be submitted to an international commission. In April of the following year, during the crisis in the dispute between President Wilson and President Huerta of Mexico, the United States government promptly and gladly accepted the good offices and mediation of Argentina, Brazil and Chile.

Finally, the United States, in its efforts to bring about the settlement of disputes to which a South American nation was a party, has frequently mediated or played the rôle of arbitrator in these disputes. Secretary of State Hughes in 1924 mediated in the feud between Colombia and Panama, which dated back to the independence of Panama. As a result diplomatic relations between the two countries were established and a boundary convention between them was signed. The same year Peru and Ecuador submitted an old boundary dispute to the arbitration of the United States. The following year Brazil, Colombia and Peru accepted a solution of a boundary dispute which they had previously submitted to Secretary of State Hughes.

Especially significant have been the efforts of the United States to settle the long-standing Tacna-Arica dispute between Peru and Chile. These efforts were begun in January, 1922, when Chile and Peru were invited to send delegates to Washington to settle, if possible, the dispute, and if not successful in this to arrange for its arbitration. The outcome was that on January 16, 1923, the President of the United States was formally requested to serve as arbitrator of certain phases of the dispute. Over two years later, on March 4, 1925, President Coolidge handed down his award as arbitrator. provided for the holding of a deferred plebiscite to determine the future ownership of Tacna and Arica and laid down the conditions for the holding of the plebiscite. The opening session of the plebiscitary commission, composed of one Chilean, one Peruvian and one American, was held in August, 1925. Soon afterward, however,

This

hostile feeling betwen Chile and Peru began to impede the work of the commission and finally culminated in the abandonment of the plebiscite after a majority vote of the commission had placed the responsibility for this action upon Chile. Since then efforts of the United States to settle the dispute on other bases have proved futile. A recent investigator, Professor Graham Stuart of Stanford University, has expressed surprise that the arbitrator ever decided that the deferred plebiscite was feasible. He is of the opinion that its abandonment "has been a blow to American prestige."

2. CARIBBEAN POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL

PROTECTORATES

The new interests which the United States acquired in the West Indies at the close of the Spanish-American war, the Panama Canal treaty, the construction of the canal and the growth of American investments in the Caribbean area have been responsible for the policies of the United States toward that area being quite different from those which it has pursued toward the countries south of Panama. That the United States recognizes the necessity of a distinctive set of regional policies for the Caribbean area was admitted by Secretary of State Hughes in a public address on August 30, 1923.

With four of the countries of the Caribbean areaCuba, Panama, the Dominican Republic and Haiti-the United States government has treaty arrangements that have given it considerable latitude in its recent relations with them. Two of these countries, Cuba and Panama, entered into such treaty agreements upon acquiring their independence.

Cuba was left in the military possession of the United States at the close of the Spanish-American war, and was permitted to govern herself only after agreeing in 1901 to certain conditions embodied in the Platt amendment. These conditions restricted the right of Cuba freely to

make treaties or to contract debts; obliged her to continue the sanitary program begun during the military occupation by the United States and to grant to the United States coaling and naval stations; and authorized the United States government to intervene in the island at its discretion "for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property and individual liberty," and for discharging certain obligations with respect to Cuba that were imposed by the Treaty of Paris on the United States.

Three outstanding incidents suffice to illustrate the effectiveness with which the Platt amendment has been applied. In the latter part of 1906 the United States proclaimed a provisional government in Cuba and maintained it in power until early in 1909. Secretary of State Lansing in 1917 warned rebellious Cuban Liberals that the United States would not recognize a government set up by force; soon afterward 400 American marines landed at Santiago and assisted in the suppression of the rebellion. President Coolidge in 1924 materially aided the recognized government of Cuba, then engaged in the suppression of internal disorders, by selling to it a considerable quantity of war materials and by maintaining an embargo of several months duration against the shipment of arms and munitions to the island. Notwithstanding the stabilizing effect upon Cuba of the Platt amendment the strength of nationalist and anti-American sentiment in the island was recognized by President Machado in May of this year when he admitted that on his recent visit to the United States he had proposed to the United States government that there should be a further severance of the bonds that bind Cuba to the United States.

The treaty which Panama made with the United States, upon acquiring independence in 1903, obliges the United States to maintain this independence. It also gives to the United States the police and sanitary con

trol in the cities of Panama and Colón and authorizes the United States to use and occupy any lands and waters in the Republic of Panama that might be necessary for the construction, operation or protection of the canal. Thus Panama, while being recognized as a sovereign and independent state, has been since 1903 virtually a protectorate of the United States.

The right of the police and sanitary control outlined in the treaty of 1903 has been effectively and harmoniously exercised by the United States. Panama protested, however, when the United States took control of the island of Taboga, near the Pacific end of the canal. Panama also felt deeply aggrieved in 1921 when the United States forced her to accept an unfavorable arbitral award in a boundary dispute with Costa Rica. A new treaty between the United States and Panama was signed in July, 1926. Its most notable provision forces Panama to consider herself in a state of war "in case of any war in which the United States should be a belligerent." Public sentiment in Panama has repudiated this treaty, with the result that early in 1927 further consideration of it was indefinitely postponed by the Panaman assembly. This action represents the climax to date of a spirit of opposition to the United States which has been developing in Panama since 1920.

Financial difficulties of the Dominican Republic and Haiti have resulted during the last two decades in treaty arrangements that have forced them into financial, and to a lesser degree, into the political receivership of the United States. President Roosevelt in 1905 resorted to an executive agreement by which the entire collection and the application on the foreign debt of 55 per cent of the customs revenues of the Dominican Republic were assumed by the United States. Two years later this agreement was incorporated in a convention. This convention granted the United States no political rights in the Dominican Republic, but chronic internal disorders

in that country prompted the United States to send commissions on three different occasions between 1912 and 1914 to endeavor to bring order out of chaos; on another occasion the United States minister mediated between rival political factions.

Internal conditions did not improve, and in 1916 United States marines were landed to maintain order and to protect life and property. On November 29 of that year, after the Dominican government had refused to sign a new treaty which enlarged the powers of the United States, a proclamation was issued by United States naval officers which declared the Dominican Republic to be under the military administration of the United States. This military administration was maintained until 1924, although President Wilson in 1920, and President Harding in 1921, stipulated conditions for its termination which were unacceptable to the Dominicans. In 1924, after the Dominican government had agreed to ratify all the financial acts of the American military administration and to sign a new treaty providing for the collection and disbursement of Dominican revenues by a United States receiver general until all loans, including a new one not to exceed a total of $25,000,000, shall have been paid, the United States marines were withdrawn. A Dominican government headed by President Vásquez was installed on July 12, 1924, and with this government the United States signed a treaty in December, 1924, which contains the demands exacted as a condition for the termination of the military administration. Thus the Dominican Republic regained its right of self-government; it still remains in the financial receivership of the United States.

Financial difficulties of the Haitian government led the United States in 1914 to propose a convention similar to the 1907 convention with the Dominican Republic. This proposal was refused by the Haitian government. The following year internal disorders in Haiti resulted