It would seem hopeless to ask the American people to look at this question with any degree of sense or sanity. I sometimes think that nothing but a gigantic war will ever get our people to understand the wickedness of our attitude in this matter.

Why did the New York "Tribune" become imbued with the Drago Doctrine? Because Secretary Root made a profound study of the social and political conditions of South America from the deck of a war-ship; and, after the round of banquets in the dissolute, hysterical capitals of the Southern Continent, came naturally to the conclusion that Monroeism, Calvoism, and Dragoism constitute the real Holy Trinity of statesmanship. Mr. Root on his war-ship, prying into the heart of things social and political in South America through the ship's binoculars, reminds us of Percival Lowell dissecting the inhabitants of Mars from his observatory in Arizona.

Concerning one statement made by the "Tribune," as above quoted, I must enter a stern protest. As I have defended the memory of Thomas Jefferson from the obloquy implied by the laudation of the anti-imperialists, so I must exculpate that other great statesman, Alexander Hamilton, from the contumely sought to be attached to his name by the statement that he was in any wise the progenitor of the Drago Doctrine. If Mr. Hamilton were alive, his great spirit would rebel at such a base calumny. In his writings I find nothing to justify the "Tribune's" dictum. It is high time that anti-imperialist theorists and Drago-Calvo-Monroe Doctrine marplotters should quit lying about two of our greatest statesmen, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.

A distinguished friend of the author, a statesman of wide reputation, in a private letter says, referring to the Drago Doctrine, that it is now "a live issue, and a fraud — and quite misunderstood by ninetenths of the people of this country. The majority of people seem to think that the 'private claims or debts,' which it refers to, are debts or controversies as between individuals of different nationalities. Even Mr. Carnegie, I am told, thought the German Railway case in Venezuela a matter between private parties, and did not at all grasp the fact that it was a contention between the government of Venezuela and German citizens. We collect debts in this country by all the power and force of the law - why should we not use force in extreme cases in International Law where a nation is clearly trying to play the rôle of swindler? When we pretend to back up the demand of the LatinAmerican States for the consideration of the Drago Doctrine at the Hague, we are doing a dangerous thing, and making a cheap play for South American favor― a play that you and I both know will avail us nothing in the end. I think neither Mr. Root nor the President believe in the Drago Doctrine. Therefore, I am surprised to see it supported by us. If Mr. Root and the President believe in it, they have changed front in less than a year.'

IV. THE DRAGO DOCTRINE BEFORE THE SECOND PEACE

CONFERENCE AT THE HAGUE

The Third Conference of the American States, held at Rio de Janeiro, adopted a resolution requesting the several governments represented to invite "the second Peace Conference at the Hague to consider the question of the compulsory collection of public debts, and in general means tending to diminish conflicts having exclusively pecuniary origin." The United States government supported this proposition. The Conference at the Hague met on June 15 and continued until Oct. 19, 1907, a trifle longer than four months. There were delegates from forty-four countries, including the Latin-American representatives. The proceedings of this Conference were in many respects grotesque, and it is to be regretted that there is much truth in the remark of M. W. Hazeltine in a recent magazine article, that “it seems to us that a review of what the spokesmen of the nations accomplished, or what they failed to do, will not tend to encourage those who have looked forward to the promotion of peace and of the humanization of warfare." The representatives of most of these States, particularly from Latin America, devoted themselves to an extravagant and protracted display, involving the expenditure of vast sums of money. About $525,000 were spent in formal dinners, to the great benefit of the champagne industry, while the total sum of money expended by the different delegates in what would seem to be riotous living, closely approximated three million dollars. The gentleman from Brazil seems to have been most successful in squandering the funds of his government in a ridiculous attempt to impress himself upon the other delegates.

Mr. Choate and General Porter, the American delegates, were sincerely desirous of accomplishing some real work. They did not go in their advocacy of Drago's dictum to the extreme which their Latin-American allies desired. They pronounced unequivocally in favor of international arbitration of disputed claims, but they insisted that the respondent nation must agree to submit such claims to such arbitration. Here is the vital issue: the heresy of Drago denies the right of a foreign government to intervene for the protection of its citizens, and gives the world to assume that arbitration is the proper remedy, while as a matter of fact the respondent governments through their statutes, and by means of their diplomatic agencies, refuse unqualifiedly to submit such questions to international arbitration, claiming that their municipal legislation is supreme.

On this phase of the subject a distinguished European publicist, Mr. Dachne van Varick, said: "The Monroe Doctrine is interpreted in this sense, that Europe cannot enforce its rights acquired in America, even in case of a grave violation. In this fashion the pro

tectorate of Monroe would deliver letters of marque to the adepts of the Doctrine of Drago."

Mr. M. W. Hazeltine, in discussing certain propositions made by the Hague Conference, says:

"An influential British newspaper denounces as cynical effrontery the proposal to establish an international prize court which would rob Great Britain, the greatest of maritime nations, of her commanding position by subjecting her captures of contraband to the review of a tribunal, which, as being composed of fifteen judges, would be little better than a juridical ménagerie. We concur in the opinion that the spectacle of a half-breed lawyer from Central or South America deciding upon the justice of a British seizure would be ludicrous in any case; but when it is proposed that he and his colleagues shall administer a law elaborated by them as they go along, based upon precedents of their own creation or upon no precedents at all, the folly of the whole proceeding becomes patent."

Precisely the same argument, or even a stronger one, can be made against the acceptance of the Drago Doctrine in any of its forms. The Hague Conference limited itself in adopting General Porter's proposal, "that force shall not be used for the collection of contractual debts until the justice of the claim shall have been affirmed by an arbitral tribunal." This, on its face, seems reasonable, and if we were dealing with nations which were actuated by good faith, then this proposition would be entirely satisfactory. But where brigand governments in utter bad faith, and with criminal bad intentions, seize or destroy the property of our citizens, or maltreat, murder, or imprison them wrongfully, or permit bands of revolutionists to perform these acts, and when such actions by said so-called governments are perennial and almost universal, shall a civilized government withhold protection from its citizens, and relegate them to the unsatisfactory method of international arbitration, where long-winded lawyers and hair-splitting judges usually finish the work of spoliation commenced by our "Sister Republics"? The fact is that the soundest advice ever given to a nation was contained in Washington's farewell address, in which he urged us to avoid entangling alliances. This advice, after the lapse of one hundred years, is of greater importance than on the day when it was given. Whether alliances made by our government are direct, as through formal treaty such as in the Clayton-Bulwer agreement, or indirect, as in the case of our adhesion to the various Pan-American Conventions and the Conference at the Hague, they should all be looked upon with suspicion, and scrutinized with extreme care. A great and virile nation must have its own policy, both domestic and foreign. Its foreign policy particularly should be dictated by itself exclusively as its own interests may require. Broadly speaking, our national interests require us to deal honestly and justly with all nations. But they also

require us to protect our own citizens in whatever part of the world they may be, in their legal and equitable personal and property rights.

The United States ought to solve its own problems in its own way, and it must do so if it shall ever attain a true standard of greatness. The Congress of the United States, as representing the American people, is the competent authority to prescribe what the government's foreign policy shall be; nor can the public policy of the United States government, either in its domestic or in its foreign relations, be determined by the Hague Conference, the Pan-American Conventions, or any other organization, foreign prince, potentate, or tribunal, unless the Congress of the United States shall abdicate its functions under the Constitution.

CHAPTER V

CASES ILLUSTRATING OUTRAGES COMMITTED ON FOREIGNERS IN VENEZUELA AND GUATEMALA

TH

HE following cases are selected, almost at random, from several hundred similar cases which were before the various Venezuelan Mixed Commissions in 1903. As explained elsewhere, these Commissions were made up of men most of whom were partisan defenders of Venezuela, and, if not openly hostile, were at least querulous and suspicious of the claimants who came before them. Under these circumstances the finding of facts by those Commissions was always toned down to favor Venezuela as much as possible, and no damaging fact was admitted unless the proof was overwhelming. These findings of fact were only made after the most strenuous technical objections by Venezuela's Commissioner. They may therefore be regarded as a very mild statement of the proven truth, and I quote them exactly, as given by the umpire (see Ralston's Report, Ven. Arb., 1903).

I. CASE OF SILVIO AND AMERICO POGGIOLI

RALSTON, Umpire:

The above entitled claim for 3,419,223.28 bolivars is referred to the umpire on difference of opinion between the honorable Commissioners for Italy and Venezuela.

Silvio and Americo Poggioli, natives and subjects of Italy, were domiciled in Venezuela long prior to 1892, the period when the larger share of the losses for which claim is made, was experienced. They had been in partnership for many years in the cultivation and sale of agricultural products, being, besides, the owners of considerable mercantile establishments at several points.

In the spring of 1892 the Legalista revolution broke out in the State of Los Andes, and early in its career, on the 26th of April, 1892, General Ferrer, who was the governmental chief in charge of the headquarters at Valera, demanded from the brothers a certain number of mules, which were not furnished, Americo insisting that they were no longer the property of the Poggiolis, but by contract belonged to another firm. He was given three days in which to produce them, at the end of which time, the mules not appearing and the Poggiolis being in Monte Carmelo, about ten leagues away,