nuisance of Mexico, and nobody can foresee the complica-
tions that will arise out of the anarchy there prevailing.
We have the Monroe Doctrine still to maintain. Our rela-
tions to Europe have been shown to be very near by our
experience in pursuing lawfully our natural rights in our
trade upon the Atlantic Ocean with European countries.
Both belligerents have violated our rights, and in the now
nearly two years which have elapsed since the war began
we have been close to war in the defense of those rights.
Contrast our present world relations with those we had in
Washington's time. It would seem clear that the conditions
have so changed as to justify a seeming departure from
advice directed to such a different state of things. One
may reasonably question whether the United States, by
uniting with the other great powers to prevent the recur-
rence of future world war, may not risk less in assuming
the obligations of a member of the League than by refusing
to become such a member in view of her world-wide in-
terests. But even if the risk of war to the United States
would be greater by entering the League than by staying
out of it, does not the United States have a duty, as a mem-
ber of the family of nations, to do its part and run its neces-
sary risk to make less probable the coming of such another
war and such another disaster to the human race?

We are the richest nation in the world, and in the sense of
what we could do were we to make reasonable preparation
we are the most powerful nation in the world. We have
been showered with good fortune. Our people have enjoyed
a happiness known to no other people. Does not this im-
pose upon us a sacred duty to join the other nations of the
world in a fraternal spirit and with a willingness to make
sacrifices if we can promote the general welfare of men?

-73-