dissensions in the neighboring republic or to restore order there by force. The patience with which the American Government waited for Mexico to right itself and resume the normal activities of government was unpopular at home and abroad. Not only was the revolution pushing across the border endangering life and property in the United States, but within Mexico property was destroyed and lives of foreigners needlessly sacrificed. The European countries, whose subjects were suffering, looked to the United States for diplomatic guidance. They did not desire to arouse American hostility by intervention, yet were not satisfied to watch the losses and destruction without protest. the United States The cordial relationships that had existed in 1909 between the United States and the rest of the world were being undermined. With Japan there was the grievDiplomatic isolation of ance against the United States due to the discriminations which California desired to exert against Japanese subjects with reference to land tenure. The open protest of the National Administration was unable to prevent the passage of discriminatory laws, which Japan believed to be in violation of her treaties. With Russia there was no treaty in existence to govern commercial relationships. That Government had refused to admit American citizens who happened to be Jews, and in retaliation the United States denounced the Treaty of 1832, in 1911. The Imperial Government showed no disposition to modify its determination not to surrender its control over aliens admitted into the empire, and the United States was unwilling to recognize an explicit discrimination against any class of American citizens. The refusal of the Senate to approve the Taft arbitration treaty with England was regretted in that country, but was much less injurious to friendly relationships than the tolls exemption clause of the Canal Act of August, 1912. The United States was drifting into a position of isolation when on March 5, 1914, President Wilson appeared before Congress with a formal request for the repeal of the Repeal of tolls exemption clause urging "the justice, the wisdom, and the large policy of such a repeal with the utmost earnestness." He asserted his belief Panama that the exemption policy was not only unsound Canal tolls exemption in an economic way, but was "in plain contravention" of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty. "We are too big, too powerful, too self-respecting a nation," he urged, "to interpret with a too strained or refined reading the words of our own promises just because we have power enough to give us leave to read them as we please. . . . I ask this of you in support of the foreign policy of the Administration. I shall not know how to deal with other matters of even greater delicacy and nearer consequence if you do not grant it to me in ungrudging measure." The inner reasons for this demand on Congress were not explained, and the public was left to wonder what international catastrophe was impending. The debate on the merits of repeal divided Congress without reference to parties, and continued bitterly for three months. The ca nal itself, meanwhile, was finished. On April 1, 1914, General Goethals became civil governor of the Canal Zone and a few days later a barge service was inaugurated through the canal. The date for the formal opening was set for August 15. The tolls repeal act passed the House before the end of March and in the Senate was officially defended by Hoke Smith, of Georgia, formerly Secretary of the Interior under Cleveland. Its ablest support came from Elihu Root, while the non-partisan nature of the debate was revealed by the fact that O'Gorman, of New York, chairman of the Senate Committee on Oceanic Canals led in opposing it. Some Senators who were reluctant to repeal the clause and to concede its inequity urged that the matter be referred to arbitration under the existing treaty with England. On June 15 the repeal act became a law. The diplomatic policy indicated by the Mobile speech and the repeal of the tolls exemption clause was one of selfrestraint and fair play, which received wider interpretation as Secretary Bryan undertook the negotiation of a series of arbitration treaties with the world at large. Bryan, like most Americans, was the sort of a friend of peace whom it was easy for the unthinking critic to confuse with the theoretical pacifist. In no sense a non-resistant, he believed war to be always an evil, and that it ought to be avoided in every possible case. He was sharply at variance with those who advocated large armies and navies as a means of defense, maintaining that these were in reality a provocation of war. He urged as a substitute for this type of preparation international good faith based upon arbitral agreements. More than thirty nations accepted his proposals in substance. "The high contracting parties agree," the opening article of each treaty ran, "that all disputes between them, of every nature whatsoever, shall, when diplomatic methods of adjustment have failed, be referred for investigation and report to a permanent international commission . . . and agree not to declare war or begin hostilities during such investigation and before the report is submitted." The Senate ratified most of these treaties without delay, and their negotiator regarded them as a potent means of maintaining peace. The special arbitration treaty with Great Britain, due to expire on June 4, 1913, was renewed for a period of five years. Central American relations Diplomatic attempts were made to improve the relations of the United States with the neighbors in the Caribbean region and resulted in more definite relationships with Nicaragua and Haiti. The Colombian treaty of April 7 was pending in the Senate, when in August, 1914, a treaty was signed with Nicaragua inspired in part by the assertion of the Minister from Nicaragua that the German Government was bidding for the control of the potential canal route across his country. In accordance with this agreement the United States, for the sum of three million dollars in gold, acquired the ownership of the Nicaragua right of way between the two oceans. In addition it acquired the control of islands for naval bases in the Caribbean and of shore rights on the Gulf of Fonseca. The purchase money was to be administered jointly "for the advancement of the welfare of Nicaragua," and in the control of its expenditure the United States acquired rights inferior to those of the protectorate plan of 1910, but quite sufficient to influence the course of that republic. The purchase of the Nicaragua right of way, which the Senate ratified in 1916, failed to moderate the Central American suspicion of the United States. Both Costa Rica and Salvador had interests in either the right of way itself or the Gulf of Fonseca at its western end. They brought suit for redress in the Central American Supreme Court that the United States had urged them to found, but got no redress because that body was without jurisdiction over the United States. It was their claim that Nicaragua had no power to dispose of a canal right without their consent. The Government of Haiti was reëstablished as an American protectorate by a treaty of September 16, 1915. Its finances were brought under American control, and American naval forces were called upon to assist in maintaining order here as in Santo Domingo, Nicaragua, and Honduras. In the Caribbean, as in Mexico, the dilemma remained unsolved. It was impracticable to secure the cordial friendship of the Latin-American countries without treating them as equals and keeping hands off their affairs. It was impossible for them, with their own resources, to maintain the standard of public order and security to life and property prevalent in the United States or Europe. A growing consciousness that European powers might not indefinitely tolerate Latin-American disorder made the dilemma a practical one admitting of no evasion. While the tolls repeal bill was in its last stages in Congress and General Goethals was preparing for the inauguration of commerce through the canal, another great canal was being brought into service. At Kiel the German Emperor, William II, opened the enlarged canal between the Baltic and the North Sea. At Opening of Kiel Canals the original opening of this canal in 1895, a few ships in the American White Squadron took part in the celebration. In the years ensuing the canal became a part of Germany's naval establishment, and German battleships that could now take safe refuge in the Baltic were floated in increasing numbers in conscious rivalry to those of England. The first battleship of the dreadnaught class placed in commission by England in 1906 made the Kiel Canal obsolete as an adjunct to warfare because no ship of dreadnaught dimensions could be passed through its locks. Its rebuilding on a larger scale was immediately undertaken, while the keels of German dreadnaughts were laid down in the years after 1906; but until the enlarged canal was ready for use the power of the German navy was maimed. The formal reopening in the week ending on July 1, 1914, was believed by Germany to be the forerunner of great events. The latter days of the festivities, however, were marred by the news that Archduke Francis Ferdinand, Crown Prince of Austria, had been murdered at Sarajevo on June 28. The train of events that this precipitated, made possible, if not promoted, by the fact that the Kiel Canal was open, brought new problems in the next few weeks to test the sincerity of the American Government in its professions of fair play and peace. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE Robinson and West, The Foreign Policy of Woodrow Wilson (1917), contains a useful commentary upon the State papers of the Administration. Upon the Mexican problem there is interesting descriptive material in Edith Coues O'Shaughnessy, A Diplomat's Wife in Mexico (1916), and Diplomatic Days in Mexico (1917). The Central American topics are covered in Dana G. Munro, The Five Republics of Central America (1918); Chester Lloyd Jones, The Caribbean Interests of the United States (1917); and Joseph B. Bishop, The Panama Gateway (1913). Albert Bushnell Hart, The Monroe Doctrine (1915), is a judicious and comprehensive sum mary. |