be one national document of which all the citizens of the United States should be more proud than of any since the Declaration of Independence, and if there is one for which they should be more profoundly grateful than any anterior to the proclamation of emancipation, it is this vigorous American principle, now universally known as the Monroe doctrine.

The two assertions are as follows: "The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle, in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers."

"We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any porton of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any Epuropean power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.

"It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness.

"It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference."

This policy on the part of the United States has never been altered. It was the assertion of the popular view in contradistinction to the despotic dicta of the Holy Alliance, and meant much for the future of popular liberty. In these days of mate

rial interests and commercial supremacy, just how far this policy would go it is difficult to say. That other peoples on this continent have rights as well as those of the United States is undeniaable, and they can negotiate in their own way freely with foreign States for the formation of treaties, even to the cession of territory and the granting of privileges; and just when the United States would intervene has never been accurately determined. The Monroe doctrine has never been enacted into law. It is a political principle, and how much regard foreign States would give it is not at all clear. Still, at every probable attempt at encroachment the doctrine is appealed to by the American press, and the subject is discussed in all its phases. British interference in Nicaragua is a constant cause of vexation to that weak nation and to the commercial interests of the United States therein. The latest instance was when the British undertook to collect a claim against the government by forcible possession of the custom houses in the principal ports of the State until the required indemnity was raised.

In an address delivered in 1891, the Marquis of Salisbury declared most positively that Great Britain would not interfere in internal affairs of the countries of South America. Intervention on her part therein would only be to protect her dependencies should they be menaced by local troubles. An occasion quickly arose when the question of the boundary line between Venezuela and British Guiana became an active one, and the British Government detected a menace very quickly, and its claims to so large a portion of the South American Republic shocked the sense of modern diplomacy, and aroused in this country a spirit that sounded the Monroe doctrine in no uncertain terms. While the matter has not been definitely settled, England no longer insists on the Schomburgk line as the limit of her claim, and the affair is being negotiated in a decent and orderly

manner.

In 1845, President Polk reaffirmed the doctrine when Yucatan, too weak to suppress turbulence among her natives, appealed to France and Spain for help, and upon their refusal to

lend aid, she made overtures to the United States. In 1848, on the subject of Yucatan, President Polk again declared that “we could not consent to a transfer of this dominion and sovereignty either to Spain or Great Britain, or any other European power. It would be dangerous to our peace and security if it should become a colony of any European nation."

The unfortunate occurrences growing out of the attempt to establish an Austro-French Empire in Mexico will be recalled as a recent occasion for the assertion of the Monroe doctrine. Resolute representations were made to the French Cabinet with the result that the Emperor withdrew the French troops from the Mexican territory. The lesson of that incident will not, in all probability, require repetition.

Recurring to the words of Washington already cited, we may remark: Our situation is no longer detached nor distant. Steam, the telegraph and business enterprise, bring us into constant relation with the nations of all the world, and we cannot live an exclusive, isolated existence. Our self-preservation and aggrandizement demand that we look keenly into the movements of our fellow-nations and jealously guard our own affairs. So that, while we study the monitory conservatism of Washington, it must be illumined by the light of experience and the needs and demands of the hour. The rush light and wax candle of the eighteenth century have given place to the Argand burner and incandescent lamp, and not satisfied with the result of these, it is even possible for us to employ the Roentgen ray with scientific accuracy so that even the most remote interior of every complicated question may be made clear. We must live our modern life in our own way, profiting by the lessons of the past, and applying them to new problems whose solution may not be worked out by the old rules, though these may aid in finding the true one. And with the occurences of the last sixty days as a reminder, it seems as if a new national career was opening for us, and we shall need all the practice and skill and determination and wisdom, and caution and patriotism, and foresight and method, and love of right and justice and equity that have

shaped our glorious past. We shall need them all to make our future none the less renowned for virtue and honor. All these, guided and controlled by Divine Providence, shall keep our people truly great-great in peace and prosperity. It is possible that we shall be compelled to have recourse to the Monroe doctrine, and give it force and effect it never before took on; to add to it a significance that has never dignified it. Let combined continental Europe, or any one of its many components, assume to dictate the terms of peace after our controversy with Spain shall have been concluded, and it is needless to say how dire the consequences may be, nor how far-reaching the disasters that may result. It will be eminently becoming for the legally trained of our countrymen to counsel their fellows wisely and well, and not a little share of responsibility will fall upon them if such counsel is not freely and fully given. Public opinion must settle all such controversies, and public opinion should be formed and guided by those whose knowledge and training draw to them the minds and wills of their neighbors. Lessons in coolness and moderation can be taught by every accomplished lawyer, and when to these gifts are added learning and ability, his power in the crisis of this country will be incalculable, no matter where his lot may be cast.

ELECTION LAWS IN TENNESSEE.

J. A. FOWLER.

It was my first intention to give a history of the legislation of our State relative to elections since the civil war. But it was soon ascertained that the statutes have been so numerous and varied in character that it would be impossible to condense an intelligent review of them in a paper of ordinary length. I will, therefore, state as succinctly as possible the exact condition of our present election laws under the following heads: First, Qualifications of Voters; second, Election Officers; and third, Form of Ballot and Manner of Voting. I will then briefly discuss their merits and suggest such amendments as it seems to me would be beneficial.

QUALIFICATIONS OF VOTERS.

By article 2, sec. 5, and article 4, secs. 1 and 2, of the Constitution, the Legislature is expressly prohibited from restricting the elective franchise except for the causes and purposes specinied therein. The causes for which a citizen may be deprived of the right of suffrage in the discretion of the Legislature are: the conviction and sentence for either of such infamous crimes as the Legislature may designate, and the failure to give to the judges of election satisfactory evidence of the payment of the poll taxes assessed against the citizen offering to vote for such preceding period and within such time as the Legislature may prescribe. And the purposes for which the Legislature is authorized to enact laws regulating elections are to secure the freedom of elections and the purity of the ballot box.

Before the adoption of the Constitution of 1870, the Legislature had designated a large number of crimes, a conviction