of it to meet the growing, changing needs of this hemisphere. Fossilization, of course, means death, whether to an individual, a government, or a doctrine.

"It is out of the question to claim a right and yet shirk the responsibility for exercising that right. When we announce a policy such as the Monroe Doctrine, we thereby commit ourselves to accepting the consequences of the policy, and these consequences from time to time alter.

"Let us look for a moment at what the Monroe Doctrine really is. It forbids the territorial encroachment of non-American powers on American soil. Its purpose is partly to secure this nation against seeing great military powers obtain new footholds in the Western Hemisphere, and partly to secure to our fellow republics south of us the chance to develop along their own lines without being oppressed or conquered by non-American powers. As we have grown more and more powerful, our advocacy of this doctrine has been received with more and more respect; but what has tended most to give the doctrine standing among the nations is our growing willingness to show that we not only mean what we say and are prepared to back it up, but that we mean to recognize our obligations to foreign peoples no less than to insist upon our rights.

"We cannot permanently adhere to the Monroe Doctrine unless we succeed in making it evident in the first place, that we do not intend to treat it in any shape or way as an excuse for aggrandizement on our part at the expense of the Republics to the south of us; second, that we do not intend to permit it to be used by any of these Republics as a shield to protect that Republic from the consequences of its own misdeeds against foreign nations; third, that inasmuch as by this doctrine we prevent other nations from interfering on this side of the water, we shall ourselves in good faith try to help those of our sister Republics, which need such help, upward toward peace and order.

66

'As regards the first point we must recognize the fact that in some South American countries there has been much suspicion lest we should interpret the Monroe Doctrine in some way inimical to their interests. Now let it be understood once for all that no just and orderly government on this continent has anything to fear from us. There are certain of the Republics south of us which have already reached such a point of stability, order, and prosperity that they are themselves, although as yet hardly consciously, among the guarantors of this doctrine. No stable and growing American Republic wishes to see some great non-American military power acquire territory in its neighborhood. It is to the interest of all of us on this continent that no such event should occur, and in addition to our own Republic there are now already Republics in the regions south of us which have reached a point of prosperity and power that enables them to be considerable factors in maintaining this doctrine which is so much to the advantage of all of us. It must be understood that under no circumstances will the United States use the Monroe Doctrine as a cloak for territorial aggression. Should any of our neighbors, no matter how turbulent, how disregardful of our rights, finally get into such a position that the utmost limits of our forbearance are reached, all the people south of us may rest assured that no action will ever be taken save what is absolutely demanded by our self-respect; that this action will not take the form of territorial aggrandizement on our part, and that it will only be taken at all with the most extreme reluctance and not without having exhausted every effort to avert it.

"As to the second point, if a Republic to the south of us commits a tort against a foreign nation, such, for instance, as wrongful action against the

of citizens of that nation, then the Monroe Doctrine does not force persons us to interfere to prevent punishment of the tort, save to see that the punishment does not directly or indirectly assume the form of territorial occupation of the offending country. The case is more difficult when the trouble comes from the failure to meet contractual obligations. Our own government has always refused to enforce such contractual obligations on behalf of its citizens by the appeal to arms. It is much to be wished that all foreign governments would take the same view. But at present this country would certainly not be willing to go to war to prevent a foreign government from collecting a just debt or to back up some one of our sister Republics in a refusal to pay just debts, and the alternative may in any case prove to be that we shall ourselves undertake to bring about some arrangement by which so much as is possible of the just obligations shall be paid. Personally I should always prefer to see this country step in and put through such an arrangement rather than let any foreign country undertake it.

"I do not want to see any foreign power take possession permanently or temporarily of the custom houses of an American Republic in order to enforce its obligations, and the alternative may at any time be that we shall be forced to do so ourselves.

"Finally, and what is, in my view, really the most important thing of all, it is our duty, so far as we are able, to try to help upward our weaker brothers. Just as there has been a gradual growth of the ethical element in the relations of one individual to another, so that with all the faults of our Christian civilization it yet remains true that we are, no matter how slowly, more and more coming to recognize the duty of bearing one another's burdens, similarly I believe that the ethical element is by degrees entering into the dealings of one nation with another.

"Under strain of emotion caused by sudden disaster this feeling is very evident. A famine or a plague in one country brings much sympathy and some assistance from other countries. Moreover, we are now beginning to recognize that weaker people have a claim upon us, even when the appeal is made not to our emotions by some sudden calamity, but to our consciences by a longcontinuing condition of affairs.

"I do not mean to say that nations have more than begun to approach the proper relationship one to another, and I fully recognize the folly of proceeding upon the assumption that this ideal condition can now be realized in full, for in order to proceed upon such an assumption, we would first require some method of forcing recalcitrant nations to do their duty, as well as of seeing that they are protected in their rights.

"In the interest of justice, it is as necessary to exercise the police power as to show charity and helpful generosity. But something can even now be done toward the end in view. That something, for instance, this nation has already done as regards Cuba and is now trying to do as regards Santo Domingo. There are few things in our history in which we should take more genuine pride than the way in which we liberated Cuba, and then, instead of instantly abandoning it to chaos, stayed in direction of the affairs of the island until we had put it on the right path, and finally gave it freedom and helped it as it started on the life of an independent republic."

IV. FUTILITY OF ROOSEVELT'S PROGRAM

It is clear that President Roosevelt's knowledge of Latin-American countries is nil, so far as personal observation is concerned. In his anxiety to stand up straight he leans backwards. Take a sentence from the President's speech:

"Our own government has always refused to enforce such contractual obligations on behalf of its citizens by the appeal to arms. It is much to be wished that all foreign governments would take the same view. But at present this country would certainly not be willing to go to war to prevent a foreign government from collecting a just debt, or to back up some one of our sister Republics in a refusal to pay a just debt.”

Well, it is to be hoped that our government would not go to war for such a purpose! It is to be hoped that there are enough sane men on the North American continent to prevent such murderous idiocy as that! But could a robbing, looting, murdering military Jefe in Latin America desire a nicer interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine than that above given ?

We will not use force to protect our citizens in their contractual rights; and as a matter of fact we never have. Their railroads or mines or business houses or gold or residences can be taken from them by force, or by the hocus pocus called judiciary proceedings, and our government will only fire paper bullets, - it says so itself,and we fervently hope all other nations will permit their citizens to be looted and outraged with similar expressions of suavity upon their lips! Great is the Monroe Doctrine!

"I believe that the ethical element is by degrees entering into the dealings of one nation with another."

Ought not that to work both ways? Does anybody suppose the Military Dictator of Venezuela or Honduras cares a rap for Christian ethics? If he does, why does he not quit robbing and murdering innocent and helpless people? Why did not some philosopher arise to talk of "Christian ethics" when we were dealing with Black Hawk and Sitting Bull and the rest of them? Does a sheriff go out to meet a band of highwaymen with a treatise on Christian ethics in his hands?

The President speaks of the possibility of our taking possession, in certain contingencies, of the custom houses of some of these sisters of ours. What good would that do? Can a Bengal tiger be overcome by cutting an inch off his tail? If not, then you cannot civilize a semi-barbarous dictatorship by seizing one of its custom houses.

What is needed is a complete regeneration, not a mere chastisement. "First seek ye the Kingdom of God and its righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." I would paraphrase this by saying: "First establish decent civilized governments

in these dictatorships, and everything else good will come in due season."

What use is it to talk of aggression or self-aggrandizement? A few years ago La Salle explored the West, and there was nothing but Indians there. A little later Fort Dearborn was an outpost on the banks of a murky stream where it entered the lake, with swamps and snakes and Indians all around; to-day the magnificent city of Chicago, with two million inhabitants, with inconceivable wealth, education, and creative intellectual power, stands on the site where such a short time ago the stealthy Indian guided his canoe amid the chirping of the bull-frogs. Is that aggression? Is that aggrandizement? If it be, then am I an aggressionist and an aggrandizer.

IN

CHAPTER VI

PAN-AMERICAN CONFERENCES

N the development of the general policy of the United States towards the Latin-American countries, the Pan-American conferences must be taken into consideration. They are an outgrowth of the sentimental attitude of the United States government, and may be said, directly or indirectly, to be related to the Monroe Doctrine.

Mention has been made in a preceding chapter of the efforts of Bolívar to inaugurate a Pan-American Congress at Panama in 1826, of the strenuous efforts made by President Adams to obtain the support of the United States Congress to the appointment of delegates, and of the bitter controversy which arose between the executive and legislative departments of the government on account of this subject. On June 22, 1826, representatives of Peru, Mexico, Central America, and Colombia met at Panama, adopted certain resolutions, and signed "a treaty of union, league, and perpetual confederation between the four States represented," to which the other powers were invited to give their assent. They provided that the convention should be renewed annually in time of war, and they also signed a "convention which fixes the contingent which each confederate should contribute to the common defence." After this Panama fiasco other efforts, between revolutions, were made by the South American countries to establish Pan-American Congresses.

The Dictators of Mexico, a country at that time in the throes of anarchy, seemed possessed with a desire to hold conferences, and issued various invitations to this effect to other countries, December 18, 1838, August 6, 1839, and April 2, 1840. These were without result.

on

In 1847 a conference was held of representatives of Bolivia, Chili, Ecuador, Peru, and New Granada at Lima. Nineteen meetings were held between December 11, 1847, and March 1, 1848, when the conference adjourned without having accomplished anything of practical importance.

On September 15, 1856, Peru, Chili, and Ecuador were represented at Santiago in a conference which proposed the "Continental Treaty"; but nothing ever came of it.

On January 11, 1864, Peru extended invitations to all the Spanish countries of the Western Hemisphere to meet at Lima in order,