it should, in Chinese fashion, cut itself off entirely from commercial intercourse. In all these matters, it must rely upon cooperation with other national administrations, and only in a normal and wellregulated system of international police and sanitary administration can security be found. Similarly, a complete right to a patent or to the reproduction of a literary work can not be given by any national state, but it can result only from the common action of all civilized states. The moral right which the author of a book or an invention has, to be paid for the worth and utility contained in the product of his mind, can be protected only within narrow limits by an individual state. Its complete establishment is a matter for which universal legislative arrangements are necessary. Numerous examples of this kind will immediately occur to the reader. It is evident that there are growing groups of advantages which are obtained by men as members of civilized society rather than of any particular state. Such advantages the states owe it to their citizens to foster and develop, in order that the latter may enjoy what in reason they are entitled to. The state is powerless to create these advantages by its own unaided efforts. It can secure them for its citizens only through cooperation with other states.

International cooperation may at the present state of our civilization be represented as an ethical duty. No state has the right by headstrong aloofness from international movements to exclude its citizens from the advantages of civilization. But this ethical duty is reinforced by a very practical necessity, which is plain to any common-sense administration. As a matter of fact, the state which would isolate itself from the Postal Union or the Sanitary Union would act in as irrational a manner as an individual who would leave the abodes of civilization to pass his life in the unhealthy and inhospitable wilderness of a swamp. The laws created by international cooperation have an actual and potent sanction in the suffering and loss which are inevitably consequent upon their nonobservance. If we consider for a moment the international organ to which the most positive powers have been given, the Sugar Commission, we will recognize the workings of necessity in its creation. The farreaching powers which have been given to this body did not result

from any preconceived plan that the establishment of an international authority of this kind would be desirable. On the contrary, they were forced upon the unwilling members of the conference by the conditions which had been brought about on the sugar-producing world by the practice of granting national bounties. The disastrous results produced by this species of national competition could be avoided only by the creation of a powerful international authority. The evils were so great that the measures for their removal presented themselves to the delegates in the form of unavoidable necessity; and they acted in accordance with the conclusion, although they tried to improve the appearance of their action by substituting the word "executory" for "obligatory" in speaking of the determinations to be made by the commission. The decided step forward which was thus taken in the organization of international unity was due not by any means to theoretical considerations, but to the presence of a practical condition which demanded specific action of this kind. The development of international administration is favored in general by the principle that action will not be taken unless all the parties are agreed as to its desirability. In the older type of treaties between nations the purpose was the conciliation and compromise of conflicting interests. The new economic treaties strive to discover, on the contrary, a basis for cooperation, an essential equality of interests between all the nations upon which permanent international arrangements may be founded. The unanimity required for this kind of legislation can not, however, be permanently defeated by mere capricious opposition on the part of one or several states. When it is once clearly discovered that a basis for international cooperation exists, the reluctant states will generally be forced in the event to accede to the agreement, because they very soon find that exclusion from the advantages of the union means a serious loss to their own interests.

The effect of this new development, which we have been reviewing, upon the spirit and the methods of diplomacy can not but be salutary. Although diplomacy has not yet entirely lost its old popular reputation, according to which its methods were held to be synonymous with shrewdness, scheming, and chicane, it is clearly apparent that

a very different point of view of international relations is obtaining the leading influence in the diplomatic world. Instead of dealing only with the nice balancing of political interests, and attempting to gain more or less ephemeral advantages by shrewd negotiation, the new diplomacy makes its main purpose the establishment of a basis for frank cooperation among the nations in order that, through common action, advantages may be obtained which no isolated state could command if relying merely on its own resources. John Quincy Adams, in his Diary, says of a certain British diplomat: "The mediocrity of his talents has been one of the principal causes of his success;" and in the past merely neutral social virtues were indeed often accounted sufficient for diplomatic efficiency. The present makes more exacting requirements, and as the complexity of economic and social interests increases, efficient diplomats will have to be men of "great energy of mind, activity of research, and fertility of expedients," to use the words by which Adams expresses the qualities not so essential to ordinary diplomatic intercourse in his day. In order adequately to represent his nation, a minister ought to keep himself informed, through touch with expert opinion and with the progress of affairs, of the various world-wide economic, industrial, and intellectual activities, by which the welfare of his nation is intimately affected. A diplomat who masters these relations and keeps himself advised upon these movements will be able to secure many advantages for his own country, and he may, moreover, perform important services in helping to work out a basis for effective international cooperation in fields where such action is required by the very interests of his own nation.

The process of international organization frequently favors the expansion of the sphere of the national government. When interests are organized upon an international basis, the persons and associations concerned begin to see more clearly how their purposes may be furthered through state action. They consequently demand new legislation as well as the expansion of the administrative sphere, and urge the government to use its organs for the purpose of securing the greatest possible advantages for the individual citizen. The example of other nations is appealed to, and in every way the state is encour

aged to make the fullest use of its powers. The organization of the agricultural interests upon an international basis, recent as it is, has already produced an insistent demand for greater state activity. The control which the state exercises over the conditions of labor is stimulated to greater action by the international agreements and conventions on that subject. In our country the agitation for a parcels-post service proceeds mostly from those persons who have realized the advantages which national industry may gain in foreign markets through the use of this method; so if this system should be introduced it would be due very largely to the importance of international relations.

It is very important to note that the organization of the economic and social activities of the world is being based upon the representation of interests in definite organs. While the parliamentary systems of the national states are still based on the abstract quantitative idea, the more natural system of interest representation is being used in international affairs. Undoubtedly the international movement will be strengthened by this fact, because a social or economic interest is an entity possessed of independent potentiality of action. If world organization spontaneously takes this form from the beginning, it will profit by the combined energies which all these interests represent.

The effect which international organization has exercised upon the methods and processes of national administration has been salutary. In the international conventions and congresses, methods are compared, criticisms and suggestions are made, and the best experience of the world is centralized; all of which may be turned to advantage by progressive national administrations. Moreover, a certain responsibility comes to be felt by the individual governments, over against each other. It would be embarrassing to be discovered in the use of antiquated and unscientific processes. The result is a greater efficiency of administrative action throughout the world. Moreover, through the public organization of scientific bodies, the latest results of pure and applied science are placed at the disposal of governments. The scientific branches in the administration of modern states are so important and their influence upon governmental

action is so direct that the organization of scientific work upon an international basis would in itself constitute a movement of prime importance.

It would be interesting to compare the internationalism of the present with the cosmopolitan movements which the world has seen at former periods of its history. A distinct difference separates the cosmopolitanism of the close of the eighteenth century from that of our own days. The rationalist cosmopolitanism is still current in much of our literature, although in practical affairs we have almost entirely outlived it in this particular form. It is individualistic and humanitarian, and recognizes no institutions between the individual and humanity. Every person is supposed to be inspired with a feeling of universal human brotherhood, and to strive for the abstract purposes of humanity. Cosmopolitanism of this kind caused Byron to weep when the enemy of his country was defeated, and Goethe to look on with indifference when the land of his fathers was invaded by the troops of Napoleon.

The cosmopolitanism of our days is concrete and practical. It rests upon the idea of cooperation in constantly expanding circles. For this purpose, adequate institutions must be created in order that international action may become real. The national state is not regarded as a superfluous obstacle. As international advantages are essential to the citizen, so the state remains necessary to the achievement of internationalism. The temper of the age is positive and constructive rather than given to idealism and speculation. The void which the old cosmopolitan ideal left between the individual and humanity is being filled up by the creation of institutions through which the individual may gradually be raised, by almost imperceptible degrees, from the narrow limits of personality to the broad aims of civilization. This internationalism respects ethnic and national entities as essential forms of social organization within their proper limits; just as the modern state respects the autonomy of towns, provinces, and member states, because out of these component elements it is itself constructed. As through the consciousness of the city and of the national state we gradually develop into a consciousness of world unity, we shall not be able to dispense with