Page images
PDF
EPUB

cability of the law to its claims. Hence the tribunal found that the firm had recognized the act of 1889.

At the trial, the claimants Napoleon and Carlo Canevaro urged their Italian nationality as a reason why the act of 1889 should not affect their claim, but the court held that their title was derivative and could be neither better nor worse than the right originally acquired by the firm through which they directly or indirectly claimed. As, therefore, the claim of the firm was subject to the law of 1889, the claim in the hands of the brothers Napoleon and Carlo was subject to the same law. Hence, instead of the sum of 43,143 pounds sterling, they were only entitled to the bonds issued in 1889 to meet this indebtedness.

The bonds or orders of payment (libramientos) of 1880 bore 4 per cent. until due, and after this period until payment the legal rate of 6 per cent. But, as the act of 1889 provided 1 per cent. interest, the tribunal allowed 4 per cent. upon the original outstanding indebtedness until the date of maturity, 6 per cent. after that date until the first of January, 1889, and 1 per cent. upon the bonds issued in 1889 until July 31, 1912, at which date the bonds were to be paid. The tribunal, however, provided further that payment might be delayed until the first of January, 1913, but that from the first of August, 1912, to the first of January, 1913, the debt should bear 6 per cent. interest.

It will be noted that the claims of Napoleon, Carlo and Raphael were submitted to the tribunal, but, as the tribunal found that Raphael Canevaro was a Peruvian citizen, his claim was disallowed, as the Italian Government had no right to present a claim of a Peruvian citizen. As the three brothers were equal claimants, the judgment of the tribunal only affected the interests of the Italian claimants, Napoleon and Carlo Canevaro.

It should be especially noted in conclusion that the tribunal would have considered the claim as purely domestic and would have refused jurisdiction, had it not been for the fact, pointed out in the judgment, that by the compromis, the material portion of which has been quoted, the Peruvian Government consented to submit the claim, although domestic, to international arbitration.

In opening the tribunal, its illustrious president, M. Louis Renault, stated that the Canevaro case did not have the importance of other cases submitted to and decided by a temporary tribunal of the Permanent Court of The Hague. This may be admitted, but every submission to international arbitration tends to create the habit of sub

mission, and is therefore, irrespective of its importance, an international event of capital importance.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE

The March number of the English Review of Reviews devotes seven of its valuable pages to a remarkable article by Senor A. de ManosAlbos entitled "The Next Great Word in the Evolution of Peace. A Plea for Development of the Monroe Doctrine," and "Wanted, a Revised and Extended Monroe Doctrine." It is prefaced by a brief note by Mr. Stead referring to its author as "one of the shrewdest and ablest public men to whom Latin America has given birth in our time." Mr. Stead further characterizes the article as "a masterly presentation of a plea for taking a forward step towards the world's peace by adding to the Monroe Doctrine, which forbids all conquest by European nations in the Western Hemisphere, the important corollary placing under the same interdict all conquest in the American Continent, without regard to the origin of the conquerors." He contends that the adoption of such a principle by the United States would remove the one great obstacle to the extension of her influence and interests in Latin America.

The article so introduced is written with great brilliancy, eloquence and power, dwelling with effect upon the horror of war, the admitted equality and independence of nations and the deep injustice of the stronger trespassing upon the weak. It also shows how "the predatory spirit" is ever on the increase and may be deemed immortal in Europe where it is "deeply rooted in the entrails of past centuries." It points out the immunity from this spirit which the new world has enjoyed, where the attempt of France upon Mexico and of Spain upon Peru "have left no lasting historical trace." It pictures the tide of blood and treasure constantly poured by the old into the new world, now largely into the southern continent, and shows the anxious contemplation of this by the European empires. It suggests that this movement is largely due to the effort to escape "the weary and life long price imposed upon the millions of the masses" as "the fee of empire and of greatness." The war in Tripoli is made a speaking lesson. It urges that the temptation to European Powers to acquire the territory of the seventeen republics, from Mexico to Cape Horn, with an area several times that of central Europe and a population at best of but seventy millions, is vastly beyond the temptations to acquire Egypt, Morocco, Tripoli or Mada

gascar. That if an army of 100,000 men were landed without warning "in true Italian fashion" on one of the sparsely settled republics resistance would be unavailing and the young nation must succumb, like the ancient powers of the East.

Senor de Manos-Albos complains that the United States, while forbidding European conquest in America, have themselves "on occasions turned conquerors." That "the brooding storm of distrust" will disappear from the Latin American mind if the doctrine which he advocates is accepted and acted upon by the United States, and he thinks the present an opportunity for President Taft to establish it. He advocates a declaration "that conquest of territory shall hereafter neither be practiced nor tolerated on the American continent."

Every mind devoted to peace and justice, and we believe they are in the great majority in our own country and in the thinking world, will accede to this sentiment, but, it is submitted, with a broad exception. No nation can retain its sovereignty and independence if it so gravely abuses these high trusts as to prove a permanent and serious menace to the welfare of its neighbors and mankind. The law of necessity in matters of self-protection is fully recognized in municipal law and it cannot be ignored in international affairs. "No man liveth unto himself alone" nor does any nation. Conquest for greed of territory, or treasures, or men ought to be resisted and condemned and we cannot too strongly pledge ourselves against it.

The duty to intervene should not be lightly assumed, but no pledge never to intervene at the call of absolute necessity, no pledge not to appropriate under like necessity ought to be given or exacted. No such pledge, however solemnly uttered, will avail against the compulsion of such a situation if it arises and integrity and prudence alike forbid that it should be given.

The methods which apply to acquiring private property can not be applied between nations; but, exactly as an individual may sacrifice property, liberty and even life by misconduct, and exactly as the rules of law and morality fully recognize and enforce this forfeiture, so may the aggregation of individuals, which we call a state, sacrifice territory, independence and even existence, and that which it forfeits by its faults. another sovereignty must assume and administer for the good of all.

With this vital exception ex necessitate we can as heartily commend the substance of Señor de Manos-Albos contention as we do its moving and impressive presentation.

DENMARK

THE DEATH OF KING FREDERICK VIII

On May 15 King Frederick VIII of Denmark died in Hamburg while returning to Copenhagen from a trip to the south, whither he had gone in search of health. The circumstances of his death were pathetic in the extreme. Wandering from his hotel in the evening, unattended and in citizen's garb, in accordance with a habit of years, he fell in the street, was hurried to a hospital by bystanders who did not recognize him, and died before the members of his family were aware of his absence. So that his death was like his life; for he was universally known as the most democratic monarch of modern times, simple in all his tastes, fond of mingling with the common people, and not at all disposed to impress his own personality upon the constitutional government of which he was the head. He was more widely related to European royalty than any of his contemporaries, and inherited from his father the pseudonym of "the father-in-law of Europe." He was a brother of the queen mother Alexandra of England, of King George of Greece, and of the widowed dowager Empress of Russia. His second son, Karl, was elected King of Norway in 1905, and now reigns as Haakon VII. He was also uncle of the Czar of Russia, and of King George of England. Thus his death plunged four courts into mourning.

On the day after the crown prince Christian was proclaimed King of Denmark as Christian X, and the orderly government of the little peninsular kingdom proceeded without agitation or excitement.

For another reason than this change in her ruler, Denmark has been much in the eyes of the world recently; the political prophets of Europe have had much to say about the schemes of Germany for the absorption of Holland, and about a secret understanding between Germany and Denmark by which the latter is to become a member of the federation, with a large measure of home rule, and Germany thus gain peaceful possession of Esbjerg, the best harbor on the Danish coast. Predictions and rumors of this character are a part of the daily provender of the European press, and are not as a rule taken very seriously in the chancelleries. But the story about Denmark has been so persistent that some of her own people became alarmed, and in March they led to an interpellation in the Danish parliament. It came from the Conservative party, and it promptly elicited from Count Aplefeld, the foreign secretary, a statement so definite and sweeping in it character,

that it at once put an end to all apprehensions, and rightly takes its place as an international event of no little importance. He said:

Denmark is unanimous in its opinion about its foreign policy. If we have a conflict with any other state which we cannot solve by diplomatic negotiations, we shall submit it to arbitration. Our position during any conflict between foreign countries is absolute neutrality. The Danish Parliament and the Danish Government have declared this policy on every necessary occasion. Denmark is not either directly or indirectly bound by any agreement, either tacit or written. We have no treaties and no alliance. The Danish Government enjoys the very best understanding with all other Governments, and no foreign Power can draw us away from our absolutely non-party attitude to other states. The government, with extreme regret, has learnt that its entirely neutral policy has incurred suspicion and hostility amongst a certain party in the country. An attempt has been made to describe the government's policy as the fruit of direct or indirect pressure from Germany, which was supposed to weaken our national independence and lower our prestige among the nations.

I want on this occasion to announce as strongly as I can that all these insinuations are, without exception, entirely devoid of foundation, and I hope sincerely that all these rumors will henceforth disappear.

The foreign secretary proceeded to deny categorically and emphatically, that any pressure of any sort had been brought to bear by Germany upon the Danish Government in military questions of any character. He admitted that there had been lengthy discussions between the two governments, but insisted that they related to the conditions under which Danish-speaking subjects were living in Schleswig, and were based upon two principles, one, that the status quo which arose out of the treaty. with Germany must be maintained, and the other, that the preservation of the Danish language and culture profoundly touches the sentiment of the whole Danish nation.

At the conclusion of his address, the foreign secretary was given a vote of confidence in which the members of all four of the political parties represented in the Folkething unanimously joined.

The sentiment of the Danish people appears to be united that the continued and absolute neutrality of the kingdom is the only safeguard of its independence. The subsequent death of King Frederick and the accession of Christian have been accompanied by many evidences of this national feeling. The Danish people are much stirred in these days by the growth of socialism in their midst; but upon the question of the preservation of their hard earned independence by the maintenance of the strictest neutrality in European politics, they appear to be singularly united.

« PreviousContinue »