Almost immediately upon the signing of the armistice the Carnegie Endowment decided to establish an organization which should help develop good will between the American people and the citizens of other countries by promoting the study and understanding of our civilization and culture by them and of their civilization and culture by us. The prime movers in the plan were Elihu Root and Dr. Butler, and I was invited to become the Director of the new organization. I was requested to suggest a name for it and did suggest calling it the Institute of International Relations. My idea was that the Institute should study all aspects of the life of a country---its political, economic, social, and cultural conditions---and distribute the results of these studies widely among the agencies of information in the United States for subsequent dissemination among our people. I then hoped to secure cooperation in the European countries looking to the adoption of a similar program. Mr. Root was an unusually able statesman but a very conservative and cautious man. He vetoed the plan and the name on the ground that it would be encroaching upon the domain of the State Department, of which he had been Secretary only a few years before. Moreover, he stated that such an organization would cost too much. As the Endowment had plenty of money at the time, I had counted on a liberal expenditure to do a first class job. It is interesting to reflect that today Institutes of International Relations are scattered all over our country, some doing excellent work.

The new organization was given the name of the Institute of International Education, and its activities in realizing its objectives were restricted to the use of educational agencies in the narrow academic sense. But I was promised carte blanche in its organization and administration. The Institute was opened with a good-sized office near Columbia University, and as staff an Executive Secretary, a stenographer and typist. I then determined to visit the chief universities and colleges of our own country to acquaint them with my plans in order, if possible, to secure their cooperation. I found practically all enthusiastic about the idea and eager to assist in its realization, for all knew the ignorance of our people in international affairs. To my amazement, the institution where I found students best informed on foreign affairs was on neither the Atlantic nor the Pacific seaboard but in the far interior, at the University of Utah. At that time, 1919, the University though non-sectarian was still controlled by the Mormons, and it was customary for the Mormon students before graduating to spend a year abroad as missionaries.

With the assurance of university support at home, I determined to visit the chief European countries with a similar purpose. Now the accomplishment of the United States in World War I had been sufficiently striking to open the eyes of European statesmen and scholars to its significance as a world power. My program, therefore, was welcomed in every country I visited. I was able to make this visit, and even more prolonged ones later, because in Miss Mary L. Waite, the Executive Secretary, I was fortunate in having selected an assistant of sound judgment, remarkable efficiency, and unquestioned loyalty. As the years passed the staff of the Institute became much enlarged but Miss Waite remained in her position until she voluntarily retired in 1938, much to my regret.

While the peace negotiations were taking place at Versailles rumors reached home that our delegation was showing a willingness to accept policies not at all in conformity with President Wilson's Fourteen Points, for which the League of Free Nations Association had made a positive stand. The President had decided to interrupt his stay at Paris in order to return to the United States to be present at the opening of the session of Congress in March, 1919. The Executive Committee of the League of Free Nations Association determined to request the President to receive a small committee to discuss the rumors. Upon being informed that he would be willing to do so, Norman Hapgood, Thomas Chadbourne, and I were selected to go to the White House for the interview. The President spoke freely of the difficulties he was encountering. For example, he mentioned how Marshal Foch frequently sat on the opposite side of the table insisting that France be given the control of the German territory on the left bank of the Rhine. "Foch is a fine general but a damned poor statesman," was the President's remark. In the light of recent events that characterization of the Marshal as a statesman has become more doubtful, but there can be no question that the Marshal's demand would not have received acceptance by our Congress nor by our people.

We returned from our visit to the White House with the feeling that the President had become convinced that in order to achieve his objectives compromises would be necessary. When the Treaty was finally signed, the extent to which he had compromised became evident. The Covenant of the League of Nations was always his primary consideration, and to retain the Covenant as the first part of the Treaty he accepted compromises that aroused much opposition in our country. I was seated one day at luncheon at the long table in the Century Club with Herbert Croly, the Editor of the New Republic, on my right and I was deeply concerned at the degree of his indignation at what he termed the "sell out" at Versailles.

The League became a partisan political issue. Senator Lodge was the leader of the bitter opponents of the Treaty, but he could not have prevented its passage in the Senate as his associates did not control one-third of the votes. There was a group of real statesmen among the Senators called "Mild Reservationists" who asked the President to accept certain changes in the Treaty, which many citizens regarded as necessary to safeguard American interests. But the Treaty and the League had become a matter of personal antagonism between Senator Lodge and the President. The President refused to accept any reservations. That grand citizen of New York, Charles Burlingham, called a meeting of the friends of the President and of the League to consider what action should be adopted. We all signed a letter to the President, requesting him to accept the suggestions of the Mild Reservationists. But despite his strength of character, President Wilson was an obstinate man. As I remember it, he never acknowledged receipt of the letter. When the Senate finally voted on the Treaty, it was rejected by only seven votes. A change of four votes would have saved it.

Although personally opposed to some of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, I believed that our country ought to have accepted it and relied upon subsequent modifications being accepted in practice or adopted under Article XIX of the Covenant, which provided for the reconsideration of outmoded treaties. The Covenant would give us a world organization much better than the international anarchy that had existed before the war. It was not possible then to foresee that the new League of Nations would become to too great an extent primarily an instrument for the enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles and for the realization of the international policies of the two chief members, France and Great Britain. I felt justified in my view, however, because of the personnel of the early national delegations to the Assembly and the Council, and particularly because of the staff of the Secretariat. The members who first composed the Secretariat were devoted adherents of the League and had a real vision of its possibilities as a great institution for peace and international understanding. As the years elapsed, however, the delegates and the Secretariat became more and more composed of persons influenced by the national needs and ambitions of their home countries rather than international welfare. To be sure, all that could not be foreseen in 1920, and in the Presidential campaign of that year I took the stump in favor of our membership in the League. As I went about the country speaking in favor of our entrance into the League, I soon became convinced that the voters would reject it. I talked with all kinds of people and found the general sentiment well expressed by an elevator man in a hotel in a mid-western city, who said to me, "To hell with Europe, we've done too much for them."

Unfortunately, the American people were not given an opportunity to vote for or against the League. The issue was confused during the electoral campaign because thirty-one prominent pro-League Republicans, headed by Messrs. Root, Taft, Lowell, and Butler, issued a public statement to the effect that the election of Mr. Harding would result in the adoption of a better League of Nations, and consequently many people voted for Harding, thinking they were voting for the League.

After the election, the friends of the League formed the League of Nations Association in the hope that a strong campaign of education on the value of the League might lead our people to demand active United States support of the League. Among them were Hamilton Holt, George W. Wickersham, Justice John H. Clarke, Raymond Fosdick, and James T. Shotwell, the last two succeeding each other as Presidents of the Association. I became one of the trustees and remained so for fifteen years. The educational work of the Association, which was largely directed to publicizing the excellent nonpolitical accomplishments of the Secretariat and the International Labor Organization, did result in a happier attitude toward the League. In the first few months after the formation of the League, our State Department did not even acknowledge letters from it, but with the passage of time a very cooperative attitude on non-political activities was adopted by our government. The political activities of the League, however, were often at such variance with the purposes of its founders that it became evident to me that there was little hope of the United States ever becoming a member. For that reason and because I was quite overwhelmed with other work, I reluctantly resigned from the Board of Trustees of the League of Nations Association in 1935.

My first visit to Europe in my new job was just after the signature of the Versailles Treaty. Almost immediately upon my arrival in Paris, I visited the battlefields and was horrified at the scene of desolation. As far as the eye could reach there was not a sign of a living thing, man, beast or bird. Stumps of trees without a leaf, miles of barbed wire, broken camions and wagons, gaping shell holes and destroyed trenches met one's view on every side. I resolved then and there that I would permit nothing personal to interfere with the attempt to realize the objective of the Institute as my small contribution toward the understanding that might lead to a more durable peace. I could not foresee that twenty years later the course of events would compel me to advocate another resort to force in order to save mankind from a new form of slavery. It did not take long to impress upon me the immense difficulties in the way of a durable peace. I returned from the battlefields to the atmosphere of suspicion, resentment and hate that prevailed in Paris, where I became the object of attention by propagandists. This was true of nearly every American, for our prestige was very high just then.

Shortly after my arrival in Paris, I was walking across the Place de la Concorde when I was hailed by a friend, Homer Johnson of Cleveland, Ohio. I had not been aware that he was in France. He told me that President Wilson had appointed a commission of three to go to Poland and report upon the very difficult question of the status of the Jewish minority in new Poland. The Commission was composed of General Jadwyn, Henry Morgenthau, and Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson said that they needed an adviser upon the international-legal aspects of the problem and asked permission to nominate me to serve in that capacity. I answered that I would cable to Dr. Butler, the Chairman of my Board of Trustees. Dr. Butler replied promptly that I should render any service to our government that I could. The Commission, which was probably created to satisfy insistent demands of American Jews that some form of protection be guaranteed to their coreligionists in Poland, was to go to Poland in a week. In the meantime I was to move to the Hotel Crillon, the American headquarters, and prepare for the mission. I was given an orderly to do my errands, a soldier, who put his hand to his forehead and gave me a very jerky salute every time he entered my room. I sent for all the documents in the case, the telegrams and reports, and held conversations with the members of the Commission. It was obvious that General Jadwyn and Mr. Johnson held a view about the place of a minority people in a national state wholly at variance with that maintained by Mr. Morgenthau. I was soon convinced that the visit to Poland would not result in reconciling the two views but only in a majority and a minority report. Under the circumstances I did not believe my remaining in the position of political adviser would serve any useful purpose. As I was eager to start my visit to the educational authorities of the different countries, I resigned before the week was up and was succeeded by another adviser. The visit of the Commission to Poland did result, as I had anticipated, in a majority and a minority report.

After resigning as political adviser to the Commission to Poland, I visited the various countries with which I hoped to establish cultural relations. My odyssey brought me as far as the Balkans and, as I observed, my program was everywhere heartily welcomed. In the twenty years between 1919 and the outbreak of the present war in September 1939, I visited the European countries five times at intervals of about four years each and was greatly impressed by the steady demoralization that was taking place in European life. No discerning visitor could fail to be amazed by the determination of the British conservative classes to return to pre-war conditions as soon as possible, despite the great changes in views about economic and social problems brought about by the war itself; nor could he fail to be impressed by the smug attitude that prevailed toward those great changes. In France the constant increase in political factionalism with its accompanying impotence, and the repeated evidence of corruption in France's political and social life, gradually but inevitably led her allies of the Little Entente to lose confidence in her ability to dominate the international situation in Europe. I happened to be in Paris in February 1934, when the attempt was made by the Rightist mob to cross the Pont de la Concorde and charge upon the Chamber of Deputies which was in session. This fracas resulted in the loss of the lives of seventeen Frenchmen and lowered French prestige because it revealed a socially divided and weakened country.

As the years elapsed the increasing resentment against the Treaty of Versailles in Germany, the growing belief that the Allies were determined to keep Germany in an inferior international position, the antagonistic attitude adopted by influential classes in Germany toward the Weimar Republic and its inability to control them, made way for the comparatively easy advent of National Socialism. The growth of extreme nationalism in the new and revived countries of Central and Southeastern Europe, their determination to be self-sufficient militarily and economically resulted in the adoption of tariff policies and autarchic devices generally that hastened the economic demoralization of the continent. The effect of all these changes was a disintegration of standards---moral, political, economic, social, and religious.

Upon returning from my first visit to post-war Europe, I found that a group of forward-looking persons, some of whom had been associated with various .branches of government work during the war, were considering the formation of an organization with the following plans: to engage in research in foreign affairs, to hold evening meetings restricted to its own membership in order to listen to discussions by statesmen and scholars in the field of international relations, and to publish a quarterly magazine devoted to problems in that field. The organization was to be the American counterpart of the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. Both were simultaneously organized at Paris after the close of the war, under the chairmanship of General Tasker H. Bliss. The American organization took the name of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921 and elected to membership a carefully selected group of scholars, financiers, industrialists, and military authorities whose activities gave evidence of a deep interest in our international relations. This careful selection of the membership has been maintained ever since. The organization elected a Board of Directors of which I became one, to represent international education. The Board was largely made up of men of distinction in their fields: Frank Polk, John W. Davis, Paul Cravath, George W. Wickersham and Norman Davis in law; Otto Kahn, Paul Warburg, Russell Leffingwell and Owen Young in finance and industry; John H. Finley, Isaiah Bowman, Edwin F. Gay, Archibald Coolidge, and Whitney Shepardson in scholarship and letters. Hamilton Fish Armstrong was appointed Executive Director.

In almost every organization, the active control is soon assumed by a small group. Partly because of ability, partly as the result of knowledge and experience, and partly because of willingness to give the necessary time and attention to detailed affairs, the Council's administration gradually fell into the hands of the group of scholars---Bowman, Gay, Coolidge, Armstrong, and Shepardson. Despite the composition of the Board, the majority of which was conservatively inclined in domestic affairs, its discussions and decisions were distinctly liberal in foreign affairs. I have served on many boards and committees and I have not known any whose members were more faithful in attendance at meetings. The man who in course of time showed the greatest ability and acquired the most influence in the affairs of the Council was Hamilton Fish Armstrong. This was most fortunate because he is a man of unusual executive capacity, financial insight, and tolerance of view. John W. Davis was elected first President of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is a man of culture and distinction, a delightful toastmaster and an excellent chairman. He became the Presidential candidate of the Democratic party in 1924. Mr. Wickersham succeeded Mr. Davis. He was a most lovable as well as capable colleague, simple, objective, and tolerant. He was followed by Norman Davis, slow and deliberate of speech but very conscientious and competent. Possibly it was the possession of these latter qualifications that suggested to President Roosevelt that he appoint Mr. Davis his traveling ambassador before the second World War.

The Research Committee of the Council has done impressive work in carrying on its investigations and has issued excellent books and monographs. The evening meetings were either of the whole membership to listen to outstanding political figures in foreign affairs or of smaller groups interested in some particular field such as our stakes in the Far East, debts and loans to Latin American countries, or our policy toward the Soviet government. Every Secretary of State since the formation of the Council, foreign premiers and cabinet ministers such as Clemenceau, Ramsay MacDonald, Bruening, Sforza, and Matsuoka, and eminent foreign scholars and distinguished figures in our own public life have been invited to present views on international problems. Only American citizens were eligible for membership in the Council and admitted to its meetings; no reporters were present at meetings held at the Council House; no resolutions were adopted. The policy of the Council on Foreign Relations was to exert influence in American life through personal relationships, through its published monographs, and especially through its quarterly journal, Foreign Affairs. In the last few years it has fostered the establishment of groups in a number of other cities scattered about the country, which have conducted their activities in a manner similar to that pursued by the New York organization.

The Council began the publication of Foreign Affairs in 1922. Its first editor was Archibald Coolidge of Harvard, who laid down the general outlines of policy that have since been followed. Professor Coolidge died in 1928 and was succeeded as editor by Hamilton Fish Armstrong, who had been his assistant. This succession was most fortunate, for under Mr. Armstrong's editorship the magazine became without question the most authoritative periodical in the world in the field of international relations. Mr. Armstrong welcomed to the pages of Foreign Affairs opinions of all kinds provided they met his high standards of content and form. He visited Europe every summer to interview prospective contributors. He organized an Advisory Editorial Board, which met twice a year to discuss the subjects that ought to receive attention and the persons best qualified to write the articles on the subject. At the present time (1942) Dr. Lowell, President Emeritus of Harvard; President Seymour of Yale; President Bowman of Johns Hopkins; Professor George A. Blakeslee of Clark University, our foremost authority on diplomacy of the Far East; the economist, Professor John H. Williams of Harvard, and myself form the group. Foreign Affairs became so distinguished in its field that the most eminent statesmen and scholars were pleased to be invited to contribute to its pages. When Mr. Armstrong became editor he was relieved of the detailed administration of the Council as Executive Director and a most competent substitute was found in Walter Mallory, who, in addition, edited the Council's Political Handbook of the World, which has become a standard work of reference for the large press associations, government bureaus, and educational institutions.

Meanwhile a transformation was taking place in the League of Free Nations Association. The Board of Trustees, of which I was a member, decided immediately after the war that it must unquestionably remain in existence and continue its educational work in the field of international relations. In order to emphasize the fact that it was interested in the international relations of all countries and not merely free nations, it adopted the name of the Foreign Policy Association in 1921. It became known as the chief liberal, democratic agency in that field and did yeoman service in spreading a knowledge of foreign affairs among the mass of intelligent people throughout the country. Its Saturday luncheons, given over usually to the discussion of some current problem, were generally in the nature of debates between representatives of the two or more sides of a vital current question. The luncheons were open to the public generally and were frequently attended by as many as five hundred people. Similar discussion luncheons were held by the many branches of the Foreign Policy Association scattered about the country and now numbering nineteen. As a number of these discussions were locally broadcast, the educative influence of the Association can be readily appreciated.

In the course of time, as the result of increased financial resources, the Association established a research division, which furnished the public with the weekly Foreign Policy Bulletin and the fortnightly Foreign Policy Reports. Its Headline Books are of particular value for popularizing the study of international affairs. All these publications contain accurate information and excellent interpretations of the current international problems that were arousing people's anxieties. Most of the splendid body of forward-looking men, who formed the original group of founders, remained for many years in control but when one fell out for any reason he was always replaced by someone of equal ability and similar sympathies. The Foreign Policy Association has been fortunate in its successive presidents. The first was James G. McDonald, a most attractive personality who made friends for the Association among people who could help to support it. He was a delightful toastmaster at the Saturday luncheons and very popular with the general public. When he resigned to become High Commissioner for Refugees (Jewish and Other) Coming from Germany, he was followed by Mr. Raymond Leslie Buell, with undisputed reputation as a scholar. It was during his administration that the research department of the Association became active and influential. When he resigned in 1939 to become associated with Fortune magazine, he was succeeded by Major General Frank Ross McCoy, one of the most distinguished figures in our military and diplomatic life. General McCoy took office at a most opportune time for a military man, just before the outbreak of the present war. He is as much a statesman as an authority on things military.

Necessity compelled me to make a decision in the mid-1920's which I deeply regretted. Partly because of the ambitious program that I had outlined for the Institute of International Education, of which I had become Director, and partly because of a scarcity of assistants due to lack of necessary funds, I was pretty heavily worked. My attendance at the meetings of the governing bodies of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Foreign Policy Association, and the attention I gave to the problems presented at the sessions of their boards, when added to my Institute labors, resulted in a great deal of work at night. I felt I had to give up my place on one of the two boards and while I retained my membership in the Foreign Policy Association, I resigned as a member of the Board of Trustees. An event in 1924 which I could not foresee at the time, really rendered this decision unnecessary. I was in that year provided with more funds, which enabled me to have additional assistants and relieved me of some of the pressure under which I had worked. I doubt that the Board of Trustees of the Foreign Policy Association lost any great amount of wisdom by my withdrawal, but I have ever since missed the illuminating discussions on foreign affairs that took place at its meetings and also the delightful companionship of a splendid group of forward-looking, internationally minded men and women.

The leisure I secured in 1924 was afterward absorbed by my becoming a member of the Board of Trustees of the World Peace Foundation. The Chairman of the Board at the time was Dr. William H. P. Faunce, the President of Brown University, with whom I was well acquainted. He and Dr. George Blakeslee, another member, urged me to accept an invitation to membership on the Board and I did so. The Board was made up of a distinguished group of scholarly men deeply interested in and familiar with international affairs. It has maintained that standard of membership ever since and has had a great influence upon public opinion. The publications of the World Peace Foundation have been of unusual value in supplying teachers in our colleges and high schools with accurate and authoritative information about problems in foreign affairs that were of current interest and importance.

The members of the World Peace Foundation Board concerning whom I was most interested were Newton D. Baker and A. Lawrence Lowell. Mr. Baker was a liberal of fine vision and sound judgment. He had been Secretary of War during World War I and his judgments on personalities and events during that conflict were most illuminating. His views on current international problems were equally clarifying. He was a mild and sweet-tempered man, but that characteristic did not interfere with earnest presentation of the positive views that he usually held. Living in Cleveland, Ohio, he could present to the Board the views on foreign affairs held by various groups in the Middle West.

But it was Dr. Lowell who intrigued me most. I have met few men in my career for whose mentality I have had a greater admiration. His reasoning was convincing and his memory remarkable. His knowledge concerning international politics was profound and had great influence upon the Board's conclusions. Though a conservative in his attitude toward life, he was very tolerant of other people's opinions and during his entire administration as President of Harvard University, he was a bulwark of academic freedom. Dr. Lowell was always at the service of the community and in 1927 he was appointed by the Governor of Massachusetts as a member of a commission of three to advise upon the staying of the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti. There can be no question that he tried to arrive at a just conclusion and it is not for me to criticize the decision. But when friends of such legal acumen as Charles Burlingham and Felix Frankfurter drew a contrary conclusion from the same evidence, I felt that there might exist the doubt which in our legal system is expected to go to the benefit of the accused. Certainly the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti aroused bitter criticism of the United States among the working classes of the entire world. I met this hostility almost everywhere in my various journeys.

President Lowell sometimes invited me to his home for lunch and even to stay overnight preceding a meeting of the Board, a privilege which I greatly prized. On one such evening during the Hoover administration we remained until midnight discussing national and international problems. It was then more than at any other time that I became aware of his conservatism. Among other questions that we were considering was the immigration problem and its influence upon our foreign policy. Dr. Lowell incidentally remarked, "There is no reason why a native American should not be a success in our country." I understood him to mean a success in a material sense. At that very time a considerable number of native Americans were losing their farms through mortgage foreclosures in the North. Native American share croppers in the South did not lose theirs for the simple reason that they did not have any to lose. And only one half of all Americans had an annual income of $870. I believe that the truth was that Dr. Lowell, like some others whose ancestry dates back to the colonial period, unconsciously used the term "native Americans" as synonymous with those "older Americans."

One of the most potent agencies in arousing interest in international affairs among our people after the first World War was the Williamstown Institute of Politics. It was founded in 1921 as the result of the success of the President of Williams College, Dr. Harry Garfield, in interesting Bernard Baruch in financing the experiment. Dr. Garfield visited Europe each winter to invite distinguished statesmen and scholars to become the guests of the Institute for the month during the summer when the sessions were held, and to deliver a series of addresses upon some particular aspect of international affairs about which they were known to be real experts. Such men as Count Sforza, Arnold Toynbee, William Rappard, Sir Arthur Salter, and Boris Bakhmeteff attended. Equally representative American scholars such as Raymond Buell, Foster Bain, and Arthur Holcombe also lectured at the Institute. The sessions were open to anyone interested in foreign affairs upon the payment of a reasonable fee and it was expected that a good many research scholars as well as journalists, magazine writers, and college professors would attend. This was quite true in the beginning of the Institute's career, but it became less so with the passage of time. Williamstown is beautifully located in the Berkshire Hills, one of America's favorite summer resorts. Everyone was enamored of the locality and gradually the sessions of the Institute were decreasingly attended by research scholars and experts in the field of foreign affairs and increasingly by elderly ladies and gentlemen, unquestionably refined and intelligent but not particularly valuable for the purposes originally intended for the Institute.

All members of the Institute had to enroll in one of the Round Tables, each of which was devoted to some specific study such as the Allied Debts, the Soviet Union, the League of Nations. When I returned from a six months' visit to South America in 1932, I was invited to succeed Dr. Rowe, the Director of the Pan American Union, as the leader of the Round Table on Latin America. A Round Table was usually limited to about twenty persons. My own Round Table was composed chiefly of teachers of history and politics, a few journalists and a considerable number of the general public. They were all intelligent men and women but they had little real knowledge of Latin American affairs. As the years elapsed Dr. Garfield had grown tired of the burden of administering the Institute of Politics and it did not reopen after the 1932 session. It had, however, performed a great service. It had been widely publicized and had been attended by men and women from all over the United States. The result was that when the Institute finally closed, other institutes under a variety of names sprang up in different parts of the country to continue the discussion of national and international problems.

The organizations which I have described above are by no means the only ones with which my work as Director of the Institute of International Education brought me into personal contact. In later pages I shall of necessity describe others, such as the Institute of Pacific Relations. Those I have discussed illustrate one typical characteristic of Americans and, to a lesser extent, of the British. Americans have been pioneers from the beginning of their history. The pioneer necessarily is an individualist. He has to rely upon himself to work out his own salvation. In frontier days there was always a good deal of united effort among neighbors and in an emergency that cooperation was essential, for government was often far away. The uniting of individuals in organizations for a desirable objective became a tradition. Therefore, when Americans discovered their ignorance of international affairs during World War I it was most natural that they should found organizations in various parts of the country to study foreign relations. I had learned the extent to which the characteristic I am describing was lacking in the countries of continental Europe. I was soon to have it impressed upon me many times by personal experience. Perhaps one illustration will suffice. One of the early activities of the Institute of International Education was the exchange of students on scholarships between the United States and other countries. On the American side of the exchange all the scholarships were provided by the individual colleges and universities. On the side of the continental European countries they were everywhere provided by the government.

To what extent the principle and practice of individualism---for which my experience abroad strengthened my affection---will survive this present war is an open question. The impetus toward state control inaugurated by the Bolsheviks at Moscow in 1917 left no country unaffected. Its influence is not confined to the totalitarian states but has greatly affected Great Britain and has crossed the Atlantic to the United States. There can be no doubt that state control and state regulation are practically everywhere throughout the world the order of the day. But for the state to undertake activities on a large scale, greatly enlarged revenues and more numerous officials are required. Hence increased taxation and bureaucratization. In all probability with the increasing trend toward state control will come the increased need for carrying on large-scale enterprises resulting from a finer concept of government "to promote the general welfare" of people who through no fault of their own lead lives of material poverty and spiritual monotony. What Americans must be watchful of is that the liberties of the individual, of speech, of worship, of assembly, of the press, and of free enterprise shall not be lost. This is particularly true in war, as at the present time. It will be hardly less true after the war. Unless the immense sums spent now on destructive purposes throughout the world are followed by the expenditures of equally large sums on constructive purposes throughout the world, the effects of another period of disillusionment may be fatal to our democracy.

The European countries are old; government is omnipresent, watchful, and often distrustful of the activities of its citizens. In most European countries the church, the school, the railroad---in fact most human activities on a large scale---are either state activities or under state control. The tradition, therefore, is not that of self-help nor of union of individuals to realize a desirable objective, but to look to the state for enterprise. Where continental Europeans colonized, as in Latin America, that tradition was carried with them. Where the English colonized, the emphasis was upon individualism.

Most of my relationships with the European countries excepting Great Britain have been with governmental officials. Most of them in the United States have been with private agencies. But naturally anyone continuously engaged in international activities will sooner or later come into contact with the State Department. And because of the Institute's cultural cooperation with the Latin American countries, it has entered into intimate relationships with the Pan American Union whose distinguished Director, Dr. Leo Rowe, has been at the head of the Union ever since the Institute has existed.

Intelligent Americans are fairly familiar with the history of the Pan American Union. It was a conception of Secretary of State James G. Blame, and was founded in 1889 in Washington where its seat has been located ever since. Mr. Blame's purpose was to strengthen commercial relations with the Latin American countries. At the Pan American conferences held in different Latin American countries at five-year intervals, until the conference at Montevideo in 1933, the United States delegation had tried to confine discussions to non-controversial subjects such as patents, copyrights and trade conventions. The Latin American delegates on the contrary have desired more and more to discuss the controversial subjects, especially those of a political nature like American intervention in the Caribbean countries. In drawing up the agenda and making arrangements for these conferences the Pan American Union had an important part to play, and it can be readily understood how difficult a position Dr. Rowe has filled. The Latin Americans have in the past frankly considered the Pan American Union an appendage of our State Department, which, they maintained, controlled its policies despite the fact that each American republic had its ambassador or minister at Washington as a representative on the Union's governing board. The attitude of the Latin Americans did not diminish their fondness for Dr. Rowe who, they had reason to believe, despite his diplomatic reserve did not always approve our official position. The Good Neighbor policy was not only a relief to all the Latin American nations but a source of joy to Dr. Rowe and the staff of the Pan American Union. In accordance with it they could work heartily for objectives which they had always hoped might be pursued. The Good Neighbor policy was equally acceptable to the Institute of International Education, whose cooperation with the Pan American Union in developing cultural relations with the Latin American countries had been very intimate and harmonious. Both organizations participated in the incident described in the following paragraph.

My admiration for Charles E. Hughes as a citizen and statesman developed into a much-prized friendship before he left New York for Washington. His autographed photograph is one of those which hang on my office wall. Mr. Hughes became Secretary of State in 1921 at a time when our relations with the Latin American countries were anything but happy. He was not greatly admired by the Latin Americans for the policies he pursued toward their countries and particularly for his attitude on the Monroe Doctrine, which he said was a principle of self-defense of the United States that "reserved to itself its definition, its interpretation, and its application." The fifth Pan American conference held at Santiago, Chile, in 1923 was particularly obnoxious to the Latin Americans because of the obvious determination of the United States delegation to prevent discussion of subjects that the Latin Americans had close to their hearts. Shortly after the conference I wrote to Dr. Rowe, expressing my concern over what I termed the growing dislike by the Latin American peoples of the policy that the United States maintained toward their countries. Whether Dr. Rowe may have mentioned my letter to Mr. Hughes or showed it to someone who in turn mentioned it to him, I do not know. But some time later I had occasion to visit the State Department upon another matter. I had hardly entered the door when Mr. Hughes said, "Dr. Duggan, how do you know the relations of the United States with the Latin American countries are bad and growing worse? I want to tell you we have never had happier relations with them." I explained to Mr. Hughes that my informants were teachers, students, and men of affairs who passed through my office. He insisted that his sources of information were better than mine. I did not dispute the fact with him but his information came chiefly from official sources and sometimes official sources are not the best sources. Officials are sometimes not in close and direct contact with the people. When the next Pan American conference was held in 1928 at Havana, Mr. Hughes confronted an aroused phalanx of resentful Latin American delegates who did not hesitate to criticize freely and adversely the Latin American policy of the United States. It required all his skill to secure an adjournment without an open break.

It was natural that my work should bring me into contact with the foreign embassies and consulates, and I grew to know well many of the representatives of foreign countries. I was acquainted with Lord Bryce before becoming Director of the Institute. He apparently never wasted a moment. I was tolled off once to look after him when he came to New York from Washington to make a luncheon address at the Commodore Hotel. After greeting me he asked how much time would elapse before lunch. I told him a little less than half an hour. "Will you excuse me, then. I will have just enough time to write a letter which I should have sent before leaving Washington." We had a delightful talk after the luncheon. I asked him how he came by the remarkably intimate views of American life that he expressed in The American Commonwealth. He answered that he tried to enter into conversation with almost everybody he met and added that his best knowledge of American conditions and opinions came from talking with men in the smoking rooms of Pullman cars, especially with commercial travelers.

I was not greatly impressed with the alleged ability of most of the British ambassadors. Sir Esme Howard became a good friend whom I afterward visited at Ulleswater in the Lake country. The British representative whom I have most admired is Sir Gerald Campbell, then the Consul General at New York. He knows American life and conditions as few foreigners ever did, having been Consul General at San Francisco before coming to New York. He is one of the wittiest men I ever met and he became very much sought after as an after-dinner speaker. When Lord Lothian died, to the great loss of British-American friendship, I wrote to influential friends in England expressing the hope that Sir Gerald Campbell might succeed him as the best qualified man at that crucial time. He was appointed to the second place as Minister. Because the British wanted to show honor to the government of the United States, they sent as ambassador Lord Halifax, sometime Viceroy of India and, at the time of his appointment, Minister for Foreign Affairs. Shortly after his arrival I listened to him make an excellent address on the radio on Britain's aims in the war. The next week he was invited to speak at the Council on Foreign Relations and gave an uninspiring talk on the background of the war, which seemed to me something in the nature of a defense of Chamberlain's appeasement policy. I had a few words with him and was impressed by his evident sincerity.

I greatly admired Jusserand, who remained here so many years as French Ambassador and did yeoman service for his country during World War I. He was a distinguished scholar, an indefatigable worker, and soon became thoroughly familiar with our problems and conditions. He was greatly admired and loved by hosts of Americans for his simplicity and integrity. I could not understand why he should have been recalled in 1925 at so critical a time, but was later told in France that it was the result of low political trickery. I was sometimes a luncheon guest at the French embassy and, as in the case of Great Britain, I did not consider the French ambassadors a strong body of men. The poet, Paul Claudel, simply did not know what politics was all about, and I do not believe he ever accomplished a single worthwhile thing for his country. The last ambassador before Vichy, Count René de St. Quentin, is a man of thought and ability. I once accompanied him on the train to a college where he was to receive an honorary degree and I was to make an address on French culture. We had an excellent discussion on the internal problems of the United States. I was interested in his statement of belief that ours was an undisciplined democracy. I thought he was to some extent right, but in the light of events in France two years later the degree to which an ambassador was mistaken about conditions in his own country is startling. Again, as in the case of Great Britain, it was not the ranking man who impressed me as the strong man at the French embassy but Jules Henry, the Counselor of the Embassy. He had been at the embassy many years, knew our people thoroughly, spoke English like a native---something unusual in the French embassy---and generally knew what was the best policy to follow in an emergency. He was made French Ambassador to Spain just before the war broke out and left our shores with the admiration and good will of all who knew him.

Of all the German ambassadors I met, I liked Dr. Luther most. He was a short, stout, bald-headed man with twinkling eyes and an agreeable countenance. He spoke English very precisely but with a decided German accent. He was quite jovial and I believe was really liked by our politicians. Of course, after Hitler came into power, Germans were very cautious concerning things at home and I was never able to discover whether he was a Nazi at heart. He did, however, have one of Goebbels' chief men present when he invited me to lunch in Berlin after his retirement. He read American books omnivorously and could discuss them very intelligently. He once asked me whether I ever thought about what became of the chief figures of Gone with the Wind. I answered that I had not. "Well," he said, "Scarlett O'Hara continued to bedevil everybody as she had always done. Rhett Butler went from bad to worse in his course of evil, but always dominating a situation. Ashley Wilkes remained the boob that he appears in the book."

No two ambassadors differed more than Mr. Horinouchi, who represented Japan, and Dr. Hu Shih, who represented China. I came to know them both intimately. Mr. Horinouchi was essentially an aristocrat, very formal but always trying to put himself on a level with his hearer. He was a trained diplomat of the old-fashioned school, but I always found him honest and sincere and very eager to understand our ways of thinking and acting. His wife was one of the most beautiful Orientals I ever met, like a lovely cameo. Mr. Horinouchi was finally recalled for not being able to perform a wholly impossible task, namely, to make the American people like Japan despite her wholly unjustified policy of aggression against China. Dr. Hu Shih is the very opposite of Mr. Horinouchi. He is a splendid scholar, a great philosopher, and a thorough democrat. A fascinating talker and very approachable, he became a prime favorite with the American people and in great demand to make Commencement addresses and after-dinner speeches. His popularity is evidenced by the fact that he has today some fourteen honorary degrees, most of them from our outstanding institutions.

Some of the ministers of the smaller countries like Dr. Peter, who represented Switzerland for many years, were excellent representatives of the civilization and culture of their countries. I shall speak, however, of only one, John Pelenyi, Minister from Hungary, who succeeded Count Szechenyi. He visited all parts of our country to learn of conditions and paid especial attention to our universities. When Hungary joined the Axis in November 1940, Mr. Pelenyi resigned from his position as Minister. He had always been eager to develop cultural relations between Hungary and the United States, particularly by means of the exchange of students. We had grown to know each other well and it was natural that he should ask my advice about the possibility of securing a professorship of international law and diplomacy or of international relations in one of our universities. His scholarship and diplomatic experience received recognition in his receiving a call to Dartmouth.

I have mentioned by name some of the men with whom I had personal and professional relations as Director of the Institute. I must not forget to speak of some of the women who contributed significantly to international education. In the early history of the Institute, Jane Addams was deeply interested in our ideal of international amity through mutual understanding. It was natural that the angel of the homeless and forlorn should extend her hospitality to a heartsick refugee scholar, as she did. Mary E. Woolley, President of Mount Holyoke College, and Virginia Gildersleeve, Dean of Barnard---both members of the Board of Trustees of the Institute ---became two of the most distinguished women internationalists in our country and performed a great service in securing the expansion of the study of international affairs in the women's colleges. Mrs. Aurelia Reinhardt, President of Mills College, rendered a similar service on the Pacific coast.

All of these women were leaders in organizing the American Association of University Women, which has been a foremost agency in international education. Mrs. Esther Caukins Brunauer, Associate in International Education of the Association, has done yeoman service in organizing groups of alumnae throughout the country for the study of international affairs. Miss Gildersleeve asked me what I thought of the projected Association before its organization had been completed. I answered that I did not favor it, that I thought that in the field of scholarship there should be no distinctions based on sex. "Dr. Duggan," Miss Gildersleeve said, "you have a liberal view with reference to women's education, and you are frequently asked to recommend people to fill vacancies in colleges. If you were asked tomorrow to recommend someone to fill a vacancy, let us say, in history, would you think of recommending a woman?" I had to admit I would not. "Now you know one reason why we need an American Association of University Women," she added. Its many branches scattered about the country became study clubs throughout the winter for the discussion of problems of national and international importance. This was also true of the branches of the League of Women Voters, which has been non-partisan but distinctly progressive in its approach to the political and economic questions of the day.

Mrs. Dave Hennen Morris, the founder of the International Auxiliary Language Association, of which I became president in 1940, was another of many significant figures in international affairs. None of the women whom I have known exerted a greater influence upon the development of knowledge in that field than Carrie Chapman Catt, the distinguished President of the International League for Peace and Freedom. In more recent days when I became a member of the Executive Committee of the International Student Service I formed a great admiration for Mrs. Roosevelt, one of the Committee with whom I was already slightly acquainted.. Her ideals were of the finest and she was very sincere in her efforts to realize them. Incidentally, I never heard her make an ungenerous statement about the most unfriendly critic. Of course there were women's organizations as well as men's which were of a purely propagandist character in their consideration of international problems. But the women of the United States through their various organizations have performed unusual service in educating our people, young and old, in foreign affairs.