all.]

their ideas respected, to the mutual advantage of all. This is proved not only by the fact of the logical extension of the Doctrine, but also because the points comprised in the first division of questions have been proclaimed by the Latin states in their congresses, as we have already seen. This view gains strength also through the circumstance that whenever the Latin states found themselves in any of these difficult situations, they turned to the Republic of the North for protection; and, finally, because these states have striven to discover new applications for the Monroe Doctrine such as the famous proposal of the Argentine Government, known under the name of the Drago Doctrine, regarding which we will have something to say later

on.

To the second category belong:

(a) To prevent one European state from transferring to another, without the consent of the United States, the colonies it possesses on the New Continent: declaration of Clay in 1825 to the governments of France and England, to the effect that the Union would not permit Spain to transfer Cuba or Puerto Rico to a European country. President Grant later reaffirmed this.

(b) To present itself as the sole master and guardian of every highway between the United States and Panama to connect the two great oceans: Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850. This treaty is "anti-Monroe" as it accepts the principle that a European power may have a word in American affairs, but the negotiations of the United States to abrogate the treaty constitute manifestations of the leadership of the nation.

(c) To intervene in the formation of new states in America whether their establishment be through act of emancipation, secession or otherwise (emancipation of Cuba and secession of Panama).

In the third category are to be found numerous well-known examples, among which it may be well duly to call to mind here the interference of the United States in 1895 at the time of the dispute between England and Venezuela as to the boundary of British Guiana. In this intervention, which is a most characteristic act of hegemony, the discussion between the chancelleries of the United States and England on the Monroe Doctrine, involved the point advanced by Olney that American

1

problems could only be solved by Americans. President Cleveland (message of December 17, 1895) invoked the Monroe Doctrine. The conflict was terminated by the Treaty of February 2, 1897, between England and Venezuela which submitted the question to arbitration, and on the 3rd of October, 1899, almost the entire territory was adjudged British soil.

The second and third categories come properly within the limits of the idea of hegemony and not of the Monroe Doctrine, to which, indeed, they rather run counter.

If the states of Latin America do not look with great favor upon the policy indicated under the second heading, they at least do not condemn it, providing it be pursued with reason and all proper moderation. As to the third category, these states not only do not reject it, but have sought and always will seek protection under it whenever it may operate to their benefit. But the circumstance that the United States has not always taken the lead with the necessary tact, has not at all times given its protection to the countries of America, and has held itself aloof with disdain from these republics until a late day, explains the dread they have felt of the hegemony of the Union, a fear fomented by the press and literature of Europe which represents the United States as preparing to absorb all America.

The extension given to the Monroe Doctrine and the hegemony of the United States, unlike the doctrine itself, have not been formulated as one piece nor at one time or in a solemn manner; on the contrary, they have grown little by little as circumstances have required them. And it is even more curious to note that the United States did not appeal to the doctrine during the time when it was strictly applying the principles contained therein, and that it has appealed to it when its application was not in point and when the act in question was one of hegemony (e. g., in the above mentioned conflict between England and Venezuela).

The hegemony of the United States, as well as the Monroe Doctrine, has been attacked in Europe as lacking any basis in international law. But the truth of the matter is that the leadership of the United States as well as the doctrine have been tacitly recognized by the states of Europe, which have been the first to turn to the United States in conflicts with Latin

American states. Further, the United States solemnly and emphatically re-asserted its determination in the matter in the first Hague Conference. This country then showed itself more firmly than ever disposed, according to the expression of one of its delegates, "to maintain this policy and the Monroe Doctrine, in its later approved and extended form, carefully and energetically."

It may be said regarding the position of hegemony of the United States, that it has usually asserted itself in efforts to prevent civil wars in countries on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico. Only one case is to be found where it has acted in the rest of the continent: viz., in opposition to the restoration of the monarchy of Brazil, in 1893-1894.

It may be further said that its manifestations have not shown the same intensity in every part of the continent: it has been much more effective in countries lying close to the United States than in those that are more distant. The interference of the northern republic has been particularly marked in countries situated on the Gulf of Mexico (Cuba, Panama Canal, secession of the Republic of Panama, boundary dispute between Venezuela and England). However, there is one case on record where it not only did not desire to intervene but when it refused to do so after having been called upon for assistance-in the matter of Lueders out of which grew the difficulty between Germany and Haiti. On this occasion Secretary of State Sherman declared that the Monroe Doctrine did not compel the United States to be involved in the continual conflicts between American republics and other nations.

As to the countries situated south of the equatorial line, the leadership of the United States has hardly ever been asserted, owing to the small interests the Union has in these regions, the difficulties of distance, and the more perfect organization of the governments there, which has not made it necessary to interfere in their relations with foreign powers. On several occasions, the United States refused to intervene: as, in 1881, at the time of the war between Chile and Peru, when it declined to join France and Great Britain in order to put an end to hostilities, and, in 1897, in the boundary dispute between Chile and Argentina.

The hegemony of the United States, above all, according to

the significance it has in the third division, is comparable to the system of "balance of power" which was exercised in Europe by the Great Powers, though the two notions are by no means to be confounded. Far from deserving absolute condemnation, as has been lightly said by certain publicists, it should be differently judged, as having been generally beneficial to America, as it has made this hemisphere respected by the countries of Europe in spite of the acts of intervention that have been carried out against it. But, if this hegemony is not more burdensome than the European "balance of power," its application possesses this one defect, however, that, being exercised by a single country it is not subject to proper control. Consequently it will never have the prestige and moral weight that is enjoyed by the former.

The conclusion which we reach is that the Monroe Doctrine with the extension of its principles, as well as the policy of hegemony, gives yet another characteristic touch to the international relations of the states of the new world, and, is, consequently, of great importance to international law.

American Journal of International Law. 6:937-9. October,

1912

Magdalena Bay Resolution

Midway in the southerly third of the west coast of Lower California, and perhaps 3,000 miles from Panama, is a large bay. The back country is barren and thirsty, but on the shore and off it is moss which contains a dye and fish. Lumber and cattle are said to be possibilities also. An American company secured here from Mexico a large tract of land, several million acres, which border on the bay and run back from it. This company was unprofitable. Its chief creditor, a New Hampshire lumberman, has taken it over and tried to secure himself by making a sale to certain Japanese subjects. Before concluding any bargain, however, his agent very properly consulted the United States Department of State to learn its attitude. This was adverse, it being aware of the outcry sure to be made if a Japanese coaling, fishery or other station or colony were to be established on our side of the Pacific. Nor did Mr. Knox look

with more favor upon a sale limiting the ownership of the Japanese to a minority. The owner and creditor of the concession seemed to have sought Japanese aid in colonization because no other labor there was available. The Japanese Government had nothing whatever to do with the scheme. Moreover by Mexican law no concession holds good under heavy penalty, if transfer is sought by the concessionnaires to a foreign government.

This was the situation then when the susceptibilities of the Senate were aroused last July, and Mr. Lodge introduced the following Resolution:

Resolved: That when any harbor or other place in the American continent is so situated that the occupation thereof for naval or military purposes might threaten the communications or the safety of the United States, the Government of the United States could not see without grave concern the possession of such harbor or other place by any corporation or association which has such a relation to another government not American as to give that government practical power of control for national purposes.

It is understood that in secret session for the last word but one "national" was substituted "naval or military."

A Senate resolution is an expression of its opinion. This resolution was intended to be an announcement of national policy to foreign Powers. It was introduced after information had been sought from the President on the subject. This went to show that the conduct of other Powers in regard to those lands had been entirely correct. In the discussion which led up to and which followed the introduction of this resolution it appeared that its mover chose not to regard it as an extension of the Monroe Doctrine but as based upon the law or right of self-defense which is fundamental, the Agadir incident being a precedent. But in Africa, the German action was official governmental. Whereas at Magdalena Bay, as Senator Rayner had well brought out in May, it was a question of private commercial use only. Has the United States a right to assume that private commercial use of such a harbor as this, could be so easily converted into government use as to warrant its prohibition before any sign whatever of abuse or of danger was visible? That the Senate so believes is clear, for it passed