Doctrine should be discussed at the Conference. The views of the Department as set forth for the instruction of the delegates to the Fifth Conference and repeated here for your guidance, are as follows:

In the view of this Government, that Doctrine has no place in the discussions of the Conference as it is essentially a national policy of the United States. It is not a part of international law nor is it a "regional understanding",-to refer to the inept phrase used in the Covenant of the League of Nations. While conditions have changed, and the attitude of the non-American Powers does not at this time give rise to apprehension with respect to aggression on their part as against at least the stronger Latin American Republics, still the Monroe Doctrine, however infrequent or limited may be the necessity of its application, should be maintained in its integrity and no action should be countenanced by this Government which would in the slightest degree impair its efficacy.

Note may be taken of the content of this Doctrine. Properly understood, it is opposed (a) to any non-American action encroaching upon the political independence of American States under any guise, and (b) any acquisition by any non-American Power of any territorial control over any American soil by any process whatever. It may be observed that the United States is uninfluenced even by the willingness or desire of any American State to yield any transfer of its territory or to submit to any form of political control or influence of a non-American State. In maintaining its position, the United States has been governed primarily by its own interests, involving its conception of what was essential to its security and its distinctive position in this hemisphere. Its unselfish and friendly regard for its American neighbors has had a potent influence and should never fail of recognition in an estimate of our traditional

policy, but the controlling consideration has been one of national interest.

In maintaining and applying the Monroe Doctrine the United States has commonly avoided concerted action with other States, especially European States. Nor has the Government of the United States been disposed to enter into an arrangement with States of this hemisphere for the purpose of safeguarding them against conduct which would be regarded by this Government as in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. The essential character of the Doctrine itself has led to the taking of this attitude which it is believed should be maintained. The nature of the Doctrine should not be altered, its strength weakened or its effect diminished by any concert.

On the other hand, it should always be remembered that the Monroe Doctrine thus fully maintained as a national policy of the United States, carries with it no suggestion which threatens in any proper sense the just independence, or the political integrity of the American States; much less does it involve any thought of action inimical to their security or interest. On the contrary, it has received a constantly widening recognition on the part of the Latin American peoples, as a bulwark of their independence, safety and progress. So far as the Doctrine may be deemed to impinge upon their freedom in submitting to the control or influence of non-American States, it constitutes a safeguard of their liberty and security. The United States has not, and does not intend to use, this national policy for the purpose of conserving any other national interest than its own essential security. The United States seeks no territory; it does not seek to establish any state of tutelage with respect to any American Republic; it has no desire to aggrandize itself at the expense of its Latin American neighbors or to promote selfish interests in diminution of their own. It earnestly desires a common prosperity.

There is thus nothing in the Monroe Doctrine which is opposed to Pan American cooperation. It establishes the necessary and most hopeful bases of that cooperation. The United States seeks to promote its commerce with Latin American States and to aid in their development to the end that all may have their appropriate share in these mutually helpful efforts in the advancement of civilization. During the visit of Secretary of State Hughes to Brazil, and on the occasion of the dedication of the site for the American Centennial Monument at Rio de Janeiro, on September 8, 1922, the view[s] of this Government were thus expressed:

53

"We shall also be glad to have this monument associated in the thought of our friends with a true appraisement of our North Ameri

See Foreign Relations, 1922, vol. 1, pp. 656 ff. The four speeches made by the Secretary of State were published in Addresses in Brazil Delivered by the Hon. Charles Evans Hughes, Secretary of State, September, 1922 (Washington, The Pan American Union, 1922).

can ideals and aspirations. You, my fellow countrymen of the United States, know full well how sincerely we desire the independence, the unimpaired sovereignty and political integrity, and the constantly increasing prosperity of the peoples of Latin America. We have our domestic problems incident to the expanding life of a free people, but there is no imperialistic sentiment among us to cast even a shadow across the pathway of our progress. We covet no territory; we seek no conquest; the liberty we cherish for ourselves we desire for others; and we assert no rights for ourselves that we do not accord to others. We sincerely desire to see throughout this hemisphere an abiding peace, the reign of justice and the diffusion of the blessings of a beneficent cooperation. It is this desire which forms the basis of the Pan American sentiment."

Recent efforts, which there is no occasion to criticize so long as they are kept within their proper sphere, to bring Latin American States into closer contact with non-American Powers make it important that there should be no sacrifice through such endeavors of essential American interests. There should be no yielding to the suggestion of the control or influence of non-American Powers in the settlement of political questions of a distinctively American nature, or of the establishment by non-American Powers of territorial or political rights over American territory. There is, as John Bassett Moore has declared, an "American System based upon the distinctive interests which American countries have in common." He adds:

"To the extent to which Europe should become implicated in American politics, or to which American countries should become implicated in European politics, this distinction would necessarily be broken down, and the foundations of the American system would be impaired; and to the extent to which the foundations of the American system were impaired, Pan Americanism would lose its vitality and the Monroe Doctrine its accustomed and tangible meaning." (J. B. Moore, Principles of American Diplomacy, 1918, x-xi.)

This Government does not approve the creation with non-American States of relationships which are to be deemed hostile to the Monroe Doctrine and, it must also be recognized that there are the greatest difficulties in proposing a policy, which would be capable of safe expression in a Pan American agreement, touching matters which fall within the scope of the Monroe Doctrine. No arrangement should be entered into, or resolution agreed to, which could possibly be interpreted as curtailing in any way the application by the United States of the Monroe Doctrine. There should be no opening for the limitation of its action in that application through acquiescence in any arrangement whereby an American State could accept non-American control of its territory or political action. No opportunity should be given to a non-American State through any Pan American agreement to seek to impair the position which the United States has won through its assertion of its national policy.

This Government has no objection to the adoption of resolutions, if this course is desired by the Latin American Republics, asserting their opposition to all attempts at aggression or invasion of their rights by non-American Powers. It is not deemed to be probable that proposals for a definite alliance would meet with the favor of the Conference. Such proposals should not be encouraged by the delegates from the United States. If it were proposed that if the rights of an American nation were threatened by the unjust and aggressive action of a nonAmerican Power, the American Republics should communicate with one another fully and frankly in order to reach an understanding concerning the measures to be taken, jointly or separately, to meet the exigencies of the particular situation, there would be no objection on the part of this Government provided always that freedom of action on the part of the United States under the Monroe Doctrine were completely reserved.

REPRESENTATION OF SPAIN (OR OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES) BY UNOFFICIAL OBSERVERS AT THE SIXTH CONFERENCE

You are instructed to oppose any suggestion which may be made for the representation of Spain, Portugal, France, Italy or any other country not a member of the Pan American Union, to be represented at the Conference by an Unofficial Observer.

The Pan American Conferences are strictly conferences of American States, held to discuss matters of especial and peculiar importance to the nations of the Western Hemisphere and it would obviously not be possible or proper to have other states represented at these conferences even by unofficial observers who would take no part in the discussions and would not even vote. Should there be no necessity for discussing matters affecting only the American nations there would be no reason for these conferences; and should there be a necessity for discussing matters of world wide concern or affecting non-American countries the need would be for some other form of conference of wider scope. For the discussion of questions affecting nations in both hemispheres there are many international conferences at which both European and American States are represented and at which world wide problems are discussed. But as there are also problems pertaining especially to this hemisphere, these Pan American conferences are held.

The United States entertains the friendliest feelings towards all the European countries and its action in opposing their representation at the Conference, even by unofficial observers, should not be considered as showing any lack of friendliness for them. It is clear that if they were represented the conferences would cease to be purely Pan American conferences. Furthermore, if one non-American power should be represented there would be no reason why others who have possessions in this hemisphere, or who bear the relation of

237576-42- 45