to enable them to qualify for active participation in world politics. Some of them, however, might seem better entitled to a place among the Powers than certain of the so-called Powers themselves. Indeed the line of demarcation between the Powers and the other independent states is very indistinct.

dent states

On the other hand, the class of subordinate independent 3. Depenstates also merges almost imperceptibly into that of the dependent states. The independence of Abyssinia, for example, was for a time contested by one of the World Powers; that of Afghanistan was long menaced by two of them. Both, however, have succeeded until now in preserving their native authority; but Morocco, which was likewise long threatened by the designs of the World Powers, waged a fitful struggle for a dubious autonomy. Others, less or more fortunate, depending on the point of view, have been too inert or too defective in organization to maintain their independence of the Powers. Among these dependent states there are also several classes.

tected

First, there are those which have been placed under the A. Proprotection of the League of Nations by what is called for states under convenience a mandate of the first class. Their peoples mandate of the League occupy territories which, as a consequence of the World of Nations War, have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the Powers which formerly governed them, and yet are not deemed able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world. Their existence as independent states can be provisionally recognized by the greater Powers, subject to the rendering of administrative assistance and advice by a mandatory, designated by the League of Nations, until they are able to stand alone. The well-being and development of such peoples under the tutelage of the mandatory is declared to be a "sacred trust of civilization," and the mandatory is regarded as exercising its authority as an agent of the civilized Powers

B. Other protectorates

constituting the League. Certain communities formerly belonging to the Ottoman Empire are explicitly recognized in the Covenant of the League of Nations as members of this class, namely, Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia, or, as it is now called, Iraq; and the wishes of their peoples are declared to be the principal consideration in the selection of a mandatory. These protectorates of the League of Nations may be regarded as subjected temporarily to its authority on account of their disorganized condition, and presumably under a stable régime, affording adequate scope for the energies and intelligence of their peoples, they will obtain a higher rank in the political world.

The other protected states fall into a sub-division by themselves. There has been less pretense that the wishes of the people of these protectorates were consulted in the selection of a Power to protect them, or that the authority of the protecting Power would be exercised in trust for civilization and only until such time as they should be able to stand alone. Egypt, for example, once an acknowledged dependency of the Ottoman Empire, fell within the sphere of influence of France and Great Britain after the construction of the Suez Canal. In consequence of the native inertia of her people and of their defective political organization, the Egyptian rulers were obliged to submit to French and British authority in so far as was deemed necessary and proper for the safety of the Canal. Eventually French indifference threw the "white man's burden" of maintaining order in Egypt upon the shoulders of the British, who, despite the nominal suzerainty of the Sublime Porte, sent an "Adviser" to reside at the Egyptian capital and offer his services to the native rulers. The latter were constrained by circumstances to accept his "advice," whenever tendered, and after the outbreak of the World War the anomalous situation was terminated by

1 Cf. Covenant of the League of Nations, Article XXII.

the formal proclamation of a British protectorate. This is the most conspicuous instance of a general practice which in modern times has brought many an African and Asiatic state under the "protection" of one or another of the World Powers. In many cases, illustrated by the action of the British in parts of India or of the French in Madagascar, a protectorate has been a preliminary step toward openly avowed annexation and reduction to the rank of an ordinary dependency. In other cases, as in that of the British in Egypt, the trend may be in the contrary direction, like that of first-class protectorates of the League of Nations, toward a more independent status.

dent states

mandates of

or third

The ordinary dependencies, like the protectorates, fall C. Depeninto two sub-classes. First, there are those peoples, once under subject to the authority of the German or Turkish League Empires, who are at such a stage in their development the second that their existence as independent states was not even classes provisionally recognized by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, who dictated the Treaty of Versailles. The rendering of administrative assistance and advice by an "advanced nation," to borrow the expressive language of the Covenant, was deemed an inadequate security for their well-being and development. In such cases one of the Powers assumes responsibility for the actual administration of the territory, under various conditions depending upon the nature of the particular case. In some cases, notably in Central and Eastern Africa, an attempt is professedly made to guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals; to prohibit abuses such as the slave trade and the arms and liquor traffic; to prevent the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and the military training of natives for other than police purposes and the defense of their own territories, and to secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of all the members

D. Other dependencies

of the League.1 In other cases, as in Southwest Africa and in Polynesia, the restraints upon the authority of the Mandatory to which the territory is assigned are less explicit, though the paramount authority of the League of Nations is expressly preserved. This authority, as was demonstrated at the third Assembly of the League, makes a real difference between this kind of dependency and ordinary dependencies.

For the most part ordinary dependencies seem to have been administered prior to the World War without pretense that the interests of the inhabitants were paramount to those of the dominant World or Regional Power or that there should be equal opportunity for the trade and commerce of all the Powers. In general, whether the imposition of restraints upon the brutal exploitation of dependent peoples in the backward regions of the world. by the dominant Powers is accomplished directly under the auspices of the League of Nations, as in the case of the former German East Africa or Kamerun, or indirectly under the influence of the benevolent sentiments of civilized mankind, as in the case of what was once called the Kongo Free State, when ruthlessly exploited by the King of the Belgians, is a matter of secondary importance. Of greater importance is the character of the dominant Power itself. The Powers which now possess African, Asiatic, or Polynesian dependencies, whether subject or not to the supervision of the League of Nations, are the following: Great Britain, France, Japan, Italy, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, the Union of South Africa, New Zealand, Portugal, and the United States. But here we reach the end of the list of states. The governable inhabitants of the dependencies of the imperial Powers do not constitute states,

1 League of Nations Mandate, Class II.

2 Ibid., Class III.

though they may often wish to do so, and may eventually succeed in doing so. The ungovernable inhabitants, that is, those ungovernable by the dominant Power, may form barbarous or savage tribes, not altogether destitute of the rudiments of political authority, but with such primitive states the modern commonwealth has only a remote relationship.

tion of

Another objective classification of states, a highly Classificapractical classification in this capitalistic age, is that states by which arranges them in accordance with the credit which their credit ratings their governments enjoy in the money markets of the world. The public credit of those bodies politic which have any credit whatever may be estimated on the basis of the ratings of their securities, as fixed by financial experts. The ratings which are used in the following classification of states are based upon the supposed security of public loans issued by authority of the governments of the several states. External loans, payable in dollars, generally receive a higher rating than other types of security. Those obligations are rated Aaa, which are considered to be investments of the highest degree of security. Aa is applied to those obligations which are investments of a high degree of security. All other obligations which are deemed investment securities are rated A. The B rating likewise is divided into three sub-classes, comprising the various obligations which are considered to be speculative investments. The governments which have issued the securities, receiving this rating, have defaulted at some time the payment of principal or interest, or seem likely to do so. The C rating is applied to those obligations which are regarded as speculations. The bonds receiving this rating are in default with respect to income or principal. Caa indicates that there is some prospect of the resumption of payments; C indicates that

1 See Moody's Rating Book Service, Governments and Muncipals, 1922.