The subject of supervisory or paramount control is considered in the following section, but in relation to the question of Panama we may here appropriately quote a letter which President Roosevelt on January 18, 1904, addressed to Cecil Arthur Spring-Rice, at the British Foreign Office, London:

"I have been having most interesting times. I have succeeded in accomplishing a certain amount which I think will stand. I believe I shall put through the Panama treaty (my worst foes being those in the Senate and not those outside of the borders of the United States) and begin to dig the canal. It is always difficult for me to reason with those solemn creatures of imperfect aspirations after righteousness, who never take the trouble to go below names. These people scream about the injustice done Colombia when Panama was released from its domination, which is precisely like bemoaning the wrong done to Turkey when Herzegovina was handed over to Austria. It was a good thing for Egypt and the Soudan, and for the world, when England took Egypt and the Soudan. It is a good thing for India that England should control it. And so it is a good thing, a very good thing, for Cuba and for Panama and for the world that the United States has acted as it has actually done during the last six years. The people of the United States and the people of the Isthmus and the rest of mankind will all be the better because we dig the Panama Canal and keep order in its neighborhood. And the politicians and revolutionists at Bogota are entitled to precisely the amount of sympathy we extend to other inefficient bandits." (Theodore Roosevelt and His Time, shown in his own letters, by Joseph Bucklin Bishop, New York, 1920, Vol. I, p. 297.)

In most of the instances of recourse to international police power, it will be found that the action is taken in

regard to some state over which there has grown up in some sort an habitual control as was the case in regard to the Isthmus of Panama.

$10. SUPERVISION

International law is based upon the principle of territorial sovereignty and looks to those communities which have the ability to maintain their independence for the enforcement of international law within the jurisdiction over which they are recognized as sovereign. The states which fulfil this expectation are recognized as independent and as full members of the society of nations. But international relations are complicated by the presence of a considerable number of states who, notwithstanding the formal recognition of their full legal status as members of the society of states, are not in fact always able to fulfil satisfactorily the requirements which international law imposes upon them, either because they are unable to exact from other states a due regard for their international rights or because within their own jurisdiction, they are unable to maintain order and to secure for aliens the peaceful enjoyment of the rights to which they are entitled.32

32 No entirely satisfactory term can be found to express the relationship considered in this section. Various words have been employed, such as "hegemony, " "primacy," "police jurisdiction" (Bernard: Non-Intervention, p. 24), "tutelage ibid, p. 8; cf. Moore: Asylum in Legations, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 7 (1892) p. 16), "surveillance" (A. H. Snow: The Question of Aborigines in the Law and Practice of Nations, p. 21, 27), "next friend," "international patron" (ibid, p. 21), "international guardianship" (ibid, p. 21). "Client State" (Lawrence: Principles, 4th ed., § 39, p. 66, § 64, p. 126).

Professor Bernard well depicts this condition of statehood: "All men are not in fact completely free, nor are all states

It is evident that the neighboring states suffer the principal inconvenience from this situation. Their extensive relations with the state in question oblige them more frequently to have recourse to force to secure redress for the violation of their rights, and they are constantly a prey to apprehension lest some powerful state, claiming to seek redress, acquire a dangerous political control over these adjacent territories. States of the second rank are not able to offer any effective opposition to such designs, but if amongst the neighbors of the delinquent state (incapacitated state), there be one of the first rank, it will never permit a distant rival to establish its influence and control so near at hand. But it is difficult to interfere with the action of any state seeking reasonable redress, unless the intercompletely sovereign. There may be states in name, which are not such in reality-Governments which labor under an incurable incapacity to govern, and which a makeshift policy keeps alive under an irregular and capricious tutelage, in order to avoid, on the one hand, the embarrassments which would be occasioned by their fall, and to prevent, on the other, as far as possible, (for such efforts often come too late,) atrocious barbarities and gross oppressions. To such cases the principle does not apply, and the hopeless infirmity which makes interference necessary is an evil that we have to deal with in the best way we can. Again, there is the anomalous thing called a 'Protected State'-a relation which almost necessarily involves more or less of falsehood, in which you have on the one side a galling or corrupting dependence, and, on the other, power without definite responsibility and responsibilities without effective control." (Mountague Bernard: The Principles of non-intervention (1860), p. 7-8); Westlake's (International Law, I: 121-144) study of "Colonial Protectorates" and "Spheres of Influence" is also of interest.

"Supervision" seemed on the whole to best express the relationship. I have recently been gratified to find that the late Alpheus H. Snow used this same designation in the project of a code of the Law of Nations published in the proceedings of the American Society of International Law (1911, p. 330).

fering neighbor state is willing to assume a certain responsibility to supervise the incapacitated state and to see that it fulfils its obligations. If the great power that exercises this supervision is careful to refrain from all unnecessary interference in the internal affairs of the state in question, the incapacitated state will generally recognize that the supervising state shields it from falling a prey to the rapacity of some other less considerate power. In the course of time, and as a result of the recognition of the mutual advantage of this relationship, the state of the first rank will be established de facto in a position of supervision or control over its weaker neighbor. Even though this situation receive not recognition in international law, in practice it will be taken into account by the governments of all the states.

33

There are various degrees of this supervisory control. The United States exercises such supervision over the states of Central America, and in some measure over South America as well. This is what is sometimes spoken of as a regional control.31

33This process recalls the beneficium and commendatio of the feudal system.

34 For a short account of the Monroe Doctrine brought up to date, see John Bassett Moore: Principle of American Diplomacy, p. 238-269; Bibliography, p. 268. Professor Moore says (ibid, p. 258-9), "The 'Monroe Doctrine' has in reality become a convenient title by which is denoted principle that doubtless would have been wrought out if the message of 1823 had never been written-the principle of the limitation of European power and influence in the Western Hemisphere. The void filled by this limitation on Europe is filled by the counterbalancing hegemony of the United States.

A study of the history of American Diplomacy indicates that there has been a tendency on the part of the United States to use this paramount position to protect the weaker and more backward American States from European dictation and all coercion above and beyond what was reasonable to obtain redress. Even when measures of force have been reasonably

Other states exercise a similar authority over adjacent states that are not by their own unaided efforts employed, the satisfaction exacted has not been allowed to include the cession of territory or the establishment of a supervision over the finances or other internal affairs of the delinquent state. In place thereof, the United States exerts itself to arrange a satisfactory settlement without, nevertheless, assuming or shouldering the responsibility by guaranteeing the payment. In a less conspicuous manner, this government has exercised diplomatic pressure to prevent wars and restrict the revengeful acts of warring factions. As regards territory in proximity to its frontiers or to the Canal (perhaps also all American territory), the United States is understood to prohibit even a voluntary transfer to any European country. This perhaps affords the clearest evidence of the regional control of the United States. Professor Moore, in the work above referred to, and in his "Digest of International Law," supplies the evidence in support of these assertions. More recently, President Wilson's administration has extended the scope of this regional control so as to forbid the establishment of new governments by crimes and in violation of constitutional principles, notably in the case of Huerta (see Moore: Principles of American Diplomacy, p. 217-225) and still more recently in that of the Tinoco Government in Costa Rica. (See World, August 3, 1920.) Whatever difference of opinion may exist as to the justification and wisdom of this policy, its effect to bring the states in question more closely under the supervisory control of the United States can hardly be questioned.

The relation of the United States to the little African Republic of Liberia is described by Alpheus H. Snow in his scholarly consideration of "The Question of Aborigines in the Law and Practice of Nations" (Government Printing Office, Washington, 1919, p. 21): "The American negro settlements on the west coast of Africa maintained a precarious existence and an indefinite international status. They resembled colonies of the United States to some extent, but the United States, on account of the Monroe doctrine, denied itself sovereignty over them, and asserted their independence under its patronage. Their international independence was at last recognized and the State of Liberia came into existence. The United States has stood in the position of 'next friend,' or international patron, disclaiming sovereignty or control of any kind, but holding itself morally obligated to use its good offices on behalf of Liberia in all international complications. It has thus maintained a species of international guardianship