Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 2.djvu/489

 REVIEWS 475

Commercial Relations," by Mr. David A. Welles ; Mr. E. J. Phelps' address on "The Monroe Doctrine," delivered in Brooklyn in March 1896, and the address of Mr. Carl Schurz on "International Arbitra- tion," given before the Washington conference in April 1896. The three are grouped as presenting a common body of doctrine relating to the proper foreign policy of the United States.

The name of Mr. Welles is sufficient perhaps to indicate his view of the question. He explains the enlightened liberality of British government, more particularly evidenced by its policy of free trade, by which the markets of the British Empire are open to the world on the same conditions as to British subjects ; its extension of civiliza- tion in barbarous lands ; its abolition of slavery ; its beneficent rule of its dependencies. In all these respects Mr. Welles thinks the United States far inferior- to Great Britain. He shows how much better it would be for the world if Hawaii should come under the British flag than under that of any other nation, and if British authority should control the Orinoco.

This last is the chief point of the article. It is the opinion of Mr. Welles that in defending Venezuela against Great Britain we are tak- ing the part of barbarism against civilization. He admits that per- haps in the past Britain may have extended its possessions by vio- lence, and may have acted in an unfriendly way towards the United States. But all this, he holds, is quite passed away. It is substan- tially his inference that we ought to be highly gratified to see British power in our hemisphere expand; that British policy is such a com- bination of benevolence and intelligence that it is really a shame for us to seek to check it.

There are some stubborn facts, however, which the writer seems to overlook. One is, that after all Great Britain and the United States are two nations, and not one. Another is that, whatever may have been the attitude of the people, the government of Great Britain never has been friendly to us when we have needed a friend. Still another Is, that British good feeling for the republic has become conspicuous just about in the ratio of the republic's growth in material power. And again, a British policy of aggression in South America can hardly fail to lead to a similar policy among other European nations, forbid that our country should ever again have a war with a civ- ilized people. But inasmuch as the millennium has not yet come, the safest way of insuring peace may perhaps still be to prevent a further