EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT approved by the Bar Association of the country could not but exert a wholesome influence upon the American Bar." PRACTICE. " Theory- of the Case," by W. T. Hughes, Central Law Journal (V.lxiv.p. 128). PRACTICE. "Contempt of Law by Debtors," by W. H. Trueman, Canadian Law Times (V. xxvii, p. 1). PUBLIC POLICY. " The Monroe Doc trine: Its Statics," by John F. Simmons, in the February Mulligan Law Review (V. v, p. 236), summarizes its history to the present time, and in a most positive way declares it to be now an accepted rule of international law. "When it was promulgated in 1824 it was purely a doctrine, adopted by the executive ■of the United States alone, and promulgated to the country and the world through a message of the chief executive, a doctrine intended to state a principle to guide the action of this country in the circumstances then surrounding this continent. It became a policy, a step higher in importance, when the legislative joined the executive branch of the government in recognizing, by sending com missioners thereto, the purpose of the Panama Congress. That the United States never actually acted in that Congress and that that Congress took no action involving the Doctrine except to adopt it as one of the matters to be considered, is of no importance. Thus having become the policy of the govern ment, it so remained and remains unless and until some equally decisive governmental action repeals the policy. A policy adhered to and practiced by this government and recognized by all civilized governments, rises still further in the scale of importance, becomes an integral part of international law when it becomes a rule of conduct accepted as binding by all civilized states. "The Hague Convention, held in 1899, included every civilized nation on earth. That convention resulted in the establishment by a treaty, in which the whole world joined, of a tribunal for the settlement of international disputes by arbitration. This treaty was signed by the United States with the proviso that nothing contained therein should 1 be construed to imply a relinquishment by the
United States of America of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions.' "The Senate of the United States ratified this treaty thus signed. "What was the legal effect of this? "First: The Senate by ratifying it, thereby gave a legislative endorsement to our ' tra ditional attitude toward purely American questions.' That ' attitude ' is and has been the Monroe Doctrine. "Here is another legislative acknowledg ment of the Doctrine, which again takes it out of the category of purely executive political policies. "Second: The whole civilized world ac cepted this signature with the proviso; for the signing of a treaty is, in law, if not in fact, a single act, an act occurring at one time, in which no signature precedes another. As a matter of fact, before our emissaries or those of any other nation put pen to paper, it was fully understood that the United States would sign only with the reservation which now precedes its signature. "Therefore the whole world had notice of our insistence upon the Monroe Doctrine and after that notice they accepted the signature. Thereby they recognized the Doctrine and thus again is it raised into the level of inter national law by the common consent of man kind. This time the consent is not implied. It is express and in writing. Can there be stronger recognition imagined? Xot only is the Monroe Doctrine an accepted one; in Mr. Simmons' view it is one most necessary for the welfare of the Americans. "Colonization here on the part of Euro pean monarchs is not an idle dream. The vast unused portions of the southern part of this continent offer great attractions to the land hunger of those peoples whose confines in Europe are yearly becoming more narrow. If the United States were less strong, or if the severity of the Monroe Doctrine were to be relaxed for one hour, the ' Philistines are upon us ' would be the cry raised from many a fair stretch of pampas in South America, and then just as in 1823 there would be danger for us, constant and threatening always. With a military or naval base on this side of the globe, the limitations of the Hague Convention would be weak indeed to restrain those European
