dreamed of having, we find it more difficult to buy enough to eat and
wear. As for claims to be jumped: they are on every hand: Panama Canal,
Hawaiian Islands, Philippine Islands, ports of New York and San
Francisco, vast reaches of unprotected coast. No, we are not
sky-pilots, we cannot claim exemption on that ground.

Suppose, after the War, we attempted to disarm, without the protection
of a world court and international police, while the other nations
retained war armament. They, the victors and perhaps the defeated,
would possess a great army and navy, manned with seasoned veterans, and
be burdened with an intolerable debt; for the War has gone too far for
any one to be able to pay adequate indemnity. We, rich, young,
heedless, sure that no one on earth could ever whip us, chiefly because
no one worth while has ever seriously tried: suppose we were completely
disarmed. It would require only a little meddling with Mexico or
Brazil, and we should have to give up the Monroe Doctrine or fight.
Well, perhaps we shall give it up: it has even been suggested in the
halls of Congress that we should--to the shame of the suggester, be it
said. People do not understand the Monroe Doctrine: they talk of it as
if it were a law. It is in no sense a law, but is merely a rather
arrogant expression of our desires. We said to the other nations: "We
desire that none of you henceforth shall fence in any part of our front
or back yard, or the front or back yard of any of our neighbors,
dwelling on the North and South American continents." That is the
Monroe Doctrine, and that is all that it is: an expression of our
wishes. All very well if others choose to respect them, but suppose
some one does not? Perhaps, as stated, we may abandon the Monroe
Doctrine: that is the easiest way, and the easiest way, for a nation or
an individual, is usually the way of damnation. Even so, suppose the
nation in question to say, "My national aspirations demand the Panama