John Bassett Moore On Uncle Sam As A World Power.

New York Times 100 years ago today, April 6, 1913:
New Counselor of the State Department's Views on Big International Problems That May Confront Our Government in the Near Future.
    PROF. JOHN BASSETT MOORE, the veteran authority on international diplomacy, has been appointed by President Wilson, as Counselor to the Department of State. Among the most important diplomatic issues that may be expected to confront the Secretary of State and his counselors in the near future are the following:
    1.—The treaty with Russia concerning the passport question has expired. The natural question arises whether a new treaty with Russia will be made.
    2.—Should we hold the Philippines?
    3.—To what extent should we recognize the Republic in China; should we, or should we not, force a world intervention to protect American loans on Chinese railroads?
    4.—Should we take up the question of Asiatic immigration, particularly with reference to the admission of Japanese coolies for labor in this country?
    5.—Should we establish reciprocity with Canada?
    6.—Should we decide on preferential tolls for the Panama Canal?
    For each of these important issues, which Prof. Moore will be expected to review from the standpoint of American diplomacy, there is in the history of the United States a precedent.
    Prof. Moore himself has perhaps the most complete knowledge of the diplomatic character and policy of the United States. A few years ago he undertook to define American diplomacy and spirit, and his review of the international policies of his country took up issues like those which will soon confront the Secretary of State.
    For instance, the Chinese question has been answered by the policy of American diplomacy under the ruling of its commercial restriction. This problem was seriously deliberated in the memorable Congress of 1776.
    A similar question to that of the Philippines has been comparatively recently a matter of discussion. It confronted President Cleveland in Cuba and involved the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. President Cleveland in his annual message of Dec. 7, 1896, declared that when Spain's inability to suppress the insurrection had become manifest, and the struggle had degenerated into a hopeless strife involving useless sacrifice of life and the destruction of the very subject matter of the conflict, a situation would be presented in which the obligation to recognize the sovereignty of Spain would be "superseded by higher obligations." The question of Asiatic immigration, with reference to the admission of Japanese coolies into the United States as laborers, is a problem that belongs to our policy of international arbitration.
    The issue of reciprocity with Canada belongs to our diplomatic policy on commercial restrictions.
    The issue of preferential tolls for the Panama Canal is regarded by some as affecting the policy of the United States in regard to the validity of treaties.
    "Nothing could be more erroneous than the supposition that the United States had, as a result of certain changes in its habits, suddenly become within the past few years a 'world power,' " said Prof. Moore in his discussion of American diplomacy. "The United States has in reality always been, in the fullest and highest sense, a world power, and the record of its achievements in the promotion and spread of liberal and humane doctrine is one in which no American need hesitate to own a patriotic pride."
    Declining to give direct answers to the questions submitted concerning the immediate international issues, Prof. Moore said that, in his review upon American diplomacy, its spirit and achievements, the important topics of our foreign policy would be informative concerning the actual diplomatic policy of the United States.
    There is scarcely any phase of the international problem of this country that has come up during Prof, Moore's lifetime that he has not publicly discussed. His selection by the President to assist in the direction of the State Department is significant of President Wilson's attitude regarding the policy of the United States in foreign affairs.
    "The advent of the United States of America," said Prof. Moore, "was of a significance which, although not unfelt at the time, has, in the nature of things, attained far-reaching effects that could not be foreseen. The momentous changes of the last few years make us realize that we are still only standing on the threshold of American history. It is as if its domain were the future rather than the past.
    "When the United States declared independence it took steps to fulfill one of the necessary conditions of National life by endeavoring to enter into diplomatic relations with other powers. On Feb. 6, 1778, two treaties were signed with France, one of commerce, the other of alliance. These were the first treaties between the United States and a foreign power. The commercial treaty was the first; the treaty of alliance was signed immediately afterward.
    "In the treaty of commerce, the original views of the United States as to the opening of the colonial trade and the abolition of discriminating duties were by no means carried out; but the terms actually obtained embodied the most-favored-nation principle.
    "The treaty of alliance, however, was of a totally different nature, and established between the two countries an intimate association. France's recognition of the independence of the United States was on all sides understood to be an act of intervention, which the British Government would resent and oppose. While the persons of our foreign representatives were safe from seizure upon the Continent, they received no substantial recognition outside of France and the Netherlands, during the revolutionary days. Diplomacy, in the course of time, had lost its idle pomp and ceremony, but had gained little in scrupulousness.
    "Between 1776, when independence wag proclaimed, and 1789, when the government under the Constitution was inaugurated, the United States entered into fourteen treaties — six with France, three with Great Britain, two with, the Netherlands, and one each with Sweden, Prussia, and Morocco. A majority of all were negotiated and signed in France — at Paris or Versailles. In 1789 France was in the first throes of the great revolution, which was eventually to involve all Europe in a struggle of unprecedented severity.
    "What attitude was the United States to hold toward this impending conflict?
    "The permanent interests of the United States appeared to be those of neutrality. The new nation, though born, was yet to demonstrate to a somewhat skeptical and not altogether friendly world its right and power to live and grow. It was important to avoid premature commitments. To a perception of this fact is no doubt to be ascribed the appointment by Washington on Jan. 12, 1792, of Gouverneur Morris as Minister to France.
    "On April 18, 1793, Washington submitted to the members of his Cabinet a series of questions touching the relations between the United States and France. At a meeting of the Cabinet on April 19, it was determined to pursue a neutral course. On April 22, 1793, Washington issued his famous proclamation of neutrality.
    "The Neutrality Act of 1794, though originally limited in duration, was afterward extended and then continued in force indefinitely. In order to meet conditions arising out of the war for independence, waged by the Spanish colonies in America, an additional act was passed in 1817. "The early efforts of the United States to establish the rights of neutrals and the freedom of the sea were a part of the great struggle for the liberation of commerce from the restrictions with which the spirit of national monopoly had fettered and confined it. In the contest with commercial restrictions the Government of the United States adopted as the basis of its policy the principle of reciprocity.
    "In all the vast Chinese Empire, as far back as 1839, only one port — that of Canton — was accessible to foreign merchants. The first permanent breach in the wall of seclusion was made by the treaty between Great Britain and China, signed at Nanking Aug. 29, 1842, at the close of the opium war. By this treaty the ports of Canton, Amoy, Foochow, Ningto, and Shanghai were opened to British subjects and their commerce, and the Island of Hong Kong was ceded to Great Britain.
    "The United States soon appeared in the breach. By the act of Congress of March 3, 1843, the sum of $40,000 was placed at the disposal of the President to enable him to establish commercial relations with China on terms of 'national equal reciprocity.' On May 8 of that year Caleb Cushing of Massachusetts was appointed Minister Plenipotentiary and Commissioner to China. All the commercial privileges obtained by Great Britain for her subjects were, with some variations, extended to citizens of the United States, and American citizens were, like British subjects, exempted from Chinese jurisdiction.
    "In 1868 a special Chinese Embassy, headed by Anson Burlingame, signed at Washington the treaty that is known by his name.
    "As American Minister at Peking, Burlingame sought 'to substitute fair diplomatic action in China for force,' a policy which Mr. Seward 'approved with much commendation.' In the years that have since elapsed it may be said that the United States has, in its commercial dealings with China, uniformly adhered to it.
    "In his celebrated circular of July 3, 1900, during the military advance of the powers to the relief of their beleaguered legations in Peking, John Hay declared that the policy of the United States was 'to seek a solution which may bring about permanent safety and peace in China, preserve China's territorial and administrative entity, protect all rights guaranteed to friendly powers by treaties and international law, and safeguard for the world the principle of equal and impartial trade with all parts of the Chinese Empire.'
    "This declaration admirably sums up what have been conceived to be the cardinal principles of American policy in the Far East. In the acquisition of the Philippines the United States declared that its purpose was to maintain in those islands 'an open door to the world's commerce.'
    "The phrase 'open door' is but a condensed expression of 'the principle of equal and impartial trade' for all nations. Its meaning was well illustrated by the stipulation in the treaty of peace with Spain that the United States would, for the term of ten years, 'admit Spanish ships and merchandise to the ports of the Philippine Islands on the same terms as ships and merchandise of the United States.'
    "Japan, like China, had been closed to intercourse with the Western powers, chiefly on account of foreign oppression. To the shallow and sectarian reasoner, the Japan of to-day presents an astounding spectacle of sudden it not miraculous development; but, in reality, Japan is an ancient and polished nation, the roots of whose civilization, though its outward forms may have changed, strike deep into the past.
    "Korea, the Land of the Morning Calm, continued long after the opening of China and Japan to observe a rigorous seclusion. On May 20, 1882, however, Commodore Shufeldt, U.S.N., invested with diplomatic powers and backed by the friendly good offices of Li Hung-Chang, concluded the first treaty made by a Western power with the Hermit Kingdom. The last great barrier of national non-intercourse was broken down, and, no matter what may be Korea's ultimate fate, it is not likely to be restored.
    "Among the rules of conduct prescribed for the United States by the statesmen who formulated its foreign policy, none was conceived to be more fundamental or more distinctively American than that which forbade intervention in the political affairs of other nations. It may be said that the most pronounced exception to this policy ever made by the United States, apart from cases arising under the Monroe Doctrine, was made in the case of Cuba. At various times, since the United States became an independent nation, conditions in Cuba had been such as to invite interference either for the purpose of correcting disorders which existed there or preventing Cuba from falling a prey to some of Spain's European enemies.
    "In Europe, governments had been treated as legitimate or illegitimate, according to what was conceived to be the regularity or the irregularity of the succession of their rulers. The attitude of the United States on this question was early defined, when the National Convention in France proclaimed a Republic. On that occasion Jefferson, as Secretary of State, wrote a letter which has become a classic. In it he said:
    We surely cannot deny to any nation that right whereon our own Government is founded, that every one may govern itself according to whatever form it pleases, and change these forms at its own will; and that it may transact its business with foreign nations through whatever organ it thinks proper, whether king, convention, assembly, committee, President, or anything else it may choose. The will of the nation is the only thing essential to be regarded.
    "From this principle it necessarily follows that recognition can regularly be accorded only when a new Government has demonstrated its ability to exist. Recognition extended at an early stage of the revolution savors of an act of intervention, and as such must depend on its merits, as was clearly set forth in President Roosevelt's message of Jan. 4, 1904, in relation to the recognition of the Republic of Panama.
    "In connection with the principle of non-intervention, a prominent place must be given to the Monroe Doctrine, the object of which was to render intervention unnecessary by precluding the occasions for it. An official exposition of the Monroe Doctrine was given by President Roosevelt in his annual message of Dec. 3, 1901, in which he said:
    The Monroe Doctrine is a declaration that there must be no territorial aggrandizement by any non-American power at the expense of any American power on American soil. It is in no wise intended as hostile to any nation in the Old World. This doctrine has nothing to do with the commercial relations of any American power, save that it in truth allows each of them to form such as they desire. We do not guarantee any State against punishment if it misconducts itself, provided that punishment does not take the form of the acquisition of territory by any non-American power.
    "The Monroe Doctrine, as a limitation upon the extension of European power and influence upon the American continents, is now generally recognized as a principle of American policy.
    "The doctrine of expatriation, which the Declaration of Independence suggests where it enumerates the 'inalienable rights,' with which 'all men are endowed by their Creator,' 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ' is peculiarly an American policy. The most difficult case to deal with under this doctrine is that of Russia. Referring to the situation created by foreign laws governing the rights of foreign citizens, President McKinley, in his annual message of Dec. 5, 1899, said:
    Our statutes do not allow this Government to admit any distinction between the treatment of natives and naturalized Americans abroad, so that ceaseless controversy arises in cases where persons owing in the eye of international law a dual allegiance are prevented from entering, or are expelled after entering. Our law in this regard contrasts with that of the European States. The British act, for instance, does not claim effect for the naturalization of an alien in the event of his return to his native country, unless the change be recognized by the law of that country or stipulated by treaty between it and the naturalizing State.
    "No one has ever contended that the naturalization of an alien is ineffective in the country in which it is granted. The only question that has existed is as to its effect in other countries, and, especially, in the country of origin.
    "The United States, having proclaimed as the basis of its political system the consent of the Government, has cherished as its ideal a peaceful nation, always guided by reason and justice. In order that this ideal might be attained, it perceives the necessity of establishing international relations on definite and sure foundations. Its predilection for legal matters found expression in the employment of arbitration.
    "By arbitration we mean the decision of controversies by international tribunals judicial in their constitution and powers. Arbitration is not to be confused, however, with mediation. Mediation is an advisory, arbitration a Judicial, process. Mediation recommends, arbitration decides. But the importance of mediation, as one of the forms of amicable negotiation, should not be minimized. A plan of mediation may, as in the case of The Hague convention for the peaceable settlement of international dispute, form a useful auxiliary to a system of arbitration, but it should nevertheless be understood that the two processes are fundamentally different, and that, while mediation is only a form of diplomacy, arbitration consists in the application of laws to the determination of international disputes.
    "Down to 1898, when the controversy as to Cuba was at length settled by the sword, all differences between the United States and Spain, which could not be adjusted by diplomacy, were settled by arbitration. The subject of general arbitration between American nations, was taken up, for the second time, by the Second International Conference of American States, which met at the City of Mexico on Oct. 22, 1901. There appeared to be, as the American members of the conference reported, a unanimous sentiment in favor of 'arbitration as a principle,' but a great difference of opinion as to the extent to which the principle should be carried.
    "When we consider the future of international arbitration, whether in America or elsewhere, we are at once confronted with the question as to its limitation. Is it possible to fix any precise bounds beyond which this mode of settling international disputes may be said to be impracticable? Certain definite lines can be drawn, but this is far from affirming that the use of force in the conduct of international affairs will soon be abolished. It signifies merely that phrases such as 'national honor' and 'national self-defense,' which have been employed in describing supposed exceptions to the principle of arbitration, convey no definitive meaning. Questions of honor and of self-defense are, in international as in private relations, matters partly of circumstance and partly of opinion.
    "By the convention with the Republic of Panama of Nov. 18, 1903, the United States acquired in perpetuity the use, occupation, and control of a zone ten miles wide on the Isthmus of Panama, and certain adjacent Islands, for the purposes of an interoceanic canal. Within these lands and the adjacent waters the United States possesses 'all the rights, powers, and authority' which it would have if it were the sovereign of the territory within which the lands and waters lie. Besides, the United States has acquired or assumed jurisdiction over many islands in various parts of the world. " The actual acquisition of territory by the United States by no means indicates the scope of its diplomatic activity in that direction. Efforts have been made to annex territory which has not eventually been occupied. As late as 1870 the annexation of Canada was the subject of informal discussion between British and American diplomatists.
    "The effect of democratic tendencies upon American diplomacy was seen in the course of the Government of the United States with regard to diplomatic uniforms. As early as 1817 American Ministers had a prescribed dress. This dress consisted of a blue coat lined with white silk, a straight cape embroidered with gold and single breasted, buttons plain or with an eagle stamped upon them, cuffs embroidered in the same manner as the cape, white cashmere breeches, gold knee buckles, white silk stockings, gold or gilt shoe buckles, a three-cornered hat, not so large as that used by the French nor so small as that used by the English; a black cockade with an eagle attached, and a sword. On special occasions, American Ministers were allowed to wear more embroidery, as well as a white ostrich feather, not standing erect, but sewed around the brim of their hats. On June 1, 1853, at the request of William L. Marcy, Secretary of State, American Ministers were desired to appear 'in the simple dress of an American citizen.'
    "It was once assumed to be undesirable to introduce into the American diplomatic service a grade of officials deriving extraordinary ceremonial privileges from the fact that they were supposed in a peculiar sense to represent the 'person of the sovereign.' Secretary Frelinghuysen. viewing the matter in a practical light, thought it would be unjust to American Ministers to increase their rank without raising their salary, and that Congress could not with propriety be asked to make them 'an allowance commensurate with the necessary mode of life of an Ambassador.' Nevertheless, in 1893, a higher grade was introduced. It scarcely will be claimed that there was any necessity for this measure.
    "In the days before American Ambassadors existed, a visitor to London sought to learn who was the most important 'Ambassador' at the Court of St. James's. A European member of the diplomatic corps, to whom the inquiry was addressed, promptly replied:
    " 'The American Minister.'
    "To-day none but a man of fortune can afford to be an American Ambassador. The Republic has as yet suffered no detriment by reason of this, but the creation of conditions under which persons of moderate means are excluded from the highest public employment, except at a sacrifice which they can ill afford to make or cannot make at all, is not in harmony with what has been conceived to be an American ideal."