Administration as a civic institution in the political thought of Woodrow Wilson

Brian J. Cook
Department of government and International Relations, Clark University, Worcester, MA
Millennial comparisons As the new millennium draws near, many commentators assessing the economic, social, and political turmoil of the times have looked to the progressive era for parallels and guidance in developing responses to the turbulence. A premiere example in the United States is Michael Sandels examination of what he terms democracys discontent[1]. Sandel seeks to rejuvenate a civic republican way of thinking about democratic citizenship and the role of the economy in the political life of the nation. That vision, he contends, was prominent throughout the political development of the US up to and including the progressive era. Sandel argues that progressives wrestled with many of the same issues that political leaders and the public in the USA and other democracies are struggling with today. At the heart of the progressive era debates was a concern for the civic consequences of economic arrangements. In contrast, the central concerns of today are levels of output, economic bipolarity, and promotion of economic growth. Sandel includes Woodrow Wilson in his review. He notes that Wilson, in agreement with his chief competitor for the presidency in 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, was concerned with assessing economic and political institutions for their formative effects on the citizenry, especially their tendency to promote or erode the moral qualities that self-government requires. Before he ascended to the status of world statesman, Woodrow Wilson thought, wrote, and lectured a great deal about the problem of public administration and management in a modern democracy. Over the span of a decade, he arrived at a civic, or constitutive, conception of political institutions, including administration. A close look at the development of Wilsons thinking on this score can enrich the context for understanding the current public discontent about how government is run, and the efforts at reform such discontent has spawned. It can provide a foundation for raising critical questions about the impact of reform initiatives like the now seemingly omnipresent reinventing government[2]. The initial study of administration Henry Bragdon argues that Wilson, in early 1884, had begun to concern himself with administration as well as with legislation and matters of high policy in his

The political thought of Woodrow Wilson 287

Journal of Management History, Vol. 3 No. 4, 1997, pp. 287-297. MCB University Press, 1355-252X

JMH 3,4

288

essay Committee or Cabinet Government[3]? The editors of Wilsons papers note his first writings directly on administration are his late 1885 articles The courtesy of the senate and The art of governing[4]. It is not all that surprising, then, that Wilsons first book, Congressional Government[5], which was published in early 1885, gave considerable attention to administration. Wilson announced in his preface that his chief aim for the book was to make as plain as possible the actual conditions of federal administration. Wilson was, of course, concerned with patronage, corruption, and thus with civil service reform. Yet to Wilson, the chief problem with the federal administration was mostly not with administration itself, but with the organization and operation of the legislature. Congress, in Wilsons view, created administrative problems by failing to fix clear responsibility for the actions of administration. Congress thus failed to give the public every opportunity to exercise its control and judgment over administration as a result. At this early stage in his treatment of the subject, Wilsons conception of administration was wholly instrumental. From that conception emerged his first statement on the now infamous politics-administration dichotomy. Wilson characterized administration as something that men must learn, not something to skill in which they are born. Americans take to business of all kinds more naturally than any other nation ever did, and the executive duties of government constitute just an exalted kind of business[6]. Wilson stated this amidst his discussion of the president as the chief administrative officer. He advocated adequate preparation and training to give individuals occupying the presidency the time to develop their capacity for efficiency. Efficiency, in turn, he insisted, is the only just foundation for confidence in a public officer, under republican institutions no less than under monarchs[7]. Wilson acknowledged that the president was not the entire executive. Indeed, almost all executive functions are specifically bestowed upon the heads of the departments[8]. Over the course of the development of the constitutional system, these public officials had been recognized as independent rather than merely ministerial[9]. However, their independence was never very clearly defined. This ambiguity in the status of administrative officers violated his principle that responsibility must be clearly fixed. The separation of powers was a major source of that blurring of responsibility, accompanied by the development of the fragmented committee system in Congress. As Wilson had already argued as far back as 1879, he much preferred the British cabinet system, which cleaved to the principle that the representatives of the people are the proper ultimate authority in all matters of government, and that administration is merely the clerical part of government. Legislation is the originating force. It determines what shall be done[10]. To correct the consequences of this blurred responsibility, civil service and other reforms were required. Unfortunately, the separation of powers blocked effective reform in the USA because of the confusion and role conflict it created for political officers in the government. To Wilson, recognizing a fundamental distinction between politics and administration was thus an independent pre-requisite of reform.

Questions about whether, and to what extent, Wilson contributed to the The political establishment of the politics-administration dichotomy have engendered thought of considerable debate[11]. Yet to interpret Wilsons argument in Congressional Woodrow Wilson Government in any other way than through a politics and administration dichotomy is not defensible. Politics, he argued, involved choosing between policies and fix[ing] upon political purposes, while administration was the 289 work of bringing policies and purposes to realization. The one thing Wilson made clear was that he regarded the distinction as critically important to democratic governance. He insisted that the separation of powers obscured that distinction, resulting in both bad policy and bad administration. Although distinct realms and activities, Wilson nevertheless concluded that politics and administration had to be properly and securely linked. Again, the separation of powers and the congressional committee system stood in the way of achieving this linkage. This led to the weakening of legislative responsibility for administration[12], creating the forcible and unnatural divorcement of legislation and administration[13]. This outcome undermined public confidence in the executive, left the nation helpless to learn how it was being served, and distracted legislation from all attention to anything like an intelligent planning and superintendence of policy[14]. In congressional government, then, Wilson argued quite clearly for a distinction between politics, or perhaps more accurately legislation, and administration. He called for separate institutional arrangements that were nonetheless linked functionally and instrumentally. Administration had to be subordinate to legislation. This did not mean administration was of minor importance. On the contrary, administration could be equated with governing: legislation is like a foreman set over the forces of government. It issues the orders which others obey. It directs, it admonishes, but it does not do the actual heavy work of governing[15]. Initially, then, Wilson saw governing as a wholly instrumental activity, fulfilling the purposes set by politics, especially the politics of constitution making. This put Wilson squarely in the same camp as most of the American founders, which is something of a surprise given the extent to which he criticized their mechanical, or Newtonian, theories of government[16,17]. Yet out of his instrumental conception, combined with the universal principal of institutional change he derived from his organic view of political development[18], Wilson eventually developed descriptive and normative arguments that recognized governing, including administration, as not merely instrumental to the polity. Far more than that, he concluded, law and administration help constitute the polity, that is, they give new shape to the character of the citizenry, and define new purposes for the regime. Toward a constitutive conception of administration Wilson carried the theme of the clear fixing of responsibility for administration forward from congressional government through the two short essays of 1885 and into section II of his 1887 essay The study of administration. Indeed, one

JMH 3,4

290

of his most well-turned phrases therein is that large powers and unhampered discretion seem to me the indispensable conditions of responsibility. Public attention must be easily directed, in each case of good or bad administration, to just the man deserving of praise or blame[19]. But Wilsons field of view was broader in the 1887 article. The principal difficulties of modern administration rested not only in properly fixing responsibility, but also in adapting to democracy administrative methods whose origins would be found in authoritarian regimes. The task was to find the proper relationship between administration and democratic control. The separation of politics and administration provided the platform on which the proper arrangements for administration and democratic control could be established[20]. However, as countless public administration scholars since the 1930s have argued, and as Wilson himself eventually recognized, such a conception is descriptively inadequate. Worse, the dichotomy is normatively pernicious. An alternative conception of public administration for democratic governance is required. Wilson expended considerable thought in the quest, beginning with the 1887 essay. The 1887 essay revisited Wilsons central concern was the adjustment of democracy to the modern world through the adaptation of effective administrative methods to democratic rule. He thought this was possible because he saw administration as amenable to systematic study not because it involved the dull level of technical detail. Rather, it involved the lasting maxims of political wisdom, the permanent truths of political progress that transcended even the debatable ground of constitutional principle[21]. This formulation was the first hint of further development in Wilsons thinking about what public administration is and how it is related to policy politics[22]. For Wilson, the core problem in the development of democratic administration was distilling administrative methods based on those lasting maxims and permanent truths. These methods should be placed into the hands of a well-trained administrative cadre who were given the latitude to operate without violating the principle of consent of the governed. In tackling the problem, Wilson ran into the conceptual obstacle posed by a purely instrumental distinction between politics and administration. After asserting that administration is a separate realm and proclaiming it to be purely instrumental or mechanical in character, [Wilson] admits that in any practicable government it is impossible to establish lines of demarcation between administrative and political functions[23]. Wilson argued that a great deal of administration goes about incognito to most of the world, being confounded now with political management, and again with constitutional principle[24]. In other words, politics and administration, although essentially distinct, continued to be confused. But the reason for the difficulty in establishing clear lines of separation was also that in practice administration is deeply embedded in law[25].

Public administrations essential instrumental quality was still at the center The political of attention, because to speak of it in practical terms is to speak of it with thought of reference to some end. It is law that gives public administration its definition, Woodrow Wilson that provides its ends, and establishes the basis for the choice of means[26]. So public administration is the practice of government, the matching of special means to general plans[27]. Public administration is nevertheless permeated 291 by politics, or the evaluative[28]. An administrator should have and does have a will of his own in the choice of means for accomplishing his work. He is not and ought not to be a mere passive instrument[29] Furthermore, questions of administration do trod on political, or, more precisely, constitutional ground. Administrative questions, which concern both efficiency and trustworthiness, are inextricably linked to questions about the proper distribution of constitutional authority and the suitable fixing of responsibility[30]. Although the distinction between politics and administration was difficult to maintain, Wilson regarded the distinction as analytically essential for normative theory and the practice of democratic government. The central problem was to establish structural arrangements affording an unhampered expression and an unhampered implementation of the popular will[31]. Paradoxically, however, public opinion could interfere with the efficient implementation of the popular will through the administrative instrument[32]. Eventually, Wilson concluded that a key part of the answer to the paradox was reliance on the government official closest to public opinion the president who therefore could direct and interpret that opinion as much as respond to it[33]. But the more immediate answer was an autonomous civil service, the members of which are obedient to their superiors who, at the top, are responsive to the representatives of the people[34]. Hence, the separation of politics (the expression of popular will) from administration was essential. The differentiation between two types of officials fulfilling these distinct functions followed. Steady, hearty allegiance to the policy of the government [administrators] serve will constitute good behavior. The policy will have no taint of officialism about it. It will not be the creation of permanent officials, but of statesmen whose responsibility to public opinion will be direct and inevitable[35]. Perhaps the only clear and consistent theme in the 1887 essay is that administration should be the object of intense, systematic study, and that the results of such study had great potential for contributing to improvements in democratic governance. What public administrations relationship to democratic politics is or should be, comes across in the essay as somewhat more tangled and ambiguous. Nevertheless, Wilson was reasonably consistent in holding to the idea of a distinction between politics and administration. Administration was simply the vehicle for realizing collective aspirations. Thus, Wilson was still in the first stage of his thinking about the relationship between administration and politics, and the role of public administration in constitutional government. However, he was on the verge of taking the next step because the 1887 essay shows a dawning realization on Wilsons part that

JMH 3,4

292

administration was somehow implicated in the formation of collective aspirations and the constitution of the community. Sidney Milkis has stated it quite dramatically. Wilsons concept of a separation of politics and administration camouflages his commitment to a very important political role for the bureaucracy the infusing of liberal democracy with the institutional capability for a significant expansion of public action[36]. In other words, a new, self-conscious (or self-aware[37]) public administration was critical to adjusting US democracy to the modern world. By providing the operational setting and structural capacity for positive government, it would help to alter how citizens thought of government and how they related to it. I would not go quite as far as Milkis in my interpretation of Wilsons thinking at the stage of development represented by the 1887 essay. In his lectures on public administration, politics, and public law of the decade that followed, however, Wilson did indeed delineate a distinctive institutional domain and constitutive role for public administration in constitutional democracy. To state it simply, Wilson came to regard public administration as a political institution. The lectures on administration In a short, unpublished, August 1887 essay comparing socialism and democracy, Wilson presaged the initial direction his lectures on administration would take. He acknowledged toward the end of the essay that socialism and democracy rested on the same essential principle: that every man shall have an equal chance with every other man[38]. Moreover, in the contest between government and dangerous combinations of wealth and influence that defined much of the character of the modern social world, democracy might admit the need to superintend every mans use of his chance. The essential concern was how the community can act with practical advantage in this superintendence. Socialism and democracy differed in their approaches to this concern, and thus parted company on a question of policy primarily, but also a question of organization, that is to say of administration[39]. Wilson at this point still defined politics as a matter of what the state was to do, and administration as a matter of how the state was to do it. Much the same conception is evident in his first lecture on administration organized for Johns Hopkins. Wilson observed that, We must know what, in the main, the functions of government are before we can go on with advantage to administrations narrower questions as to the way in which they are to be performed[40]. However, he also contended that, the State in a large and increasing measure shapes our lives business-like the administration of government may and should be but it is not business. It is organic social life. The way in which it occupies that sphere is our subject, the subject of administration[41]. Thus, Wilson had reached a truly expansive conception of public administration: the organization of social life, not just legal prescription and command. This suggests Wilsons abandonment of the more narrow, functionally instrumental conception of administration of the 1887 essay. If administration concerned organic social life, then it must be fundamentally

political, it is a prime constituent of the regime, and it would have a major The political impact on the character and aspirations of the citizenry. thought of By 1890, Wilson had pulled back somewhat from what he concluded was too Woodrow Wilson broad a formulation. However, he engaged in new and vigorous conceptual development on the topic after discovering the German literature on public law. In this extension of his thinking, Wilson established the essential idea of 293 administration as law-related, but ranging beyond the boundaries of law itself. He defined the field of administrative activity as the field of the discretionary effectiveness of institutions the field, not of law, but of the exercise (realization) of legalized function[42]. He continued to refine the idea of administration as institutionally a distinctive function by making fully clear that the distinction was between legislation and administration. He also characterized administration as itself a source of law (ordinance), i.e., of the detail of law[43]. By 1891, Wilson argued that legislation, as well as administration, may be described as the active promotion of the ends of the State[44]. He described the difference between law and administration as the difference between origination with its wide range of choice, and discretion with its narrow range of choice. Thus the field of administration encompassed the field of organization, of effective means for the accomplishment of practical ends[45]. Wilson maintained throughout his lectures that administration was substantively and institutionally distinctive. It was subordinate to legislating. Thus, in the notes for his 1892 lectures, he continued to maintain that we must make the distinction between offices of policy and control and offices of administration proper: the distinction between policy and administrative instrumentalities[46]. By the time of this second cycle of his lectures on administration (1891-1893), however, Wilson had arrived at a more complete recognition that administration encompassed not only instrumental but also constitutive qualities. In concluding that administration was part of public law, Wilson continued to argue that administration was indirectly a constant source of public law. He also contended that it is through administration that the State makes [a] test of its own powers and of the public needs makes [a] test also of law, its efficiency, suitability, etc[47]. Taking this a step further, Wilson argued that administration is always in contact with the present: it is the States experiencing organ. It is thus that it becomes a source of law: directly, by the growth [of] administrative practice or tradition[48]. The context for all of these observations was Wilsons conclusion that administration was an integral component of politics and the law. Administration was part of what made up, or constituted, the law and politics of a liberal democratic regime. Not so very different from his pre-1890 viewpoint, he insisted that administration cannot be divorced from its intimate connexions [sic] with the other branches of public law without being distorted and robbed of its true significance. Its foundations are those deep and permanent principles of politics which have been quarried from history and built into constitutions; and it may by no means properly be considered apart from constitutions[49].

JMH 3,4

294

Wilsons most compelling statement on the nature of administration and its place in a liberal democratic regime connected his understanding of its constitutiveness with his long-standing concern for the relationship between administration and the controlling force of public sentiment. Administration, therefore, sees government in contact with the people. It rests its whole form along the line which is drawn in each State between interference and laissez faire. It thus touches, directly or indirectly, the whole practical side of social endeavour. Its questions are questions of adjustment, the adjustment of means to ends, not only, but of governmental function to historical conditions, to liberty[50]. Concluding the point, Wilson echoed Alexis de Tocqueville, who had argued that administration directly influenced the character of the citizenry[51]. Here lie, of course, the test [questions] as to the success or failure of government. There is an organization which vitalizes, and there is an organization which kills. If government energizes the people by the measure of assistance which it affords, it is good; if it decreases the energy and healthful independence of individual initiative, it is bad, bad just to the extent it does this[52]. Wilson argues clearly in this passage that how the state is organized to operate is vital to the civic vitality of the regime. The domain of administration being organizational effectiveness, that is, the adjustment of experience and law, or facts and ideals, it therefore plays a substantial role in determining the character of the citizenry. To be sure, administration is still primarily an instrumentality of politics. By virtue of the central operational function it performs, however, it invariably has a formative effect on the polity. In the third and final cycle of lectures on administration of 1894-1896, Wilson refined many of his statements further, but they retained the essential thrust of the second cycle. He then took one further formal step in clarifying his ideas about the relationships between politics, constitutions, and administration. He presented his views in his Princeton lectures on the elements of politics and constitutional government, which he delivered nearly in parallel between early March 1898 and late November 1900. His ideas also appeared in his last formal notes for the major scholarly work he planned but never completed, the philosophy of politics. In his elements of politics notes, he characterized politics as of broader significance than political science, because it is a study of life and motive as well as form and object[53]. He defined politics, then, as the study of the life of States; of the genesis and operation of institutions; of the ideas, purposes, and motives of men in political society[54]. Wilson argued that the objects of political society were many and varied because of the varied histories and political lives of nations. However, two common objects were order and progress. Four modern political ideas have shaped the pursuit of these objects by political societies: self-government, freedom, equality, and nationality and humanity (which he alternately labelled

internationality). Wilson clearly saw politics as concerned with the most basic The political questions of civilization: how people could live in society given their diverse thought of mix of motives, ideals, and purposes. In contrast, constitutional government, Woodrow Wilson law, and administration are the integrated institutional instruments of political society. They are the means by which political purposes can be achieved. Thus, in his constitutional government lectures, he defined its ultimate 295 and essential object to bring the active and planning will of each part of the [government] into accord with the prevailing popular thought and need, and to make it an impartial instrument of all-round national development[55]. As he had from congressional government onward, Wilson saw law-making and administration as distinct, but closely linked. He elaborated on the object of constitutional government as a cordial understanding between people and government, and a most fully developed constitutional government was that under which the cordial understanding extends beyond questions of fundamental law to questions of administration and policy[56]. Although constitutions, laws, and administration were instruments of politics and the purposes polities seek to realize, Wilson left no doubt that he understood all three to exert formative effects on those purposes. He made this clear in his discussion of the moulding and modifying power of law in his constitutional government notes[57]. For Wilson, experiment and experience, particularly in the hands of administrative experts, are a prominent part of that modifying power. He stated the idea finally and unequivocally in his last notes for his unfinished magnum opus. Institutions are subsequent to character. They do not create character, but are created and sustained by it. After being successfully established, however, they both confirm and modify national character, forming in no small degree both national thought and national purpose certainly national ideals[58]. Conclusion How will the latest initiatives in administrative reform affect the structure and operations of government agencies and the decisions made by public managers? How will these effects shape the interactions between administrators and citizens? How will these interactions influences the interplay among citizens that is patterned by the missions public managers and their agencies pursue? How will these influences in turn shape how citizens think of their roles, and their relationships to government? Along with the common concerns about efficiency and instrumental effectiveness, these are the kinds of questions political leaders, commentators, and attentive citizens should be asking about broad-based efforts to reform government management. Woodrow Wilsons thinking about constitutional government and administration shows a marked evolution. The understanding of administrations place in a democratic regime that he developed shows that there is much to consider about management reform that is of vital concern to the quality of democratic governance.

JMH 3,4

296

References 1. Sandel, M.J., Americas search for a new public philosophy, The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 277, 1996, pp. 57-74; also, Democracys Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1996. 2. Osborn, D. and Gaebler, T., Reinventing Government, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1992. 3. Bragdon, H.W., Woodrow Wilson: The Academic Years, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1967, p. 97. 4. Link, A.S. (Ed.), The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 5, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1968, pp. 43-4. 5. Wilson, W., Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1981 [originally published, 1885]. 6. Wilson, Congressional Government, p. 170. 7. Wilson, Congressional Government, p. 171. 8. Wilson, Congressional Government, p. 173. 9. Wilson, Congressional Government, p. 174. 10. Wilson, Congressional Government, p. 181. 11. Rabin, J. and Bowman, J.S. (Eds), Politics and Administration: Woodrow Wilson and American Public Administration, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, 1984. 12. Rohr, J.A., The constitutional world of Woodrow Wilson, in Rabin, J. and Bowman, J.S. (Eds), Politics and Administration: Woodrow Wilson and American Public Administration, Marcel Dekker, New York, NY, 1984, p. 32. 13. Wilson, Congressional Government, p. 214. 14. Wilson, Congressional Government, pp. 198 and 214. 15. Wilson, Congressional Government, p. 197. 16. Storing, H.J., American statesmanship: old and new, in Goldwin, R.A. (Ed.), Bureaucrats, Policy Analysts Statesman: Who Leads?, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, 1980, pp. 96-9. 17. Tulis, J.K., The Rhetorical Presidency, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1987, p. 120. 18. Wilson, Congressional Government, pp. 28-29. 19. Wilson, W., The Study of Administration, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 56, 1941 [originally published 1887], p. 497. 20. Wilson, The Study of Administration, pp. 493-5. 21. Wilson, The Study of Administration, pp. 493-4. 22. Rosenbloom, D.H., Reconsidering the politics-administration dichotomy: the supreme court and public personnel management, in Rabin, J. and Bowman, J.S. (Eds), Politics and Administration: Woodrow Wilson and American Public Administration, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1984, p. 104. 23. Kirwin, K.A., Woodrow Wilson and the study of public administration: response to Van Riper, Administration & Society, Vol. 18, 1987, pp. 394-5. 24. Wilson, The Study of Administration, p. 495. 25. Kirwin, Woodrow Wilson, p. 395. 26. Kirwin, Woodrow Wilson, p. 395. 27. Wilson, The Study of Administration, p. 497. 28. Kirwin, Woodrow Wilson, p. 395. 29. Wilson, The Study of Administration, p. 496. 30. Wilson, The Study of Administration, p. 497. 31. Kirwin, Woodrow Wilson, p. 396.

32. Wilson, The Study of Administration, pp. 498-9. 33. Wilson, W., Constitutional Government in the United States, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, 1908, p. 127. 34. Kirwin, Woodrow Wilson, p. 397. 35. Wilson, The Study of Administration, p. 500. 36. Milkis, S.M., The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party System Since the New Deal, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1993, p. 26. 37. Waldo, D., The Administrative State: A Study of the Political Theory of American Public Administration, 2nd ed., Holmes & Meier, New York, NY, 1984. 38. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 5, p. 562. 39. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 5, p. 562. 40. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 5, p. 669. 41. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 5, p. 690. 42. Link, A.S. (Ed.), The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 6, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1969, p. 519. 43. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 6, p. 485. 44. Link, A.S. (Ed.), The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 7, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1969, p. 115. 45. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 7, p. 116. 46. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 7, p. 393. 47. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 7, p. 138. 48. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 7, p. 138. 49. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 7, p. 115. 50. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 7, p. 116. 51. de Tocqueville, A., Democracy in America, Mayer, J.P. (Ed.) (G. Lawrence translation), Perennial Library, New York, NY, 1988, p. 88. 52. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 7, p. 117. 53. Link, A.S. (Ed.), The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 10, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1971, p. 464. 54. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 10, p. 464. 55. Link, A.S. (Ed.), The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 11, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1971, p. 4. 56. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 11, p. 15. 57. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 11, p. 20. 58. Link, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 11, p. 239.

The political thought of Woodrow Wilson 297