« ПретходнаНастави »
Bulwer treaty, must be abrogated. That treaty stipulated terms for the building of a canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific, and provided for the complete neutralization of the canal, with no fortifications by either power. It marked a departure from our past tradition that we would not enter into agreements with any European power concerning purely American affairs, for it was, in effect, a partnership with Great Britain in this great work, and proved an insurmountable obstacle to its construction. As early as 1881 it was recognized that this treaty stood in the way of a canal, and negotiations were begun for its abrogation, but they were not consummated until 1901, when the treaty was abrogated and the Hay-Pauncefote treaty substituted, which gave the United States exclusive and independent authority to build and own the canal.
The evolution of the extension of the Monroe Doctrine followed as a natural corollary the building of the canal. The first and most serious question that was precipitated was the danger of foreign occupation of Central American States in order to enforce the collection of debts. The first of these arose in 1904, with relation to Santo Domingo. For years that country had been torn by revolutions, and its credit was entirely destroyed. What little money could be borrowed was loaned at usurious rates, with the revenues of the country pledged as collateral. Even this interest was defaulted, and Germany, Italy, and Spain entered into a mutual agreement to enforce the claims of their citizens, and an Italian warship was actually sent to Dominican waters to carry their threat into execution. The Dominican Government appealed to the United States for assistance, and this resulted in an arrangement whereby the Custom Houses of the republic were to be placed in the hands of American officials and a portion of the receipts were to be held in deposit in New York for the benefit of the creditors; finally, the debts were readjusted and the United States was allowed to collect and administer the customs revenues, the officials being under the protection of this Government.
This arrangement has worked out very satisfactorily and proved entirely agreeable to the foreign creditors. The country made much progress under the arrangement, and there was peace there until recently a new revolution occurred, but, thanks to American protection, it did not imperil the revenue receipts nor jeopardize the ability to meet the interest obligations as they mature. This same condition is now virtually in force also in Haiti, Honduras, and Nicaragua, and it may be truthfully said that the four republics are now under the protection of the United States as respects their revenue from customs, with a guarantee that the customs officials will be protected from revolutionary bands or bandits and the revenue receipts will be properly applied to the payment of legal and just interest obligations.
Our Government has never maintained that the Monroe Doctrine committed us to any sort of protectorate over the independent States of this hemisphere, so that we would be in any way called upon to espouse their quarrels. We always admitted that they were responsible for their own misconduct and could be held to a strict enforcement of their obligations. In 1861 we admitted the right of France, Spain, and Great Britain to proceed by force against Mexico for the satisfaction of just claims.
As evidence that we did not consider ourselves the guardians of the South American republics, John Bassett Moore, former Counselor of the State Department, cites the following instances as illustrating our refusal to interfere with the affairs of South or Central American republics: In 1842 and 1844 Great Britain blockaded a part of Nicaragua for a claim without our protest, and in 1851 she laid an embargo on the Port of Salvador; in 1862 she seized Brazilian vessels in Brazilian waters in reprisal for the plundering of a British bark on the Brazilian coast. In 1838 France blockaded Mexican ports, and in 1845 Great Britain and France blockaded the Port of Buenos Aires for the purpose of securing the independence of Uruguay. In 1865 Spain was at war with the republics on the west coast of South Amer
ica, which continued for many years. She bombarded Valparaiso during that conflict. A United States man-of-war dispersed a squatter colony from Buenos Aires from the Falkland Islands, and in 1854, for failure to obtain an idemnity of $24,000 from Greytown for destruction of property and an apology for an affront to our Minister, we bombarded the place and burned the city. In 1890, while the Pan-American Congress was in session, Congress authorized the President to use force, if necessary, to collect a debt from Venezuela, and in 1892 we sent an ultimatum to Chile, with which she complied.
The latest interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine prior to the passage of the Root resolution referred to above occurred during the consideration of the Dominican treaty. In 1905 President Roosevelt said:
“If a republic to the south of us commits a tort against a foreign nation, such as an outrage against a citizen of that nation, then the Monroe Doctrine does not force us to interfere to prevent punishment of that tort, save to see that the punishment does not assume the form of territorial occupation in any shape."
He also held:
“On the one hand, this country would certainly decline to go to war to prevent a foreign Government from collecting a just debt; on the other hand, it is very inadvisable to permit any foreign power to take possession, even temporarily, of the Custom Houses of an American republic in order to enforce the payment of its obligations, for such temporary occupation might turn into permanent occupation.”
And he concludes:
“ The only escape from these alternatives may at any time be that we must ourselves undertake to bring about some arrangement by which as much as possible of a just obligation shall be paid. It is far better that this country should put through such an arrangement rather than allow any foreign country to undertake it."
The latest blockading of a coast on this hemisphere by foreign fleets occurred in 1902. Germany, England, and
Italy, finding themselves unable to collect certain debts from Venezuela, planned to blockade her coasts and seize her Custom Houses. Germany recognized the Monroe Doctrine might become involved and sent to the Secretary of State information of the proposed blockade, with the assurance, “ We declare especially that under no circumstances do we consider in our proceedings the acquisition or the permanent occupation of Venezuelan territory." The blockade began Dec. 10, 1902, without protest from the United States, but within three months, through the good offices of the United States, a compromise was effected and the blockade lifted.
As late as Nov. 27, 1914, ex-President Taft, in a carefully prepared address on the subject of the Monroe Doctrine, maintained that no obligation of international law rests on the United States to enforce the doctrine, nor upon any foreign State to observe it. “It rests primarily upon the danger to the interest and safety of the United States, and therefore the nearer to her boundaries the attempted violation of the doctrine the more directly her safety is affected and the more acute her interest." He maintains that the extent of our intervention to enforce the policy is a matter of our own judgment, with a notice that it covers all America, and he declared that, so far as it applies to countries as remote as Chile, Brazil, or Argentina, it is now never likely to be pressed, first because of their own ability to protect themselves, and second because of their remoteness. Mr. Taft held that if Germany during the present war were to send a naval or military force to Canada and wage war upon the soil of the Dominion, this would not be a violation of the Monroe Doctrine, provided she stopped there, and that we would have cause to protest only if Germany endeavored to take over Canadian territory and establish her own government there.
President Wilson has on frequent occasions taken a position with reference to the doctrine similar to that of President Roosevelt. He has specifically disclaimed any aggressive attitude toward the South or Central American republics and has
asserted several times that the United States would never seek to secure any additional territory by conquest. He has gone a step further than his predecessors by firmly opposing revolutionary movements of political freebooters in the unstable republics, and has asserted that he will protect them, as far as possible, from exploitation by unscrupulous adventurers and freebooting concession seekers.
The Monroe Doctrine has never before been so firmly held as a vital part of the fabric of our Government, and the
recognition of its legality by all the powers of the world during the past ninety years was never so definitely established as at the present time. It is a favorite argument of advocates of preparedness to affirm that unless we are prepared to defend the doctrine with an army large enough and a fleet powerful enough to meet any enemy the doctrine will become a dead letter and we shall risk all the perils which might follow its abrogation at the pleasure of any nation that covets territory on this hemisphere.
Digging Song: A Bavarian Protest
Among the letters and papers found in German trenches at Verdun was a diary kept by a Bavarian Corporal named Sanktus. It contains a poem entitled " Schanzlied,” or “ Digging Song," signed " von Sanktus.” Facsimiles of the original German script have been published in the English papers. Herewith we give a rough translation of the whole poem:
Come on, all you fellows, let each take his spade,
For the trench work that we must be plying,
As a place for the Prussian to lie in;
At every one's pipe to be jigging;
The Bavarian's delving and digging;
Or his gullet would split with his gaping,
'Tis the veriest fast that he's keeping;
He takes good care not to attack him;
He's ready to go in and whack him;
To them be a coat of arms given;
And, as a supporter, a bavin-
FUNERAL OF YUAN SHIH-KAI, JUNE 28, 1916. A PROCESSION A MILE LONG ESCORTED THE DEAD PRESIDENT FROM THE SUMMER PALACE IN PEKING TO THE RAILWAY STATION, WHENCE HE WAS BORNE TO HONAN PROVINCE FOR BURIAL ON HIS OWN ESTATE.
F it were not for the all-absorbing
cataclysm in Europe, all eyes would be turned toward the Orient and the
great movements now in evidence there. Certainly the developments in India and Japan since the great war began are of vast importance in the molding of the future of Asia. But it is in China, especially during the past year, that events of unique interest have taken place. The sudden clamor for the change of the infant republic into a monarchy, which began last Fall; the continued agitation for this transformation in the form of government, culminating on Dec. 11 in the unanimous vote of the Convention of Representatives of the Citizens for a Monarchy, with Yuan Shih-kai at its head; the gradual appearance of a most serious opposition, resulting in the revolt of the southern provinces; the sudden cancellation of the monarchy of Yuan Shih-kai on March 22; the effort to oust Yuan as President, ending dramatically with his death on June 6, and the election of Li Yuan-hung as President in his stead—these are a few of the main events in one of the most absorbing, hard-won fights between democ
racy and autocracy in the life of any nation.
It is this fight for the republic in China that I wish to discuss in the light of some recently published documents which reveal the contest in its true aspect as a great struggle for republican ideals; a struggle in which America should have a very real interest and sympathy.
The political situation in China last Fall was full of mystery. Since the dissolution of Parliament by Yuan Shihkai in 1913 the republic has been one in name rather than in fact; but the speed with which the monarchical movement gained headway in the Fall of 1915 surprised most onlookers. The sentiment among the middle and lower classes of the Yang-tse Valley and the south seemed strongly against the monarchy and against Yuan Shih-kai for apparently supporting it. I talked with men of all classes-ricksha coolies, Confucian scholars, Buddhist priests, and returned students, and every one, after taking due precaution against
against being overheard, , came out in support of the republic and denounced Yuan. Dr. Morrison, after a tour of inspection of the Yang-tse Valley,
described the sentiment of the people as one of “solid resentment” against the whole movement.
The feeling was even stronger in the south. There were certain indications that Yuan Shih-kai was acquiescent in, if, indeed, not a supporter of, the movement. Persistent rumors
from close friends of his in the capital that he was influenced by his sons to make the change for the latters' benefit as his successors. Only former officials and friends of the administration were allowed to vote in December. The editor of one of the Monarchist newspapers in Shanghai, which was blown up by the Republicans, stated outright amid the smoking ruins of his office that he had special permission from the Central Gov. ernment for his propaganda. But the recent publishing by the Republican Government of over sixty secret communications of Yuan Shih-kai’s Government preceding and during the election last Fall has brought out clearly the entire situation; the whole monarchical effort, in the words of Putnam Weale of Peking, is stamped as "a cool and singular plan to forge a national mandate which has few equals in history."
The chief communications have just been published by the Republican Government of China under the title, “ The People's Will: An Exposure of the Political Intrigues at Peking Against the Republic of China," with the quotation subjoined, “ Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.” I shall quote from some of the more important telegrams; the whole group deserves to be studied, just as the multi-colored books of diplomatic correspondence of Europe have been studied because of their influence in shaping the destiny of their respective continents.
In publicly beginning its propaganda in August, the monarchical movement very cleverly used a statement of Dr. Francis J. Goodnow, President of Johns Hopkins University and American adviser to the Chinese Government. Dr. Goodnow's opinion was purely an academic one; he stated that a change from a republic to a monarchy could be suc
cessfully made under three conditions: First, that the peace of the country was not thereby imperiled; second, that the laws of succession should first be securely fixed; third, provision should be made for some form of constitutional government. Of course, the Monarchists, in quoting this opinion, entirely omitted these conditional clauses.
On Aug. 16 the Chou An Hui (Society for the Preservation of Peace) published its first manifesto referring to this statement. Yuan Shih-kai, in a speech before the Tsan Chang Yuan, or State Council, said among other things: “I regard the proposed change as unsuitable to the circumstances of the country.” But on Aug. 30 the first secret telegram was dispatched from Peking concerning the proposed change of government. It was a code telegram to the Military and Civil Governors of the provinces, to be deciphered personally by them with the Council of State code. After certain initial steps are mentioned in detail, the document reads:
The plan suggested is for each province to send in a separate petition, the draft of which will be made in Peking and wired to the respective provinces in due course.
You will insert your own name as well as those of the gentry and merchants of the province who agree to the draft. These petitions are to be presented one by one to the Legislative Council as soon as it is convoked.. At all events, the change in the form of the State will have to be effected under color of carrying out the people's will.
As leading members of political and military bodies, we should wait till the opportune moment arrives when we will give collateral support to the movement, Details of the plan will be made known to you from time to time.
The Monarchical Society, realizing that matters had progressed sufficiently by this time for it to assert itself, on Sept. 27, under the leadership of Yang Tu and Sun Yu-chun, dispatched a code telegram to the Military and Civil Governors, asserting that all danger of a true expression of provincial wishes must be eradicated. The telegram offers suggestions regarding the government of the different districts and then concludes:
In order to clothe the proceedings with an appearance of regularity, the representatives