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, among other things, to declare that "the American nations represented in this Congress form one single family, bound together by like principles and identical interests to maintain their independence, their autonomic rights, and their national existence." Bolivia objected to the United States being represented in this conference; but the objection meant little, since the meetings produced nothing. Under date, October 11, 1880, Colombia sent invitations to the other Latin-American countries to hold a "Congress" in Panama in September, 1881. Lengthy essays on "peace," "arbitration," and the rest were written by the different "Doctors" representing the several countries. The Minister of Argentina, Bernado de Irigoyen, in answering Colombia's invitation, took occasion to call attention to the war then raging on the Pacific coast. He said: "Bolivia and Chili solemnly agreed upon arbitration, and notwithstanding this agreement, suggested by prudence and fraternity, differences not originally affecting the honor or dignity of those nations were left to the decision of the sword." A general war broke out about the time fixed for the meeting of this "Congress"; it was, therefore, not held. Under date, November 29, 1881, Secretary of State James G. Blaine issued a circular letter to all the American countries inviting them to a conference at Washington in 1882. Replies were received from most of the countries. Guzman Blanco, the Venezuelan Dictator, went into ecstasies over "this idea so transcendental, elevated, far-seeing, and practical." But while these grandiloquent replies were coming in to Mr. Blaine, the game of butchery proceeded in South America. When Mr. Frelinghuysen became Secretary of State, he realized how nonsensical it was to attempt to hold such a congress, with most of the countries represented involved in general and internecine strife. Therefore, on August 9, 1882, he sent out a circular letter withdrawing the invitations to the conference. A "South American Congress" was held at Montevideo from August 25, 1888, to February 18, 1889. This "Congress” held thirtyfive meetings and drafted treaties on international law, etc. While these various schemes have been presented for Pan-American Congresses, a large number of different bills have been introduced in the Congress of the United States bearing on the subject. Those interested in the history of this subject are referred to the "Historical Appendix, International American Conference," Washington, 1890. I On May 24, 1888, the President approved a law of Congress authorizing him to invite the Latin-American governments to a conference to be held in Washington in 1889, for the purpose of discussing and recommending some plan of arbitration and settlement of dis agreements, and for various other purposes. They were to consider measures to preserve the peace, the formation of a customs union, the establishment of better communications, the adoption of a common silver coin, a uniform system of weights, measures, copyrights, trademarks, etc. Answers were promptly received from the several countries. The conference assembled in the Diplomatic Chamber at Washington on October 2, 1889. James G. Blaine, who was then Secretary of State, delivered an eloquent address of welcome. The conference was organized by the election of officers, the adoption of rules of procedure, the appointment of a large number of standing committees on railway communications, customs regulations, sanitary regulations, international law, etc. PROPOSED CHANGES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW The Latin-American delegates to this conference seemed to be very anxious to establish new doctrines of "International Law." Indeed, that would seem to be the prime function of these conferences, and the raison d'être for their existence. The "Congress" at Montevideo on March 25, 1888, had promulgated a number of proposed treaties affecting private international law, civil law, commercial law, and the law of proceedings; and this conference recommended that the respective governments "cause said treaties to be studied, so as to render themselves able, within the year. . . to declare whether they do or do not accept the said treaties. The Committee on "Claims and Diplomatic Intervention" displayed in its report the true animus of this conference. This committee on April 12, 1890, submitted the following recommendations: The International American Conference recommends to the governments of the countries therein represented the adoption, as principles of American international law, of the following: (1) Foreigners are entitled to enjoy all the civil rights enjoyed by natives; and they shall be accorded all the benefits of said rights in all that is essential as well as in the form of procedure, and the legal remedies incident thereto, absolutely in like manner as said natives. (2) A nation has not, nor recognizes in favor of foreigners, any other obligations or responsibilities than those which in favor of the natives are established, in like cases, by the Constitution and the laws. FERNANDO CRUZ. The heart of this entire conference is summed up in this report,the intention to deprive the foreigner at all hazards of the protection of his own government, so that the military Jefes could rob him to their hearts' content. |