Ecuador, Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay. The convention recites the fact that the delegates were duly authorized to sign and bind their respective governments with the exception of the United States, Nicaragua, and Paraguay. The two latter signed the convention, but the delegates from the United States did not. The material portion of this convention reads as follows:

"First: Aliens shall enjoy all civil rights pertaining to citizens, and make use thereof in the substance, form, or procedure, and in the recourses which result therefrom, under exactly the same terms as the said citizens, except as may be otherwise provided by the Constitution of each country.

"Second: The States do not owe to, nor recognize in favor of foreigners, any obligations or responsibilities other than those established by their Constitutions and laws in favor of their citizens.

"Therefore the States are not responsible for damages sustained by aliens through acts of rebels or individuals, and, in general, for damages originating from fortuitous causes of any kind, considering as such the acts of war, whether civil or national; except in the case of failure on the part of the constituted authorities to comply with their duties.

"Third: Whenever an alien shall have claims or complaints of a civil, criminal, or administrative order against a State or its citizens, he shall present his claims to a competent court of the country, and such claims shall not be made, through diplomatic channels, except in the cases where there shall have been, on the part of the court, a manifest denial of justice, or unusual delay, or evident violation of the principles of international law.'1

"The Republics which signed the foregoing convention together with the United States signed another convention on January 27, 1902, for the formation of codes on public and private international law. It provided that 'the Secretary of State of the United States and the ministers of the American Republics, accredited in Washington, shall appoint a committee of five American and two European jurists to draft a code of public international law and another of private international law.'

,2

"It will be seen that if the United States should be fortunate enough to be represented on this committee, the disciples of Calvo would still be in the majority, and the majority of the committee would report a code of public and private international law which would embrace the Doctrine of Calvo, with all its deductions and corollaries.

"Another convention was signed, on January 29, 1902, by the United States and other Republics heretofore named, providing for a Third International Conference to meet within five years at the call of the same parties, who were to prepare codes of public and private international law. Article III of the convention for the preparation of the codes required that these codes should be submitted to the respective governments and to the next American International Conference.

"When the fragments are thus gathered together, we find that a system of international law is to be adopted, at least by this hemisphere, which shall embrace all the doctrines of Calvo. The entire scheme is so formed that his doctrines cannot escape adoption if majorities rule. The four Latin Ameri1 Report of Second International Conference of American States, Senate Document 330, pp. 203, 204, 228.

Report of Second International Conference of American States, Senate Document 330, pp. 203, 204, 228.

cans would outvote the two Europeans and the one citizen of the United States. Here is a complete system outlined fraternally and unostentatiously which would cause the most distinguished Oriental diplomat to blush for his own inferiority. It frees the United States from some of its illusions on the subject of American conferences and American tribunals of arbitration. No American international tribunal could be convened which would render its awards in harmony with the public policy of the United States.

"The Calvo Doctrine will furnish the cause for all or nearly all the wars and diplomatic controversies between Latin-American and European powers, while the United States is expected to defend it singly and alone with its army and navy and by means of its diplomacy. In other words, the United States is expected to fight all the battles for both doctrines."

What do the people of the United States think of this scheme? Have we not gone far enough in aiding these dictatorships to oppress and destroy civilized men? Will our government at Washington permit itself to be hoodwinked into becoming a party to this new league of shame? Mr. Edgington deserves public thanks for so clearly explaining the danger. If such men as he were sent to represent our government in these "Pan" Conferences, there would be less champagne and more common sense in the proceedings. It would be still better to abolish them entirely.

II. THE DRAGO DOCTRINE

Argentina was very anxious to plead the cause of Venezuela at the time of the English-German blockade, and on December 29, 1902, Luis M. Drago, Minister of Foreign Affairs of that country, wrote to Martin Garcia Merou, Argentine Minister to the United States, a letter which was handed to Secretary Hay. In this letter the views of Argentina were expressed. Mr. Drago said:

"According to your Excellency's information, the origin of the disagreement is, in part, the damages suffered by subjects of the claimant nations during the revolutions and wars that have recently occurred within the borders of the Republic mentioned, and in part also the fact that certain payments on the external debt of the nation have not been met at the proper time.

"Leaving out of consideration the first class of claims for the adequate adjustment of which it would be necessary to consult the laws of the several countries, this government has deemed it expedient to transmit to your Excellency some considerations with reference to the forcible collection of the public debt suggested by the events that have taken place.

"At the outset it is to be noted in this connection that the capitalist who lends his money to a foreign State always takes into account the resources of the country, and the probability, greater or less, that the obligations contracted will be fulfilled without delay.

"All governments thus enjoy different credit according to their degree of civilization and culture, and their conduct in business transactions; and these conditions are measured and weighed before making any loan, the terms

being made more or less onerous, in accordance with the precise data concerning them which bankers always have on record.

"In the first place, the lender knows that he is entering into a contract with a sovereign entity, and it is an inherent qualification of all sovereignty that no proceedings for the execution of a judgment may be instituted or carried out against it, since this manner of collection would compromise its very existence and cause the independence and freedom of action of the respective governments to disappear.

"Among the fundamental principles of public international law which humanity has consecrated, one of the most precious is that which decrees that all States, whatever be the force at their disposal, are entities in law, perfectly equal one to another, and mutually entitled in virtue thereof to the same consideration and respect.

"The acknowledgment of the debt, the payment of it in its entirety, can and must be made by the nation without diminution of its inherent rights as a sovereign entity, but the summary and immediate collection at a given moment, by means of force, would occasion nothing less than the ruin of the weakest nations, and the absorption of their governments, together with all the functions inherent in them, by the mighty of the earth. . .

...

"What has not been established, what could in no wise be admitted, is that, once the amount for which it may be indebted has been determined by legal judgment, it should be deprived of the right to choose the manner and time of payment, in which it has as much interest as the creditor himself, or more, since its credit and its national honor are involved therein.

"This is in no wise a defence of bad faith, disorder, and deliberate and voluntary insolvency. It is intended merely to preserve the dignity of the public international entity which may not thus be dragged into war with detriment to those high ends which determine the existence and liberty of nations. . . .

"The collection of loans by military means implies territorial occupation to make them effective, and territorial occupation signifies the suppression or subordination of the governments of the countries on which it is imposed.

"Such a situation seems obviously at variance with the principles many times proclaimed by the nations of America, and particularly with the Monroe Doctrine, sustained and defended with so much zeal on all occasions by the United States, a doctrine to which the Argentine Republic has heretofore solemnly adhered."

Mr. Hay's reply seems very cold when compared with the stuff usually sent out from the State Department on such occasions. He said:

"Without expressing assent to or dissent from the propositions ably set forth in the note of the Argentine Minister of Foreign Relations, dated December 29, 1902, the general position of the government of the United States in this matter is indicated in recent messages of the President.

"The President declared in his message to Congress, December 3, 1901, that by the Monroe Doctrine 'we do not guarantee any State against punishment if it misconducts itself, provided that punishment does not take the form of the acquisition of territory by any non-American power.'

"In harmony with the foregoing language, the President announced in his message of December 2, 1902:

"No independent nation in America need have the slightest fear of aggression from the United States. It behooves each one to maintain order within its own borders and to discharge its just obligations to foreigners. When this is done, they can rest assured that, be they strong or weak, they have nothing to dread from outside interference.'

The propositions put forth by the Argentine minister are of that specious character which are always brought forth to shield the military Dictators and their cliques. Mr. Drago seeks to "leave out of consideration" those wrongs committed on foreigners during periods of revolution, whether by government troops or by insurgents. He then tries to make it appear that the debts due are for voluntary loans, made by bankers. The world knows, however, that they were mostly caused by wholesale confiscation of the property of business men, by forced loans, by illegal and violent seizures, and by other torts and crimes of the most aggravating character. He would further have it appear that this blockade was merely an attempt to compel the immediate payment of ordinary debts due in the commonplace transaction of business, where the government stood ready to pay as soon as it could raise the funds. The utter falsity of this is shown in our chapter "Events leading up to the Venezuelan Blockade," 1903, where it is shown that many acts of piracy had been committed by Venezuela against English and German vessels, and numerous outrages committed on their citizens; their flags insulted, and their representatives treated with contumely. Mr. Drago, of course, had in the end to appeal to the sacred Monroe Doctrine to sustain him.

If all the iniquities that have been committed in Central and South America under the protecting folds of that doctrine were painted in one panorama, and held up to the view of the people of the United States, there would be a conscience-stricken nation instantaneously on its knees. But the American people do not know the whole truth.

III. ACCEPTANCE OF THE DRAGO DOCTRINE

The final depths of the impotency of the American State Department were sounded in the attitude of Secretary of State Root, and the American delegates to the "Pan" Convention at Rio de Janeiro in August, 1906, on the question of the acceptance of the Drago Doctrine.

This doctrine, like all the other vagaries which have sprung up like poisonous toadstools under the shadow of Monroeism, is designed to deny all redress to foreigners who suffer spoliation at the hands of the governments of Latin America. In diplomatic phraseology, this doctrine denies the right of foreign governments to use force in protecting their citizens in their contractual obligations with other governments. If a Latin-American dictatorship enters into a contract with an American or other foreigner, and in virtue of this contract

induces him to invest large sums, and then when the foreigner's money is securely in the country, the dictatorship should declare the contract void, or "unconstitutional," or should refuse to live up to and abide by it, and if because of this action the foreigner is ruined, - his property confiscated or rendered worthless, - where does the Drago Doctrine come in? It prescribes that the foreigner's own government must not use force in protecting him, which is equivalent to saying that it must not protect him at all, because most of these Latin-American countries are not amenable to diplomatic representations.

Now, on this shameless doctrine, a doctrine which makes us mute witnesses of the despoiling of our own citizens by bandit chiefs, — let us see where President Roosevelt's State Department stands, as voiced by Secretary Root. I quote, not from an “anti-imperialist sheet like the New York "Herald," the New York "Evening Post," or the Memphis "Commercial Appeal," but from a great patriotic daily, usually one of our broadest-minded publications. The New York "Tribune," in its issue of August 21, 1906, said editorially:

"Not often has there been in the international affairs of the American Republics a more interesting, a more dramatic, or a more propitious coincidence than that of Friday last at Rio Janeiro and Buenos Ayres. The full committee of the Pan-American Congress at the Brazilian capital unanimously agreed upon a resolution providing for the submission of the Drago Doctrine to the next conference at the Hague by the various American States, with a request for its consideration and for action upon it. At the same time, in the Argentine capital, ex-Secretary Drago, the author of that doctrine, and Secretary Root met, publicly exchanged views, and disclosed the gratifying fact that upon the question of that doctrine and upon matters in general pertaining to the relations of Anglo-Saxon America with Latin America they were in complete accord.

"It had been said that Señor Drago declined to go as a delegate to the Pan-American Congress because of some notion that Mr. Root or the United States government was antagonistic to the Drago Doctrine. If such was the case, it is evident that the distinguished Argentine statesman labored under a regrettable misapprehension, of which he has now doubtless been entirely disabused. As a matter of fact it was one of the greatest men of his day in the United States, Alexander Hamilton, who first suggested that doctrine; other statesmen of this country, official and unofficial, have from time to time repeated it, not infrequently as a rule of governmental action, so that, as Mr. Root said in his response to Señor Drago's generous toast, the United States has ever acted in accordance with that doctrine, in spirit and in letter, and will doubtless always continue so to do. It is a cardinal principle of American policy, and in support of it Señor Drago could have wished and could have had no more sympathetic and efficient advocate than the American Secretary of State."

When such views are voiced by one of our greatest dailies, what shall we expect from others?