this country under its representative form of constitutional government, and have in a measure tried to pattern after it.

The Hon. James Bryce said: "The best testimony to the excellence of your system in speaking of the United States, is to be found in the influence that it has had upon other countries. It is an interesting fact that your constitution and ours (referring to the English) have been in their general line the patterns of all other modern free constitutions. The British Constitution has been taken as being more or less a model by all the free governments that have been established in Europe and the British Colonies since 1815. Your constitution has been taken as a model-imperfect as some of the reproductions have been-by the republican governments that have been established in every part of the Western World. That is to say, in South America and Central America, and it has also had a profound influence not only on the latest constitution of Switzerland, that of 1874, but also upon the federal constitutions of Canada, Australia and South America.

"Your constitution by the example it has set of its working, and by the halo of fame which now surrounds it, has become one of the vital and vitalizing forces of the modern world. Let us honor the group of illustrious men who, meeting in Philadelphia, rendered this incomparable and enduring service not to you only, but also to all mankind.

"The best proof of the success which attended the framing of the constitution is to be found in the fact that the constitution which they framed for a nation that only a little exceeded three million people has been found now to fit the needs of ninetythree millions. It may not fit those needs perfectly, but it is extraordinary that it shall fit them at all."

"Through the principles of democracy and nationality, there was created a new Germany, a new Italy, a new French Republic, a more democratic England, a constitutional federal Austria-Hungary, a group of Slavs in the Balkan peninsula." (West's Modern History.) All these and other small states of Europe, not mentioning North and South America and Australia, in a great measure subsequently remodeled their governments after methods which obtained in England and the United States.

During the first half of the nineteenth century, after the revolution in France and the execution of Louis Sixteenth, who was opposed to a constitutional government, there was a general demand throughout the European states for more liberal methods of government. At the same time however, there was strong opposition among prominent rulers there against granting more independence to their states or subjects. Francis of Austria said: "The whole world is foolish and wants constitutions."

Prince Metternich made it his life work to prevent Prussia and other German states from introducing constitutional governments. He did all he could to counteract the new stimulus of freedom prevailing among the discontented elements in Germany and Austria caused by the revolution of 1830 and the overthrow of Charles X. Emperor Ferdinand, who so hated the very word "constitution" that he is said to have forbidden his physician to employ it, was finally forced to give one to his whole monarchy. When the question of a constitution came up February 3, 1847, King Frederick William IV. of Prussia said: "Never will I allow a written document to come between God in Heaven and this land in the character of a second Providence, to govern us with its formalities and take the place of ancient loyalty." Yet he finally granted Prussia a constitution, January 31, 1850. In it Article IV. stated that "all Prussians are equal before the law. Class privileges there are none. Public offices subject to the constitutions imposed by law are equally accessible to all who are competent to hold them."

In July, 1913, the Kaiser William II. burned the political testament of his ancestor, Frederick William IV., and refused to carry out his autocratic command to overthrow the Prussian constitution. He remained faithful to his royal oath and acted the part of a patriotic and honorable ruler by boldly throwing his ancestor's document in the fire. The present Kaiser is a much wiser ruler than Frederick William IV.

After the termination of the civil war 1861-1865, and after the Franco-Prussian war 1871, a United Germany was formed under a liberal constitution, in some respects patterned after that of the United States with the King, William I. of Prussia, as President, under the title of "German Emperor." Baron Stein, who was a trusted adherent of Frederick the Great, once said, "I have but one fatherland, which is called Germany. With my whole heart I am devoted to it, and not to any part of its parts.' He stood for the union of the German States, as Lincoln did for the union of the United States of America.

99

Eight years later, after all the civilized world had progressed in the methods of government and had adopted constitutions, Nicholas II. issued his famous decree granting the formation of the National Duma and a parliamentary government to his country.

THE HOLY ALLIANCE AND MONROE DOCTRINE.

Monroe sent a message to Congress December, 1823, explaining his policy of preventing foreign powers from getting a foot

hold on American soil. This subsequently became known as the "Monroe Doctrine," first:

"The American continents were not henceforth to be considered as subject for future colonization by any European power." "Second, That efforts to coerce the newly established government would be regarded as proof of “an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."

This policy had been endorsed by George Washington, John Quincy Adams, and Jefferson.

During John Quincy Adams' administration a convention of all the American republics was held, and Adams then took the position that through such a congress the influence of the United States would be extended and the Monroe Doctrine more firmly established.

President Wilson said in his Mobile speech, recently: "it is our duty to make the Western Hemisphere the home of the free, governed only as the people dictate. We must follow the course of high principle, not of expediency, no matter what the pressure."

President Cleveland said in 1895 in a message to Congress that the Monroe Doctrine should be adhered to in the settlement of the boundary dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela, and that the former should not be permitted to encroach upon the territory of the latter. The question was submitted to arbitration and satisfactorily settled on this basis.

Sydney Smith called the Holy Alliance "the Crowned Conspirators of Verona." The absolute sovereigns of Austria, Russia and Prussia signed a declaration that they would intervene to put down revolution against any established government. Thus the principle of intervention was a proclamation that monarchs would support each other's divine rights against the people. It was directed against the right of any people to throw off despotic rule and to make its government for itself. England protested. The Holy Alliance, started by Alexander I., September, 1815, "promises to govern their respective peoples as 'branches of one Christian nation' in accordance with the precepts of justice, charity and peace." This was signed by every Christian ruler on the continent except the Pope. Its name of Holy Alliance, however, was applied to the other League which the three monarchial states, Austria, Russia and Prussia, signed afterwards.

The Holy Alliance wished to restore monarchical control in the revolted Spanish colonies in America. The United States and England objected. The Monroe Doctrine originated, 1822, partly in this action against the Holy Alliance. The United

States objected to the extension of this political system to America.

In the year of the revolution (1848), this system of Metternich's, an absolute monarchical rule, through this Holy Alliance, or unholy alliance, and the suppression of constitutional governments in Europe, was overthrown. There never again was a concert of European powers formed in the interests of despotism.

PAN-AMERICANISM AND THE MONROE DOCTRINE.

In view of the present situation in Mexico, with an armistice agreed upon by the forces of the United States and the Huertistas, while the representatives of Argentina, Brazil and Chile strive to formulate an agreement for peace that will satisfy all nations and factions involved, some review of the progress of Pan-Americanism is interesting.

Few observers of the present situation remember that it was the British prime minister, Canning, who, in conference with United States Minister Rush in 1822, gave the first impetus to that growing solidarity of the North and South American republics which is latterly called Pan-Americanism, and of which the much debated Monroe Doctrine has been the bulwark.

The "Holy Alliance" of the Emperors of Russia and Austria and the King of Prussia was contracted in 1815 without the aid of intervening ministers but by themselves as absolute sovereigns. Their object was primarily to rehabilitate autocracy with "jure divino," and secondarily to prevent the rise of, and to overthrow free governments and to dominate the world. This is the account of it given by Oscar S. Strauss in his new book, "The American Spirit," page 62.

France took a hand in 1823, meddling with the Spanish constitution of the cortez and upholding the absolutism desired by Ferdinand VII. But now the British government protested, disclaiming for itself and denying to other powers the right of requiring any change in the internal institutions of an independent state. Then the allied powers proposed to intervene in South America and Canning wrote to Rush: "Is not the moment come when our governments might understand each other as to the Spanish-American colonies?" He said that while Britain did not aim at possession of any Spanish colonies she "could not view their transfer to any other power with indifference."

ORIGIN OF THE STEP.

If any European plan looked to a forcible entrance into any Spanish-American colony, Britain and the United States might well declare their "joint disapprobation of such projects." He wrote that there had seldom occurred in history such an opportunity for two friendly governments so easily to prevent such extensive calamities.

Though he concurred in the idea, President Monroe did not adopt the proposal of a joint declaration. He maintained that the public policy of the United States, which kept aloof from intermingling with European affairs, implied non-intervention by Europe in the affairs of the west. The phrasing of the Monroe Doctrine shows clearly that it was not set forth in consequence of the acts of the "Holy Alliance" and in response to the advice of Britain.

Mr. Strauss says that the Monroe Doctrine embodies the golden rule of international relations. It is not a producer of war but a harbinger of peace. It hastened not only the independence of the colonies on this hemisphere, but it relieved Europe of the absolutism of the "holy alliance." Lord Brougham said that Monroe's message to Congress was an event "than which none has ever dispersed greater joy, exultation and gratitude over all the freedom of Europe." Canning said, referring to his share of the plan, "I called the new world into existence to redress the balance of the old."

PAN-AMERICANISM'S GROWTH.

In 1882 Secretary Frelinghuysen told James Russell Lowell that the doctrine so formulated by Monroe, expounded by Adams and counseled by Jefferson and Madison, would hardly be controverted by Great Britain, for it was an international doctrine which she herself proposed to the United States when looking to her own interests and which when adopted by the United States she had highly approved. Secretary Fish said, when a settlement of affairs in Central America was pending, that the United States stands solemnly committed by repeated declarations and acts to the Monroe Doctrine. It stands against any increase of European power or influence in the west. It hopefully anticipates the time when European powers shall depart from the western continent and leave it entirely American.

On the other hand the advance of the Pan-American idea has been very slow. The southern republics have, as a whole been desirous neither of a union among themselves nor of union with