state solves the problem of the relation of sovereignty to liberty; so that while it is the most powerful political organization that the world has ever produced, it is still the freest. This is easy to comprehend. The national state permits the participation of the governed in the government. In a national state the population have a common language and a common understanding of the principles of rights and the character of wrongs. This common understanding is the strongest moral basis which a government can possibly have; and, at the same time, it secures the enactment and administration of laws whose righteousness must be acknowledged, and whose effect will be the realization of the truest liberty. In the third place, the national state solves the question of the relation of central to local government, in that it rests upon the principle of self-government in both domains. In the perfect national state there can thus be no jealousy between the respective spheres; and the principle will be universally recognized that, where uniformity is necessary, it must exist; but that where uniformity is not necessary, variety is to reign in order that through it a deeper and truer harmony may be discovered. The national state is thus the most modern and the most complete solution of the whole problem of political organization which the world has as yet produced; and the fact that it is the creation of Teutonic political genius stamps the Teutonic nations as the political nations par excellence, and authorizes them, in the economy of the world, to assume the leadership in the establishment and administration of states. CHAPTER IV. CONCLUSIONS OF PRACTICAL POLITICS FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS IN REGARD TO PHYSICAL, ETHNICAL AND POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY, AND NATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS. WE conclude, in the first place, that national unity is the determining force in the development of the modern constitutional states. The prime policy, therefore, of each of these states should be to attain proper physical boundaries and to render its population ethnically homogeneous. In other words, the policy in modern political organization should be to follow the indications of nature and aid the ethnical impulse to conscious development. Where two or more independent states are situated in one and the same geographical unity, it is presumably a sound policy which seeks the union of these states in a more general political organization or the absorption by one-the most capable and powerful- of the others. Which one of these courses should be pursued depends upon the circumstances of each case. If the populations of the several states vary in their ethnical character and yet possess about equal political capacity, the united state with a federal system of government will be the more natural arrangement and the one more easy of attainment. If, one the other hand, the population of one of them far excels the populations of the others in political endowment and power of political organization, then annexation and absorption of the other states by the superior state will work the best results in the advancement of political civilization. If, finally, the ethnical character of these different states be the same, then it will make little difference, as a rule, whether their unity be attained by federalization or by absorption. When a state insists upon the union with it of all states occupying the same geographic unity and attains this result in last resort by force, the morality of its action cannot be doubted in sound practical politics, especially if the ethnical composition of the populations of the different states is the same or nearly the same. What unprejudiced publicist or statesman questions to-day the morality of the policy of Prussia in the foundation of the German Empire, or of Sardinia in the political unification of Italy? And who does not see that the further rounding out of the European states to accord still more nearly with the boundaries which nature has indicated would be in the interest of the advancement of Europe's political civilization and of the preservation of the general peace? It would expel the Turk from Europe: it would put an end to Russian intrigue in the valley of the Danube it would give Greece the vigor and the power to become a real state; and it would bring the petty states of Switzerland, Denmark, Holland, Luxemburg, Belgium, and Portugal into connections which would enable their populations to contribute, in far greater degree, to the political civilization of the world, and receive, in far greater degree, the benefits of that civilization, than their present conditions permit. Even then there would be weak places enough in the boundaries of each national state, but their number would be greatly decreased, and the temptation to invasion which they offer greatly lessened. On the other hand, if a state organization extends over several geographic unities, then there is good ground, in sound public policy, to consider whether the political civilization of the world would not be advanced by its separation into several independent states, corresponding in political extent with the boundaries indicated by nature. Especially will this be true if the ethnical character of the populations of these several geographic unities be different. If, however, the ethnical character be the same, the geographical reason for partition is, in this day of steam and electricity, by no means conclusive. Again, where the population of a state is composed of several nationalities, we are forced to conclude that it will be sound policy in the state to strive to develop ethnical homogeneity. The morality of a policy which insists upon the use of a common language and upon the establishment of homogeneous institutions and laws cannot be successfully disputed. Under certain circumstances the exercise of force to secure these ends is not only justifiable, but commendable; and not only commendable, but morally obligatory. Take, for example, this condition of things. A state, we will say, has a naturally exposed boundary. It must rely, therefore, in extraordinary degree upon the loyalty of that part of its population resident along such boundary; in other words, the intensest national spirit must exist here; and if it does not, the state must create it at all costs. If now a portion of this frontier population be ethnically hostile, the state is then in perfect right and follows a sound policy when, after having made all reasonable efforts to nationalize them, it deports them, in order to make way for a population which will serve as necessary defence against the violence and the intrigue of the foreign neighbor. It should, however, make other provisions for them, if possible, or pay them a just compensation for the expropriation of their vested rights. Again, let us suppose the case of a great colonial empire. Its life will depend, of course, upon the intensest nationality in that part of its territory which is the nucleus of the entire organization. It cannot suffer national conflicts to make this their battleground. The reigning nationality is in perfect right and pursues, from a scientific point of view, an unassailable policy when it insists, with un..inching determination, upon ethnical homogeneity here. It should realize this, of course, through the peaceable means of influence and education, if 1 Bluntschli, Lehre vom modernen Stat, Bd. I, S. 305. possible. When, however, these shall have been exhausted in vain, then force is justifiable. It may righteously deport the ethnically hostile element in order to shield the vitals of the state from the forces of dissolution, and in order to create the necessary room for a population sufficient in numbers, in loyalty, and capacity to administer the empire and protect it against foreign powers. It should, of course, make other provision, if possible, for the deported population in less important parts of its territory, or at least make just compensation for the expropriation of vested rights; but the state cannot safely or righteously give way, in such a case, to sentimental politics and the claim of an inalienable right to fatherland. This cry is but a mockery in the mouths of men whose presence in the fatherland threatens to render it incapable of fulfilling its mission or maintaining its own existence. In practical politics we cannot lose the great morale in the petty. A fortiori, a state is not only following a sound public policy, but one which is ethnically obligatory upon it, when it protects its nationality against the deleterious influences of foreign immigration. Every state has, of course, a duty to the world. It must contribute its just share to the civilization of the world. In order to discharge this duty, it must open itself, as freely as is consistent with the maintenance of its own existence and just interests, to commerce and intercourse, ingress and egress; but it is under no obligation to the world to go beyond these limits. It cannot be demanded of a state that it sacrifice itself to some higher good. It cannot fulfil its mission in that way. It represents itself the highest good. It is the highest entity. The world has as yet no organization into which a state may The world is as yet only an idea. passports which a state is bound to accept. state to the world is a duty of which the state itself is the highest interpreter. The highest duty of a state is to pre ence. merge its exist It can give no |