men that more power is needed for the National Government than the Constitution gives it, and that it should be got through congressional legislation, through judicial construction, and through Executive action, would have struck him as meaning treachery to the people and involving perjury by Government officials. It is not an uncommon assumption in these days, that if a thing seems desirable but is found not to be within the national jurisdiction, therefore the Constitution is defective and should be amended so as to confer the desired power. With Mr. Cleveland, in such a case, the strong, perhaps the conclusive, presumption would have been that the Constitution was right, and that either the object to be attained was not so desirable as it appeared, or that, however desirable, it should be accomplished by some other agency than that of the National Government. In short, Mr. Cleveland not only reverenced the Constitution as being all that Mr. Gladstone described it, viz: "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time from the brain and purpose of man," but regarded it as in the nature of a deed of trust, whose beneficiaries were the whole people of the United States, and could rightfully deem any disregard of the deed by the President or any other official as nothing less than a betrayal of trust.

Finally, Mr. Cleveland was in close touch, in intimate sympathy, with the great body of his fellow countrymen. Himself of the "plain people" as he loved to call them, he thoroughly understood their traits of character and realized to the full the feelings, wishes, prejudices, and aspirations by which they were animated. Popularity in the ordinary sense he can hardly be said to have obtained, nor did he possess or cultivate the arts of popularity. Yet the people appreciated him, felt him to be one of themselves, considered his character and achievements to reflect honor upon themselves, and retained their respect and regard for him even when they differed from him. During the four years between his two presidencies, he drew a greater share of public notice, perhaps even exercised a greater influence, than the actual President, and during the years that followed the close of his official life, he came to be

the one man in the country whom men of all parties and all sections most delighted to honor. Mr. Cleveland's democracy was not limited to his views and theories as a public man. It accounts for much of the general esteem in which he was held that he was eminently democratic in the popular sense, in the simple and genuine and unaffected habits, tastes, and affections which distinguished his private life. He never failed to maintain the honor of the Government or the dignity of his own high office in all suitable ways. But he realized that all extravagant, ostentatious, wasteful, or foolish expenditure by Government was simply robbery of taxpayers, and he was unwilling to add an ounce to the weight of their necessary burdens. He believed the homely virtues by which individuals rise to better things to be not inapplicable to the government of communities and of nations, and that the affairs of the United States should be managed with the same industry, honesty, frugality, and thrift that private citizens use in the management of their own affairs. He consistently illustrated those virtues in his daily walk and conversation in the White House as well as out of it, and in the whole tenor of a life that was fitly typified by the simple but impressive burial at Princeton.

Surely no more can be asked of the President of the United States than thorough and sympathetic understanding of its people, than patriotism which sinks the party leader in the Chief Magistrate of the Nation, and than a loyalty to the Constitution at once unflinching in the exercise of powers granted and equally unflinching in the refusal to exercise powers not granted.

Very truly yours

To President Wilson

RICHARD OLNEY

[As this letter shows, Olney was of the opinion that, as a matter of law, the United States might levy tolls on foreign vessels passing through the Panama Canal. It also shows how careful he tried to be not to embarrass the Government in its conduct of foreign affairs (compare the text at page 194). He

was advised that President Wilson had no objection to the article referred to in the letter, and then published it in the "Proceedings of the American Society of International Law," 1913, page 81.]

Private and confidential

HON. WOODROW WILSON

President of the United States

White House, Washington

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:

BOSTON, 21 April, 1913

As a member of the American Society of International Law I have been urged to read, or have read, at its annual meeting April 24-26- a paper upon some of the legal aspects of the questions raised by the Panama Canal tolls legislation.

I enclose copy of the paper I have prepared by way of precaution, and lest it may chance to add a feather's weight to the obstacles your Administration may encounter in enforcing its policy on the subject. What that policy may be I have no idea. But whatever it is, if there is a possibility of the document operating against it in any way or degree, I want to suppress it. Very likely your view of the possibility suggested may be that its existence is probably without warrant except in my own imagination — in which case please put the paper behind the back-log.

I should be much gratified if the Washington dispatches to Boston reported that you are a regular player of the royal game of golf. The first duty of an extra good President is to be both well and strong.

As the time is short, would you mind wiring your view and oblige

Sincerely yours

RICHARD OLNEY

APPENDIX VIII

LIST OF PUBLISHED ARTICLES ABOUT OLNEY AND

BY OLNEY

[THE list of references to what has been published about Olney takes no account of numerous and sometimes interesting notices and anecdotes in the daily press.

It will be obvious that the list of his own published utterances is only partial. His official reports and his dispatches in the volumes of "Foreign Relations" hardly call for enumeration. No attempt to collect a list of the interviews, letters to the press, and reports of remarks made on public or semipublic occasions has been made, although he frequently threw out very interesting observations in the course of such casual utterances. Similarly his legal arguments, able though they always were and permanently interesting as were some, like the income-tax arguments, have not been enumerated.]

A. ABOUT RICHARD OLNEY

Concerning Richard Olney the following may be consulted: Richard Olney, by Charles P. Greenough; Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Dec., 1917.

Memorial Exercises of the Boston Bar Association before the Supreme Judicial Court, In memory of Richard Olney, June 28, 1919 (including resolutions and addresses by Nathan Matthews, Esq., and Mr. Justice W. C. Loring); printed by Ellis & Co., Boston, 1919.

Attorney-General Olney (anonymous, but understood to have been based on statements supplied by Sigourney Butler). The Green Bag (Boston), v, 257

Olney's association with his father-in-law, Judge Thomas, was so intimate that his memoir of Judge Thomas has documentary interest concerning himself. See Benjamin F. Thomas, LL.D., Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Oct., 1900.

A Genealogy, of The Descendants of Thomas Olney, by James H. Olney, was published in Providence, R.I., in 1889. It has value, although it is incomplete with respect to Richard Olney's branch of the family.

B. BY RICHARD OLNEY

CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND FOREIGN POLICY International Isolation of the United States. Atlantic Monthly, May, 1898.

This was an address delivered in Sanders Theater, Harvard University, in March, 1898. A vigorous argument against the popular interpretation of Washington's Farewell Address. Urges that the United States should take a more active and positive part in international affairs and should participate more cordially in solving problems of world adjustment. See the text at page 187.

Growth of our Foreign Policy. Atlantic Monthly, March, 1900.

Discusses consequences of the Spanish War. Expresses the belief that the United States will be forced by circumstances to retain Cuba. Regrets the taking of the Philippines, but argues that, having taken them, the United States must realize that it is involved in foreign affairs both commercial and political as it never had been before.

Recent Phases of the Monroe Doctrine. Boston Herald, March 1, 1903.

Concerning the enforcement by Germany and Great Britain of their claims against Venezuela, and the implications of American intercession. This was printed as an anonymous editorial.

The Nation's Parting of the Ways. Harvard Graduates' Magazine, Sept., 1904.

This address, delivered at the dinner of the Harvard Law School Association on June 28, 1904, discusses the question of "imperialism" which was about to play an important part in the national election. It exhibits a strongly “antiimperialistic" inclination.

The Development of International Law. Proceedings of the American Society of International Law (Washington, April 20, 1907), I, 218; also American Journal of International Law, vol. 1, No. 2 (1907).

In this paper Olney considers the growth of international law, particularly with reference to the Grotian presumption of the equality of all sovereign states as International Persons. He touches upon the problem of reconciling this presumption of legal equality with the fact of inequality in respect to political power and standing. He does not name and discriminate the two categories of equality, legal and political, as precisely as have others. (See F. Oppenheim, 1, 88115-17.) Nor does he lay down definite proposals. But he deplores the legal pretense of equality where it cannot be lived up to, and suggests that inasmuch as the law of nations is based ultimately, not on philosophy and logic, but on practice and custom, so limitations on the idea of equality should in time be carried over from the political to the legal field. "If the foregoing observations are of any value, it consists in noting and emphasizing the crucial fact that individualism as the essence of the relations between states must be regarded as largely modified by what may be termed internationalism. State independence as the basis of international law has become radically qualified by state interdependence" (p. 429).