inscribed by any adequate authority in the code of international law." Again he says: "They (Her Majesty's Government) fully concur with the view which President Monroe apparently entertained, that any disturbance of the existing territorial distribution in the hemisphere by any fresh acquisitions on the part of any European State, would be a highly inexpedient change.” In the belief that the doctrine for which we contend was clear and definite, that it was founded upon substantial considerations and involved our safety and welfare, that it was fully applicable to our present conditions and to the state of the world's progress and that it was directly related to the pending controversy and without any conviction as to the final merits of the dispute, but anxious to learn in a satisfactory and conclusive manner whether Great Britain sought, under a claim of boundary, to extend her possessions on this continent without right, or whether she merely sought possession of territory fairly included within her lines of ownership, this Government proposed to the Government of Great Britain a resort to arbitration as the proper means of settling the question to the end that a vexatious boundary dispute between the two contestants might be determined and our exact standing and relation in respect to the controversy might be made clear. It will be seen from the correspondence herewith submitted that this proposition has been declined by the British Government, upon grounds which in the circumstances seem to me to be far from satisfactory. It is deeply disappointing that such an appeal actuated by the most friendly feelings towards both nations directly concerned, addressed to the sense of justice and to the magnanimity of one of the great powers of the world and touching its relations to one comparatively weak and small, should have produced no better results. The course to be pursued by this Government in view of the present condition does not appear to admit of serious doubt. Having labored faithfully for many years to induce Great Britain to submit this dispute to impartial arbitration, and having been now finally apprized of her refusal to do so, nothing remains but to accept the situation, to recognize its plain requirements and deal with it accordingly. Great Britain's present proposition has never thus far been regarded as admissible by Venezuela, though any adjustment of the boundary which that country may deem for her advantage and may enter into of her own free will cannot of course be objected to by the United States. Assuming, however, that the attitude of Venezuela will remain unchanged, the dispute has reached such a stage as to make it now incumbent upon the United States to take measures to determine with sufficient certainty for its justification what is the true divisional line between the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana. The inquiry to that end should of course be conducted carefully and judicially and due weight should be given to all available evidence, records and facts in support of the claims of both parties. In order that such an examination should be prosecuted in a thorough and satisfactory manner I suggest that the Congress make an adequate appropriation for the expenses of a Commission, to be appointed by the Executive, who shall make the necessary investigation and report upon the matter with the least possible delay. When such report is made and accepted it will in my opinion be the duty of the United States to resist by every means in its power as a willful aggression upon its rights and interests the appropriation by Great Britain of any lands or the exercise of governmental jurisdiction over any territory which after investigation we have determined of right belongs to Venezuela. In making these recommendations I am fully alive to the responsibility incurred, and keenly realize all the consequences that may follow. I am nevertheless firm in my conviction that while it is a grievous thing to contemplate the two great English-speaking peoples of the world as being otherwise than friendly competitors in the onward march of civilization, and strenuous and worthy rivals in all the arts of peace, there is no calamity which a great nation can invite which equals that which follows a supine submissiou to wrong and injustice and the consequent loss of national self respect and honor beneath which are shielded and defended a people's safety and greatness." Haiti 1897 A German subject in Haiti having been arrested, thrown into prison, tried and sentenced, the German Government demanded the removal from office of the justices who convicted the man, the imprisonment of the officer who made the charge upon which he was arrested and indemnity of $1,000 a day for every day's imprisonment before a second judgment had been passed and $5,000 a day for every day thereafter. The Haitian Government declined to accede to this demand and desired to refer the matter to arbitration. The German Government on its part declined this offer and then demanded that the President should make the "amende honorable," by hearing read a despatch from the Emperor and by paying an indemnity of $20,000. The Haitian Government at first declined either to make the apology or to pay the indemnity. It afterwards agreed to pay the indemnity. On December 6, 1897, at 6 a. m. two German naval vessels arrived in the harbor of Port au Prince. The commander demanded, under penalty of shelling all the public buildings and forts at 1 o'clock of the same day, that the Haitian Government accede to the following demands: (1) Payment of an indemnity of $30,000; (2) the return of Leuders (the man arrested) and responsibility for his safety; (3) an apology for the treatment of the German Emperor's representatives; (4) the renewal of relations and the prompt acceptance of a German representative. Haiti yielded. The matter having been called to the attention of this Government, Secretary Sherman in an instruction to Mr. Powell, our Minister in Haiti, declared: This Government is not under any obligation to become involved in the constantly recurring quarrels of the Republics of this hemisphere with other states. The Monroe Doctrine to which you refer, is wholly inapplicable to the case, and the relations and interests of this government with its neighbors are not benefitted by erroneous conceptions of the scope of the policy announced by President Monroe and since strictly followed." 77 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1895, pt. 1, pp. 542–545. 78 MS., Instructions, Haiti, vol. iv, pp. 23–24; Moore, International Law Digest, vol. vi, p. 475. 1898 Haiti The Government of Haiti having expressed a desire, born of the "severe lesson " given by Germany over the "Leuders" incident, requested the American Minister in Haiti "to get the views of the Government of the United States, to arrange for a new treaty, in which they desire a closer alliance with us, virtually placing themselves under our protection." Secretary Sherman replying to this inquiry under date of January 11, 1898, instructed Mr. Powell as follows: It would be unfortunate, if, by your reception of the overtures you now report, or in your intercourse with the Haitian administration or its friends, you have encouraged any impression that this government entertains a policy in this relation other than that to which it has scrupulously adhered from the beginnings of our national life. You cannot be unaware that the proposal for a Congress of the American States to be held in Panama in 1825-6, rested on the theory that all of them, with the United States at their head, should stand pledged to mutual protection against foreign aggression looking to interference with their political organization, yet even as to this important aspect of the question, this country held aloof, in the conviction that in any such system, "the United States would necessarily be its protector, and the party responsible to the world, while the Spanish-American States would get the benefits of a system of mutual protection which the United States did not need." (See Dana's Wheaton, page 101, foot-note.) Moreover, protectorates over our neighbors have never been advocated in our foreign policy, being contrary to the principles upon which this government is founded. A protectorate, however qualified, assumes a greater or less degree of responsibility on the part of the protector for the acts of the protected State, without the ability to shape or control these acts, unless the relation created be virtually that of colonial dependency, with paramount intervention of the protector in the domestic concerns of the protected community. Any such relation is obviously out of the question in an arrangement between sovereign states, and would assuredly never be proposed by a State so jealous of its independence as Haiti. These observations are made for your personal guidance in dealing with the embarrassing suggestions which, it would seem, are made to you by wellmeaning persons, who have not considered the subject in its true lights. They are not intended for communication to such persons. You certainly should not proceed on the hypothesis, that it is the duty of the United States to protect its American neighbors from the responsibilities which attend the exercise of independent sovereignty. It behooves me to enjoin upon you the utmost circumspection and reticence as to matters of this character in your intercourse with the Haitians, in order that your representative utility be not impaired, nor the true policies of your government be misunderstood." 79 MS., Instructions, Haiti, vol. III, pp. 630-633; Moore, International Law Digest, vol. VI, pp. 475 476. 1899 Declaration at the First Hague Conference At the seventh plenary meeting (July 25, 1899) of the Hague Conference, the President of the conference read the following declaration: The delegation of the United States of America on signing the Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes, as proposed by the International Peace Conference, makes the following declaration : Nothing contained in this Convention shall be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in the political questions or policy of international administration of any foreign State; nor shall anything in the said Convention be construed to imply a relinquishment by the United States of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions.* President Roosevelt 80 1901 President Roosevelt, commenting upon the reservation made by the American Commissioners to the First Hague Conference on July 25, 1899, made the following statement in his annual message of December 3, 1901: This same peace conference acquiesced in our statement of the Monroe Doctrine as compatible with the purposes and aims of the conference. The Monroe Doctrine should be the cardinal feature of the foreign policy of all the nations of the two Americas, as it is of the United States. Just seventy-eight years have passed since President Monroe in his Annual Message announced that "The American continents are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power." In other words, the Monroe Doctrine is a declaration that there must be no territorial aggrandizement by any non-American power at the expense of any American power on American soil. It is in no wise intended as hostile to any nation in the Old World. Still less is it intended to give cover to any aggression by one New World power at the expense of any other. It is simply a step, and a long step, toward assuring the universal peace of the world by securing the possibility of permanent peace on this hemisphere. During the past century other influences have established the permanence and independence of the smaller states of Europe. Through the Monroe Doctrine we hope to be able to safeguard like independence and secure like permanence for the lesser among the New World nations. This doctrine has nothing to do with the commercial relations of any American power, save that it in truth allows each of them to form such as it desires. In other words, it is really a guaranty of the commercial independence of the Americas. We do not ask under this doctrine for any exclusive commercial dealings with any other American state. We do not guarantee any state against punishment if it misconducts itself, provided that punish 80 Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences; the Conference of 1899, (translation of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), pp. 99–100. ment does not take the form of the acquisition of territory by any nonAmerican power.81 Margarita, a coast-island of Venezuela On April 10, 1901, Secretary Hay instructed the American Chargé, Mr. Jackson, at Berlin, as follows: I enclose a copy of a letter addressed to me by the Secretary of the Navy, under date of the 8th instant, with its annexes, communicating a report from the Commanding officer of the United States S. S. Scorpion touching rumors now current that the acquisition of the Venezuelan coast-island of Margarita by the German Government is contemplated. This matter is not brought to your attention in order that a formal interpellation on the subject shall be made of the Imperial Government, but with a view to discreet inquiries as to the basis, if any, for this rumor. Having in sight the long declared and widely known policy of this Government in such matters, you will be at liberty, should the project appear to have any credible foundation, to intimate, with like discretion and informality but with distinctness, that any attempted realization of the scheme would be a source of concern to this government, if not tending to the embarrassment of the cordial and frank relations we are so desirous to maintain with the German Empire." Venezuela 1903 In this year there came to a head difficulties between the Venezuelan Government and various European governments as a result of which the famous pacific blockade of Venezuelan ports was instituted. 1904 Venezuela President Roosevelt in his annual message of December 6, 1904, made the following comments: It is not true that the United States feels any land hunger or entertains any projects as regards the other nations of the Western Hemisphere save such as are for their welfare. All that this country desires is to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous. Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship. If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and decency in social and political matters, if it keeps order and pays its obligations, it need fear no interference from the United States. Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power. If every country washed by the Caribbean Sea would show the progress in stable and just civilization which with the aid of the Platt amendment 81 Messages and Papers of the Presidents (1917 ed.), vol xv, pp. 6662-6663. 32 MS., Instructions, Germany, vol. xxi, p. 283. |