aggression, or with the intention of dominating the affairs of these countries or their governments, has slight knowledge of the aims and actual endeavors of the Department of State. We are not seeking to extend this relation but to limit it; we are aiming not to exploit but to aid; not to subvert, but to help in laying the foundations for sound, stable, and independent government. Our interest does not lie in controlling foreign peoples; that would be a policy of mischief and disaster. Our interest is in having prosperous, peaceful, and law-abiding neighbors with whom we can cooperate to mutual advantage.

Fifth. It is apparent that the Monroe doctrine does not stand in the way of Pan-American cooperation; rather it affords the necessary foundation for that cooperation in the independence and security of American States. The basis of Pan Americanism is found in the principles of the Farewell Address. There was striking prophecy in the hope expressed by Jefferson that we would recognize "the advantages of a cordial fraternalization among all the American nations” and what he described as "the importance of their coalescing in an American system of policy." That system is not hostile to Europe; it simply conserves the opportunity for the cultivation of the interests which are distinctively American.

With the aim of furthering this Pan-American cooperation there have been five Pan-American conferences, the last of which was recently held in Santiago. The best results of these conferences are not to be found in any formal acts or statements but in the generation of helpful and friendly influences which draw peoples together through.a better mutual understanding. There is always a tendency in connection with this cooperation to emphasize plans and purposes of a political nature, and if these are not successfully developed, there is a disposition to minimize achievement. The most fruitful work, however, is generally found along less sensational lines where there is real progress in facilitating the interchanges of commerce and culture. Important as are these general Pan-American conferences, I should give large place to the utility of special conferences to meet specific needs. Thus, one of the most promising results of the recent Santiago conference was in the provision for special conferences on the standardization of specifications of raw materials, tools, machinery,

supplies, and other merchandise in order to promote economy in production and distribution; on public health; on eugenics and homoculture; on the codification of international law; on education; on electrical communications; on the uniformity of communications statistics; on automobile highways; and, last but not least, on the dissemination of news.

The essential condition of cooperation is peace, and this government is constant in its endeavors to promote peace in this hemisphere by using its good offices, whenever they are welcome, in eliminating the causes of strife, and in making provision for the settlement of disputes that cannot be adjusted by diplomacy. Almost all boundary disputes in Latin America have been settled, and those that remain are in process of adjustment. Especially gratifying was the enlightened action of the Governments of Chile and Peru in their recent agreement concluded at Washington for the arbitration by the President of the United States of certain questions growing out of the treaty of Ancon with respect to the territory of Tacna-Arica. Such efforts are not in strictness an application of the Monroe doctrine, but they are facilitated by its recognition.

Finally, it should be observed that the Monroe doctrine is not an obstacle to a wider international cooperation, beyond the limits of Pan-American aims and interests, whenever that cooperation is congenial to American institutions. From the foundation of the Government we have sought to promote the peaceful settlement of international controversies. Prior to the first peace conference at The Hague in 1899 the United States had participated in 57 arbitrations. The United States became a party to the two Hague conventions for establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, at the same time safeguarding its historic position. by stating, as a part of the ratification, that nothing contained in these conventions should "be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not entering upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in the political questions or internal administration of any foreign States" or "be construed to imply relinquishment by the United States of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions."

It should be further observed that the establishment of a permanent court of international justice, which might make available the facilities of a permanent tribunal (instead of the less satisfactory provision of temporary tribunals of arbitration) to governments desiring to submit their controversies to it, has been a distinct feature of the policy of the Government of the United States for many years. We are also interested in measures of conciliation and in the facilities of conference. Our desire to cooperate in maintaining peaceful relations, in removing the misapprehensions and suspicion which are the most fruitful causes of conflict, in relieving the burdens of injurious and unnecessary competition in armament, in maintaining the declared principles of fair and equal opportunity, is sufficiently attested by the treaties which were concluded at the recent Washington conference. Moreover, aside from that obvious field of international cooperation in which we have postal conventions, rules of navigation, protection of submarine cables, regulation of fisheries, preservation of rights of property, copyrights and trademarks, etc., our people have always and earnestly desired to join in the humanitarian endeavor of the nations for the elimination of common ills, the prevention of the spread of disease, and the restriction or prevention of abuses with which it is impracticable to deal effectively by the separate action of governments. This was shown many years ago when we joined in international conventions for the purpose of putting an end to the African slave trade, and it has had very definite illustration of late in our endeavor to make international action effective in controlling the pernicious distribution of narcotic drugs.

Our attitude is one of independence, not of isolation. Our people are still intent upon abstaining from participation in the political strife of Europe. They are not disposed to commit this Government in advance to the use of its power in unknown contingencies, preferring to reserve freedom of action in the confidence of our ability and readiness to respond to every future call of duty. They have no desire to put their power in pledge, but they do not shirk cooperation with other nations whenever there is a sound basis for it and a consciousness of community of interest and aim. Cooperation is not dictation, and it is not par

tisanship. On our part it must be the cooperation of a free people drawing their strength from many racial stocks, and a cooperation that is made possible by a preponderant sentiment permitting governmental action under a system which denies all exercise of autocratic power. It will be the cooperation of a people of liberal ideals, deeply concerned with the maintenance of peace and interested in all measures which find support in the common sense of the country as being practicable and well designed to foster common interests.

To such aims the Monroe doctrine is not opposed, and with the passing of 100 years it remains a cherished policy, inimical to no just interest and deemed to be vitally related to our own safety and to the peaceful progress of the peoples of this hemisphere.

THE INCOME TAX UNIT.

BY

WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD,

CHAIRMAN OF TAX SIMPLIFICATION BUREAU,

WASHINGTON, D. C.

What is the matter with the Income Tax Unit? is a question that is being asked from the Mexican Border to Canada. The answers vary from a disclaimer that anything is the matter, on the part of some of the insiders, to the assertion that the present organization can never carry on its work in a satisfactory manner or complete it within a reasonable time, on the part of an aggrieved taxpayer. "Speed up the audit of returns," says one; "Decentralize the unit," suggests another; "Amend the act," insists a third.

In attempting to say what is the matter with the Income Tax Unit, I would not have you consider me a representative of the government, or attribute my remarks to the Treasury Department. The Tax Simplification Board is composed of three persons appointed by the President to represent the public, of whom I am one, and three persons appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury from the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Those of us representing the public conceive it to be our duty to maintain the viewpoint of the taxpayers and since they constitute less than 7 per cent of the public, the attitude of the people at large. The primary trouble is with the Revenue Act, or rather, the Revenue Acts; for the bureau is now administering the Acts of 1917, 1918, and 1921. The yoke imposed by previous revenue laws was easy and its burden comparatively light. Our government entered the World War in the spring of 1917-" and it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed."

Congress was concerned in securing the revenue, getting it quickly and taking it where it could be found. Being engaged in a colossal war, our representatives did not philosophize upon the