advantage of the then weak and disturbed condition of Mexico to establish an Empire in America under French auspices

or to acquire territory in payment of indemnity, otherwise uncollectible, without in any way either renouncing the Monroe Doctrine or interjecting itself into the affairs of Europe; the mere fact that European nations have acquired or attempted to acquire Asiatic territory, or to exercise control over Asiatic governments, does not necessarily transform Asiatic affairs into European affairs. The enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine never disclaimed the right which the United States always has had, and always will have, of exercising its sovereign rights wherever and whenever other sovereign powers can exercise similar rights of sovereignty.

SOME OPINIONS OF PUBLICISTS.

It is impossible to collate all the authorities upon the Monroe Doctrine. A few only will be referred to. John W. Foster, as expressed in his Century of American Diplomacy, has already been referred to; Professor Theodore Dwight Woolsey and his son, Professor Theodore Salisbury Woolsey, have expressed some doubt as to the principles of the Monroe Doctrine so far as the right to intervene merely because the territory is in the western hemisphere, although they sustain that right whenever such intervention is prejudicial to our material interests. Their views are expressed in section 48, Introduction to the Study of International Law by Theodore Dwight Woolsey (6th edition, revised by Theodore Salisbury Woolsey, N. Y., 1891), and in the chapter devoted to that subject in Theodore S. Woolsey's America's Foreign Policy (N. Y., 1898).

Doctor Francis Wharton devotes sections 56a to 61a, pages 268 to 416 of volume I. to a consideration of the Monroe Doctrine under the title, "III. Intervention of European sovereigns in the affairs of this continent disapproved. Monroe Doctrine."

He refers to the original enunciation of the doctrine in sections 56a and 57; in the following sections he refers to subsequent applications of the doctrine in regard to Yucatan, Mexico, Peru, Cuba, Hayti, San Domingo and the Danish West Indies.

There are numerous extracts from opinions of the Presidents, dispatches and notes of Secretaries of State, and of the replies from foreign offices of their governments in regard to the Monroe Doctrine and its application.

In regard to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, he says on page 288: "The Clayton-Bulwer treaty is the only exception to the rule that the Government of the United States will decline to enter into combinations or alliances with European powers for the settlement of questions connected with the United States." See also bibliography of Monroe Doctrine contained in Gilman's Life of James Monroe, American Statesmen Series.

On the other hand, some of the eminent French authorities on international law have declared that the Monroe Doctrine cannot be consid

and protection; in 1865, however, after our civil war was over, and we had time to devote, and military forces with

ered in any light as a principle of international law, but that it is the mere expression of opinion of an American statesman. In this respect Alphonse Rivier says (Droit des Gens, Paris, 1896, pp. 404-5, Vol. 1):

§ 88. LA DOCTRINE DE MONROE.-"La politique d'intervention de la Sainte-Alliance a provoqué une déclaration importante du cinquième président des États-Unis, James Monroe, dans son message présidentiel due 2 Septembre, 1823.

"D'après cette déclaration, les États-Unis d'Amérique ne s'ingéreront pas dans les affaires des nations européennes qui ont des colonies en A mérique; mais ils ne toléreront pas non plus que les États nouveaux, reconnus par eux comme indépendants, soient en butte aux attaques d'États européennes, et ils respousseront toute immixtion de l'Europe sur le continent américain. C'est là ce qu'on désigne communément sous le nom de doctrine de Monroe.

"Le message contient une autre déclaration, motivée par les revendications ou prétentions de la Russie dans le Nord de l'Amérique. 'Les continents américains, d'après l'état de liberté et d'independance qu'ils se sont acquis et dans lequel ils se sont maintenus, ne peuvent ètre considérées à l'avenir comme susceptibles d'ètre colonisés par aucune puissance européenne.' Ceci veut dire que le sol de l'Amérique n'est plus sans maître, qu'une occupation nouvelle par un État d'Europe n'y est donc pas concevable.

"La doctrine de Monroe est une maxime ou règle de conduite, qui n'avait, dans l'origine, d'autre valeur que celle d'une opinion ou d'une résolution personelle de son auteur responsable, énoncée en quelque sorte ex cathedra. Les successeurs de James Monroe y sont restés fidèles. John Quincy Adams, président à son tour, l'a proclamée derechef à propos du congrès de Panama (1826), et les républiques de l'Amérique espagnole ont déclaré l'adopter au congrès de Lima (1865). Mais elle n'a jamais fait l'objet d'une convention, à laquelle des États non américains auraient consenti. Il va sans dire qu'elle ne saurait avoir aucune sorte de force obligatoire pour l'Europe. Son principe ne fait point partie des principes du droit des gens. La prétention émise plus d'une fois par les États-Unis de l'imposer plus ou moins aux États européens, est dénuée de tout fondement juridique.

"D'autre part, cette maxime n'implique pas, ainsi qu'on l'a cru parfois, une intention des États-Unis de se désintéresser de la politique générale de la Société des nations, et il n'est point inutile de constater que tout en écartant jalousement toute immixtion européenne sur les continents américains, ils s'arrogent eux-mêmes le droit d'y intervenir partout et à tout propos, si bien qu'aujourd'hui ce qu'ils appellent la doctrine de Monroe est en réalité l'affirmation d'une pretention permanente des États-Unis d'intervenir dans les affaires de tous les autres États d' Amérique."

Calvo devotes sections 147-167, pp. 284-300 of the first volume of his International Law (fifth edition, Paris, 1896) to a history of the Mon

which to attend, to such matters, Secretary Seward explained the Monroe Doctrine to the Emperor, and French support was withdrawn from the ill-fated Maximilian, thus ending the last attempt on the part of any European power to make a new foothold in the western hemisphere.1

$57. Germany and Samoa.-Not under the Monroe Doctrine, but simply on general principles we cried halt to Germany in her efforts to acquire Samoa, and forced her to make an equitable arrangement with this country and Great Britain in regard to the control of that far-off Archipelago roe Doctrine as announced, its subsequent application and the opinions of publicists in regard thereto. At the foot of pp. 248, 285 and 300 will be found three notes which refer to numerous authorities which he has consulted in preparing his matter. The authorities as they are collated in those notes are as follows: At the foot of page 284: "Wheaton, Elem., pte. 2, ch. 1, Sec. 11; Wheaton, Hist., t. 1, pp. 110-114; t. II, pp. 219-239, 252-260; Vattel, Le droit, livre II, ch. iv, sec., 54, 56, 57; liv. III, ch. iii, Sec. 50; Martens, Precis, Sec. 74; Phillimore, Com., vol. I, pte. 4, pp. 433-483; Kent, Com., vol. I, pp. 22, 23; Kluber, Droit, Sec. 51; Heffter, Secs. 44-46; Bluntschli, Le droit, Sec. 474; Manning, pp. 97, 98; Wildmann, vol. I, p. 47; Bello, pte. I, cap. i, Sec. 7; Riquelme, lib. I, tit. 2, cap. xxiv; Halleck, ch. iv, Sec. 4; ch. xxiv, Sec. 12; Huber, De jure, lib. III, cap. vii, Sec. 4; Pando, p. 74; Dolloz, Repertoire, V. Droit des gens, ns. 86 et seq.; Verge, Martens, t. I, pp. 202 et seq.; Berriat Saint-Prix, Theorie, pp. 164 et seq.; Pinheiro Ferreira, Vattel, iv. II, ch. iv, Sec. 56; Guizot, Memories, t. IV, pp. 4, 5; Pradier-Fodere, Vattel, t. II, pp. 27 et seq., 308; Ott, Kluber, Sec. 51, note c; Hautefeuille, Le principe de non-intervention; Funck Brentano et Sorel, Precis, ch. xi, Hall; int. law, p. 242."

At the foot of p. 300:

66

Dana, Elem., by Wheaton, note 36; British and foreign State papers, v. I, pp. 662 et seq.; v. VII, pp. 585 et seq.; v. VIII, pp. 524 et seq.; v. XI, pp. 4 et scq.; v. XII, pp. 535 et seq.; v. XIII, pp. 390 et seq.; 483 et seq.; v. XXXIII, pp. 198 et seq.; United States laws, v. X, p. 995; Calhoun, Works, vol. IV, p. 454; Mackintosh, Works, vol. III, pp. 433-478; Webster, Works, vol. III, p. 178; Torres Caicedo, Union, cap. xii, p. 63; Sarmiento, A discourse, p. 14; Sarmiento, Vida de Lincoln, int. p. xxiii; Lastari, La America, cap. xiv, p. 139; Valiente, Reformas, p. 211; Gervinus, t. x, pp. 125 et seq.; Ch. Calvo, America latina, periodo Io, t. III, p. 338; periodo 3°; Alaman, t. V, pp. 815-819; Lawrence, Elem., by Wheaton, note 46; Buchanan, p. 276; Creasy, First platform, Secs. 303 et seq.; Woolsey, Introd. to the study of int. law, Sec. 74."

$56.

Intervention in Mexico in note 1 to

1 See reference to Congressional § 52, page documents and history of French

in the Pacific Ocean, which is of such strategic value to our merchant, and our naval, marine.1

Certainly, so far as international law is concerned, there is no doubt that it has been determined, by the consent of every nation of the world, that the right of acquisition of additional territory exists in every sovereign power, and that it exists paramountly in the United States.

$58. Monroe Doctrine and the Peace Conference at The Hague; 1899.-As appears in the foot note to § 52, the Monroe Doctrine is an American enunciation, to which some other nations claim that they have never acquiesced; the instances already cited, however, demonstrate that although almost every government has had the opportunity of protesting against its enforcement, they have all practically admitted our right to assert it.

In 1899, at the Peace Conference at The Hague, a treaty was prepared in which the United States joined, but in doing so made the following reservation:

"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 entering upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in the political questions or internal administration of any foreign state, nor shall anything contained in the said Convention be so construed as to require the relinquishment by the United States of America, of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions." The effect of this is that a treaty has been accepted by all the other signatory powers containing a declaration of the Monroe Doctrine as it has been adopted by, and made a part of, the traditional policy of the United States, and that all those Signatory Powers have recognized without protest the existence of the policy, and the intention of the United States to adhere to it.

$ 57.

1 Convention between the United States, Germany and Great Britain to adjust amicably the questions between the three governments in respect to the Samoan Group of Islands. Signed December 2, 1899; ratified by Senate January 16, 1900;

ratifications exchanged and treaty proclaimed February 16, 1900. 31 U. S. Statutes at Large, 56th Congress, 1st Sess. 1899-1900, appx. Treaties, p. 70. See other Treaties in regard to Samoan Islands: U.S. Treaties in Force 1899, p. 551.

The history of this reservation, and some observations as to its effect, will be found in the Fifth Chapter of "The Peace Conference at The Hague," in which Mr. Frederick W. Holls, the able and efficient Secretary of the American Commission, has permanently recorded the transactions of the Conference; the extract from that interesting volume quoted in the note to this section shows what an important bearing the appending of that reservation to The Hague Treaty will always have upon our international relations.1

§ 58.

Convention shall be so construed

tained in the said Convention be so construed as to require the relinquishment, by the United States of America, of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions.'

1" Reservation by the American as to require the United States of Representative; Text of the Amer- America to depart from its tradiican Declaration; The Monroe Doc- tional policy of not entering upon, trine; The Declaration accepted; interfering with, or entangling itits importance. According to this self in the political questions or Article every Signatory Power rec-internal administration of any forognizes a new international obliga-eign state, nor shall anything contion, as a duty toward itself and every other Signatory Power. Next to the establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration this Article undoubtedly marks the highest achievement of the Conference, for no doubt the establishment of the "The adoption of the treaty withcourt would have been incomplete, out any qualification of Article 27, if not nugatory, without this sol- would undoubtedly have meant, on emn declaration, which is undoubt- the part of the United States, a edly 'the crown of the whole work,' complete abandonment of its timeas it was declared to be by one of honored policy known originally as the American representatives in the Monroe Doctrine. This is not the Committee on Arbitration. At the place to discuss the merits of the same time there was just one that policy, or the truth and wisPower whose vital interests might dom of that doctrine. It is, howbe directly and unfavorably af- ever, a fact that the United States fected by this Article, if adopted of America is determined more without qualification, and that firmly than ever before in its hisPower was the United States of tory, to maintain this policy and America. The declaration, for the Monroe Doctrine, in its later which Mr. Holls made a reserva-approved and extended form, caretion in the Comite d'Examen, and fully and energetically. Not even which was afterward carefully in the supposed interest of univerformulated, is for the United States sal peace would the American peoof America by no means the least ple have sanctioned for one moment important part of the entire con- an abandonment or the slightest vention, and reads as follows: infraction of a policy which appeals to them as being founded,

"Nothing contained in this