without choice and cannot leave without taking leave of his life. The citizen of America may become one of England, the Baptist a Methodist, the lawyer a banker, the Elk a Mason, the Republican a Socialist, the capitalist a proletarian. But the son, father, uncle, cousin cannot cease to be these; he cannot reject the relationships these words express, nor alter them. If they obtain once, they obtain forever. So an Irishman is always an Irishman, a Jew always a Jew. Irishman or Jew is born; citizen, lawyer, or church-member is made. Irishman and Jew are facts in nature; citizen and church-member are artefacts in civilization. Natural groups, like the Irish, the Jews, or any nationality, cannot be destroyed without destroying their members. Artificial groups, like states, churches, professions, castes, can. These are social organizations; natural groups are social organisms; are, as nationalities, organisms conscious of their nature, their powers, their interests and desires, conscious, in a word, of their social personality, and acting in such a way as to preserve, enhance, and perfect it.

Empirically, then, what is affirmed in 1914 concerning nationality is the natural right which was declared in 1776 inalienable to personality. The "principle of nationality may be stated in paraphrase of the Declaration of Independence: All nationalities are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, among them being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Το secure these rights governments are instituted among nationalities, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. .

That is, the principle of nationality is an extension of the scope of democracy from single to group personalities. Its application to artificial persons of the group order corporations and the like within the state is traditional; the struggle for its application to the nationality is only just culminating. As the declaration supplied the governing concept for the constitution of the United States, so the "principle of nationality" supplies it for the constitution of mankind. International organization,

it implies, depends upon reciprocal national responsibility, and indicates, hence, a nationhood suffrage parallel to manhood suffrage: one nation, one vote. Could this doctrine ever have been adequately applied, Europe would have had a happier history. Differences between nationalities and their corresponding states in numbers, size, wealth, quality, and power, however, weighted the influence of nations variously and unduly; encouraged in international affairs, fear, jealousy, and suspicion to such a degree that the modicum of justice and fair dealing which the United States uniquely offered Nicaragua and Mexico was looked at askance; kept international behavior set upon a policy of laissez-faire, which only the growing economic interdependence of the world has succeeded in modifying. The internal affairs of states, no matter how rotten, are holy, taboo to all interference. An outraged German government whines over the presumption in President Wilson's reply to the Pope's peace proposals and cannot interfere with Turkey's treatment of Armenia; the govern

ments of our allies tread softly with regard to one another's sacred inwards. No interference in a state's internal affairs; no responsibility in foreign policy; no accountability, except to force, in anything. Each nation, each government is sovereign. Each nationality wants sovereignty. And sovereignty is irresponsibility. Sovereignty is international anarchy.

Under the prevailing system the demands of the nationalities are just. Without sovereignty, the policy of international laissez-faire, tempered by piratical imperialism, leaves a nationality at the mercy of any exploiter who is stronger. Without sovereignty it fears the security of its life, of its liberty, of its free way to happiness. Without sovereignty it is hampered in performing what Mazzini has called

its special function in the European work of civilization." But this sovereignty is also its enemy. It is the ground of international rivalry, the source of the afflatus called "national honor," of militarism, and of dynastic domination. The "principle of nationality" solves nothing if it

commits the post-bellum settlement to an increased number of sovereignties. It fails of its purpose if it fails to secure an open way for the spontaneous powers and happiness of nationalities. Without this security there can be no lasting peace; and under contemporary international law sovereignty both is and is not this security.

The problem of the reorganization of Europe can find its solution only in conditions that will unequivocally secure this end and just as unequivocally abolish the menace to this end which its present insurance, sovereignty, contains.