2 The antecedents in fact and the diplomatic negotiations that originated the Venezuelan conflict can be studied in Drago's “ La Republica Argentina y el caso de Venezuela,” page 312 et seq., where the documents published officially in “Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States,” 1903, are reproduced.

3 The Argentine note is found in Drago's “ La Republica Argentina y el caso de Venezuela,” Buenos Aires, 1903; Drago's “ Cobro Coercitivo de deudas publicas,” Buenos Aires, 1906, and in “ Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States,” 1902.

4 Essays by the late Marquis of Salisbury. Foreign Polities, page 161, London, 1905. — In respect of the injury done by civil wars — revolutions — nothing better can be found than the exposition of Prof. F. Martens, in his pamphlet entitled “ Par la Justice vers la Paix,” St. Petersburg, 1904, which he dedicated to the Argentine note, and for whose generous appreciation the author of these lines cannot show sufficient gratitude. — See page 13 op. citada.

5 “ That the sovereign can, in his own person, do no wrong is a fundamental principle of the English Constitution; yet * * * his acts may in themselves be contrary to law and subject on that ground to reversal.

For whenever it happens that by misinformation or inadvertence the sovereign hath been induced to invade the private rights of any subject, and becomes by a proper representation informed of the injury sustained, — the law always then presumes that to know of any injury and to redress it, are inseparable in the Royal breast; and issues as of course, in the Sovereign's own name, an order to his judges to do justice to the party aggrieved.” Stephens, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 9th edition, vol. 3, page 666. Compare New Commentaries on the Laws of England, by the same author, vol. 3, page 621.

6 Amendment 11 to the Constitution in accordance with Hamilton's theory. Hamilton, who wrote in 1788, occupied himself alone with the domestic phase of American judicial administration, and not, as some have erroneously affirmed, with the collection of foreign loans unknown at that time. (Federalist LXXXI.) Prom the time of the appearance of The Federalist until long after Hamilton's death (1804), the attention of the entire world was furthermore absorbed by the French revolution and by the wars of Napoleon I. The forcible collection of the debts of one nation by another could not even have been foreseen at that time.

7 Revised Statutes, 1878, section 1068.

8 “ In case of failure to execute such contracts or engagements, the competent tribunals are the only ones qualified to arrange the conflicts and to apply the laws. Before the preliminary examination of the reciprocal relations between the contracting party shall have been made by the tribunals, the government of the foreigners interested could never intervene effectively. A serious and effective intervention could only be approved in the case of a denial of justice evident and formally proven.” Martens, “ Par la Justice vers la Paix,” Paris. Page 31.

9 Secretary of State Mr. Buchanan to Mr. Osma, Peruvian Minister, February 1, 1848. Moore's Digest of International Law, vol. 2, page 87.

10 Moore's Digest of International Law, vol. 6, page 660.

11 “ There are conflicting views as to whether ‘claims’ includes bonds, — confers jurisdiction by the use of that term to entertain a claim based upon government bonds. In the Colombian bond case (Convention with Colombia, 1864), it was held by Sir Frederick Bruce, as Umpire, that there was no jurisdiction in the tribunal to entertain the claim * * * it is easy to see that many reasons of policy exist which would deter a government from insisting on a preferential payment of a part only of the public creditors of a foreign state.’” Brewer and Butler, International Law, reproduced from the Encyc. of Law and Procedure, New York, 1906, page 1736, note 38.

12 The complete text of Lord Palmerston's circular is found in Hall's International Law, 5th edition, pages 281 and 282. “A short time previously,” saya Hall, “ Lord Palmerston, in answer to a question in the House of Commons, indicated that under certain circumstances he might be prepared to go to the length of using force.” Hall, page 283. Discussing in the House of Commons the right of England to make war on Spain, because of its suspension of payment of the interest on the national foreign debt, which occasioned serious injury to many English subjects, Lord Palmerston affirmed the right of the British government to make war on Spain for this reason, but stated that under the circumstances this policy was not advisable. Lord Palmerston's words are as follows: “ But this is a question of expediency, and not a question of power; therefore, let no foreign country who has done wrong to British subjects deceive itself by a false impression either that the British nation or the British Parliament will forever remain patient under the wrong; or that, if called upon to enforce the rights of the people of England, the government of England will not have ample power and means, too, at its command to obtain justice for them.” Lord George Bentinck, who replied to Lord Palmerston, observed that after these words nothing more could be desired by the Spanish bondholders. “ In the language of my noble friend, coupled with the course he has adopted upon former occasions as regards the payment of British subjects by Portugal and the South American states, the British holders of Spanish bonds have full security that * * * he will exercise the same energy” in their behalt. Moore's Digest of International Law, vol. 6, page 286.

13 “The fortune of the individuals, subjects of the state, forms an element of the wealth and prosperity of that state. The continuance and increase of this fortune is a matter of interest. If, then, it is compromised by the act of a foreign state which administers ill its finances, which betrays the confidence which these individuals have reposed in it when they subscribed to its loan under conditions that were not observed, which violates its engagements towards them, the state to which the injured individuals belong is evidently authorized to take their interests in hand in the manner that it may deem advisable; it will act, either through diplomatic channels or by means of reprisals; all this in the measure that results from the principles of the law of reprisals and from those of intervention.” Alphonse Rivier, Principes du Droit des Gens, Paris, 1896, vol. 1, page 272.

14 Mr. Calvo's Circular and the replies to it are published in a pamphlet entitled “ The Monroe Doctrine,” Paris, 1903. They may also be found in Drago's “La Republica de Argentina y el caso de Venezuela,” page 16 et seq., and in the “ Revue General de Droit International et de Legislation Compareé, 1903.”

15 Brewer and Butler, Internationa] Law, page 1716.

16 The Supreme Court of the United States has declared in this connection: “A sovereign cannot be sued in his own courts without his consent. His own dignity, as well as the dignity of the nation he represents, prevents his appearance to answer a suit against him in the courts of another sovereignty, except in performance of his obligations by treaty or otherwise voluntarily assumed.” U. S. v. Dickelmann, 92 U. S. 520.

17 The same may be said of the theory sustained by another distinguished writer, (Professor Basdevant, in the same Revue, cit. note 13), according to which the individual risks of the subscribers to foreign loans ought to be charged to the community to which they belong. This, according to him, would be a social function which would make the burden of the risk lighter, and would increase the probability of its recovery with the aid of military measures. If the functions of a community for defense and guarantee in favor of each one of its members are carried to this extreme, no difference ought to be made between the subjects that contract with private parties and those that enter into contracts with governments in case of the insolvency of the one or the other of the latter. Divided among all, the expenses and the hazards of recovery would always be much lighter. What the author fails to explain is why those individuals should enjoy alone the profits while the community is to share their risks.

18 Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, Session February 17, 1903, 4th series, vol. 118, page 71.

19 Moore's Digest of International Law, vol. 7, pp 118, 119. See also August Cache's “ Le Conflit Venezuelien et l'arbitrage de la Haye,” page 200. Paris, 1905.

20 Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Phelps, Minister to England. Moore's International Law Digest, vol. 6, p. 712. In the last official edition of the Digest, Moore criticises Wharton (compare Wharton's Digest, vol, 2, page 662), saying that he has mistakenly expounded the instruction as follows: “ The government of the United States cannot but regard with grave anxiety the attempt of a foreign government to compel by force the payment of mere contract debts due to subjects of such government by a South American state.” This is very far from being the signification of Mr. Frejinghuysen's instruction, who, furthermore, did not distinguish between the method of enforcing the payment of debts founded on contract and those arising from tort, nor had he other purpose In view than to avoid the preferential payment claimed by the French creditors to the prejudice of other nations, among which, according to him, the revenues of the debtor Republic ought to be divided pro rata.

21 In this connection compare the interesting article entitled “ The Third Pan American Conference and the Drago Doctrine,” that appeared in the review “ Die Grenzboten,” of Leipzig, for May 24, 1906.

22 The note says: “Thinkers of the highest rank have suggested the advisability of turning in this direction the great efforts which the principal Powers of Europe have hitherto made for the conquest of sterile regions, with rigorous climate lying in the most distant corners of the world. There are also many European writets that point out the countries of South America with their great wealth, with their sunny skies and propitious climates as the natural theatre where the great Powers with their arms and instruments prepared for conquest have yet in the course of this century to dispute dominion.”

23 The veto of the Monroe Doctrine, in the opinion of the same author, has, up to to-day, saved American countries from European aggression; but he adds that it must be remembered that during that time the world offered many opportunities for colonization in other regions, and that this period is drawing to its close, and unless the present equilibrium of the war powers is altered in a very marked degree, it is scarcely to be expected that a mere formula or opinion will continue to protect those countries for long. “ Nineteenth Century and After,” April, 1903. Previous to this the Duke of Argyll had expressed the opinion in the Deutsche Revue that the Argentine Republic is the only country where nothing is despicable but the inhabitants, — a country with a beautiful capital, with a splendid port, with a rich soil, in which everything is excellent except the government; a country which needs only a European protectorate to introduce into it the order desired. See Stead “ The Americanization of the World,” page 223. And among others the following publications: Atlantic Monthly, December, 1901; Fortnightly Review, December, 1901; North American Review, February, 1903, in which German expansion in Brazil is predicted; Review of Reviews, March, 1903; London Times, March 12, 1902, and January 26, 1903; The Pilot, January 3, 1903; Morning Post, January 1, 1903; North American Review, April, 1903; Literary Digest, February 3, 1903.

24 Juan A. Garcia, Jr., Bibliographical Notes on La Republica Argentina y el easo de Venezuela, by Luis M. Drago, in the Anales de la Facultad de Derecho. Buenos Aires, 1903.

25 President Roosevelt has done the author the unusual honor to transcribe with commendation these last words in his recent message to the Congress of the Union (December 3, 1906). The speech was edited by Coni, Buenos Aires, also with Secretary Root's reply in “ Speeches Incident to the Visit of Secretary Root to South America, Washington, 1906, pages 151-157.”

26 Lord Palmerston's Circular is in part as follows: “ If the question is to be considered simply in its bearing on international rights, there can be no doubt whatever of the perfect right which the government of every country possesses to take up, as a matter of diplomatic negotiation, any well-founded complaint which any of its subjects may prefer against the government of another country, or any wrong which, from such foreign government, those subjects may have sustained; and if the government of one country is entitled to demand redress for any one individual among its subjects who may have a just or unsatisfied pecuniary claim upon the government of another country, the right so to require redress cannot be diminished merely because the extent of the wrong is increased, and because instead of their being one individual claiming a comparatively small sum, there are a great number of individuals to whom a very large amount is due.

It is, therefore, simply a question of discretion with the British government whether this matter should or should not be taken up by diplomatic negotiation, and the decision of this question turns entirely upon British and domestic consideration.”

27 See Henry Joubert “ Les emprunts d'Etats estrangers,” Paris, 1905, pages 78, 79. “ Up to the present the small states alone have been the objects of reprisals in fact of pacific blockades with or without bombardment of the coasts, as a result of claims that have failed of peaceable adjustment. Never in the case of the great Powers have similar claims given occasion to reprisals in fact.

“ This is an indisputable fact which must have its raison d'etre. It is evident that between the great nations there likewise arise conflicts more or less serious as the result of reclamations or denial of justice, but they are always careful not in times of peace to bombard one another's coasts and establish pacific blockades in order to satisfy their claims. It is very probable that the great Powers have likewise been prejudiced in their rights and interests by the bad will of other states stronger than themselves. But notwithstanding they have abstained from proclaiming pacific blockades of the coasts of the adversary and in times of peace bombarding their open cities and coast towns.

“ This positive fact gives occasion for reflection. Is it possible that only the small states are capable of having violated the engagements contracted? Can one pretend that only in the small and feeble states the just claims of foreign subjects are unknown and arouse the sentiment of justice?” Martens “ Par la Justice vers la paix,” Paris, page 18.

28 The Monroe Doctrine has been treated in a masterly manner by Henderson, “American Diplomatic Questions,” page 289 et seq.; Foster, “A Century of American Diplomacy,” page 438; Roosevelt, “ The Monroe Doctrine ” in “ American Ideals,” page 228; Sir Frederick Pollock, “ The Monroe Doctrine,” in “ Nineteenth Century and After,” October, 1902; John Bassett Moore, “Digest of International Law, vol, 6, page 368 et seq. See also the inspired words which Mr. Root uttered in regard to the Monroe Doctrine in his speech before the Chamber of Commerce, in Kansas City, November 20, 1906.

29 Moore's Digest of International Law, vol. 6, page 411.

30 Nineteenth Century and After, October, 1903.

31 John Quincy Adams to Mr. Rush, July, 1823. Henderson's American Diplomatic Questions, New York, 1901, page 332.

32 The Annual Register — A review of public events at home and abroad. It was founded at the end of the 18th century by Edmund Burke, the famous orator and statesman, and is to-day one of the most truthful and impartial publications in England. What it contains is almost considered as official.

33 Mr. Buchanan wrote in 1846: “The late annual message of the President to Congress has so clearly presented the great American doctrine in opposition to the interference of European governments in the internal concerns of the nations of this continent that it is deemed unnecessary to add another word upon this subject. That Great Britain and France have flagrantly violated this principle by their armed intervention on the La Plata is manifest to the whole world. Whilst existing circumstances render it impossible for the United States to take part in the present war; yet the President desires that the whole moral influence of this Republic should be cast into the scale of the injured party. We cordially wish the Argentine Republic success in its struggle against foreign interference.” Although the United States had in its possession, in 1846, information that would justify it in extending recognition to Paraguay as an independent state, yet the President determined to suspend action on the subject “ purely from regard to the Argentine Republic and in consideration of the heroic struggle” which it was “ maintaining against the armed intervention of Great Britain and France in the concerns of the Republics on the La Plata and its tributaries.” Moore's Digest of International Law, vol. 6, pages 422, 423.

34 Hansard's House of Lords, 15th December, 1902.

35 See Hansard's House of Commons, February 17, 1903.

36 Review of Reviews, March, 1903.

37 Pro Memoria of the Imperial German Embassy at Washington of December 11, 1901; Foreign Relations, 1901, page 192. See Moore's Digest of International Law, vol. 6, page 588.

38 Holla. The Peace Conference at The Hague. New York, 1900, page 270.

39 Foreign Relations, 1902, page 195; Moore's Digest, vol. 6, page 590.

40 Moore's Digest, vol. 6, pages 588, 589.

41 In this connection we may note the proverbial readiness with which governments exaggerate the amount of their claims. Louis Napoleon suggested the payment of fifteen millions of dollars as the emission of bonds by the banker Jecker, who in reality had only loaned 50,000 pesos to the revolutionary government of Mexico. See Moore's Digest, vol. 6, page 484. In the last Venezuelan conflict Germany claimed 7,500,000 bolivars, of which the Mixed Commission that met in Caracas only allowed her 2,000,000 bolivars. The Italian claim amounted to 39,000,000 bolivars, and was reduced by the Commision to less than 6,000,000 bolivars. Moore's Digest, vol. 6, page 591. Cf. Atlantic Monthly, October, 1906, page 646.

42 This second declaration, according to Mr. Foster, the distinguished ex-Secretary of State of the United States, incorporates a living principle which should be applied every time that circumstances demand it. Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy, page 442.

43 President Roosevelt's Message to the Senate, February 15, 1905, in Moore's Digest, vol. 6, pages 527, 528. See also his message of December of the same year, in which he says: “ We must make it evident that we do not intend to permit the Monroe Doctrine to be used by any nation on this continent as a shield to protect it from the consequences of its own misdeeds against foreign nations.” And farther on he observes: “ We are liable at any time to be brought face to face with disagreeable alternatives. 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 customs houses of an American Republic in order to enforce the payment of its obligations. * * * The only escape from these alternatives may at any time be that we must ourselves undertake to bring about some arrangement by which so much as possible of a just obligation shall be paid.” The Annual Register, 1905, new series, pages 449, 450.

44 National Review “ American Affairs,” London, November, 1906, page 507.

45 Note of March 22, 1906, to the Committee on Programme of the Rio Conference.

46 Speeches in South America, page 158.

47 In an article published in the North American Review for October 15, 1906, with the title “ International Law and the Drago Doctrine,” Professor George Winfleld Scott writes as follows:

“ Dr. Drago merely sought to have the United States adopt, as supplementary to its Monroe Doctrine policy, a further policy to the effect ‘ that the public debt (of an American State) cannot occasion armed intervention, nor in anywise the actual occupation of the territory of American nations, by an European power.’

“ Dr. Drago called attention to the fact that ‘ the collection of loans by force implies territorial occupation to make it effective; that territorial occupation means the suppression of the governmenta of. £hs countries on which it is imposed; that there was considerable European expression in favor of establishing colonies in South America; and that he feared, under the guise of ‘ financial interventions,’ the yearnings evidenced by that expression might be suddenly stimulated and gratified.

“ Without commenting on the grounds, or lack of grounds, for such anxiety or on the wisdom of the proposal, attention is called to the difference between the proposition originally urged by Dr. Drago and the question formulated for discussion at Rio de Janeiro. Senor Drago proposed a question of policy for the Pan-American States. The resolution under consideration at Rio de Janeiro involved the submission to the next Hague Conference of a question of law.”