pled upon by the military Jefe, or whoever runs things there; when he himself has been thrown into jail or expelled from the country,what will the government of the United States do for him?

These are important considerations and questions. The answers to them, drawn from unhappy experience, is Nothing. The United States government may hold out false hopes, but the redress will never be realized. The Solicitor of our State Department will tell him, with all gravity, that the courts of Venezuela, Colombia, Santo Domingo, etc., are entitled to as much faith and credit as the courts of England, and he will be told to go back and seek relief in the courts of our Sister Republic.

Seek relief in the courts of our Sister Republic! The credulity of government officials is infinite! If our worthy Solicitor really believes that the courts of Venezuela, Santo Domingo, and Colombia are entitled to as full faith and credit as the courts of England, then it would be time to call in the services of an alienist. If he does not believe it, he has no right or business to make the statement he does.

And yet our Solicitor has accurately expressed the policy of the United States government towards these aggregations. Through various methods our government inveigles our citizens into the meshes of bandit chiefs, leaves them there without protection, claiming by a cruel mockery that their courts are "entitled to full faith and credit," while privately the officials of the State Department will say that the American was a dd fool and ought to have known better than to go there.

If our business man and this is not an imaginary case should lay before our State Department the copy of the contract signed between his company and this Sister Republic - a contract in virtue of which his company has spent hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of dollars in good faith, a contract reasonable in its terms and fair in its provisions, a contract, let us say, authorizing the building of a railway to its own mine or a wharf for its own use, the stipulation being that the company shall not be interfered with nor hampered by government contributions beyond a certain per cent for a given period of years, and then show our State Department that the military bosses of our Sister have violated every provision of this contract, and after inducing him to invest his money have confiscated his property and ruined him, on the most trivial pretexts or on none at all, — what answer does our State Department make to all this?

These are its precise words in an actual instance of this character: "The government of the United States cannot undertake to compel foreign governments to live up to contracts which they make with our citizens."

Now, taking into account the whole situation, our Monroe Doctrine, the conditions in Latin America, the vast balance of trade against us there, the care and protection we have afforded them and

the ungrateful recompense we have received, the wrecks of our own investments there, the cool and comfortable indifference of our own State Department to the unnumbered outrages on our own citizens as well as on other civilized men, is it too severe to characterize the policy of our government, as expressed in the Monroe Doctrine, towards our own citizens in Latin America, as inconsistent with national honor and self-respect?

I. NO REDRESS FOR REVOLUTIONARY OUTRAGES

The case of the United States v. Salvador, decided on May 2, 1902, by the arbitrators, Sir Henry Strong, Chief Justice of Canada, Don M. Dickinson, of Michigan, and Señor Don José Rosa Pacas, of Santa Anna, Salvador, illustrates the treatment accorded the foreigner in these dictatorships. The opinion was rendered by Sir Henry Strong, as follows:

"In 1898 Maurice Gelbtrunk & Co., a partnership firm composed of Maurice Gelbtrunk and Isidore Gelbtrunk, both of whom were American citizens, were engaged in carrying on a mercantile business in the Central American Republic of Salvador.

"In November, 1898, there was a revolution in Salvador, and a revolutionary force occupied the city of Sensuntepeque, where a quantity of merchandise of the value, in silver, of $22,000 and upward belonging to the firm of Gelbtrunk & Co. was stored. There is no dispute as to the value of these goods, or as to the fact of their being the property of Gelbtrunk & Co. The soldiers of the revolutionary army possessed themselves of the goods - looted them, in short- and sold, appropriated, or destroyed them. It does not appear that this was done in carrying out the orders of any officer in authority, or as an act of military necessity, but, so far as it appears, it was an act of lawless violence on the part of the soldiery.

"There is no dispute as to the facts. It is admitted, or cannot be denied, that the members of the firm of Gelbtrunk & Co. were American citizens; that the merchandise looted or destroyed, in respect of which the claim is made, was of the actual value stated; and, further, that it was stolen or destroyed by the soldiers as alleged. The only point for decision is that principally argued, namely, the right, upon established principles of international law, of the United States to reclaim indemnity for a loss accruing to its citizens upon the facts stated.

"The principle which I hold to be applicable to the present case may be thus stated: A citizen or subject of one nation who, in the pursuit of commercial enterprises, carries on trade within the territory and under the protection of the sovereignty of a nation other than his own is to be considered as having cast in his lot with the subjects or citizens of the State in which he resides and carries on business. Whilst on the one hand he enjoys the protection of that State, so far as the police regulations and other advantages are concerned, on the other hand he becomes liable to the political vicissitudes of the country in which he has a commercial domicile, in the same manner as the subject or citizens of that State are liable to the same. The State to which he owes national

allegiance has no right to claim for him as against the nation in which he is resident any other or different treatment, in case of loss by war, either foreign or civil, revolution, insurrection, or other internal disturbance caused by organized military force, or by soldiers, than that which the latter country metes out to its own subjects or citizens."

Sir Henry Strong, with the concurrence of both the other Commissioners, disallowed the claim entirely on these grounds.

It is difficult to discuss dispassionately the cold-blooded technical decisions of the Mixed Commissions, where the foreigner in every case gets the worst of it. The Commissions are established to decide in accordance with justice and equity- they forget the rights or wrongs of the case, and get lost in a maze of "international law."

At the outset, it must be evident that international law was never designed to meet the abnormal and anarchistic conditions existing in Latin America. It is more in the nature of "senatorial courtesy,' which is a good enough code among high-class gentlemen; and so is "international law" among civilized nations.

Whenever conditions exist for shielding murder, robbery, and extortion, it is time to pause and re-examine the foundations on which these rest. It may be quite correct to say that England or France or Germany would not be responsible for the pillage of revolutionary bodies, because such conduct would not occur once in a century; but to apply the same doctrine to Salvador is the extreme of folly. The American people should know and realize that our fellow citizens cannot be protected in the Latin-American dictatorships under the rules of international law.

Let it be known for such is indeed the fact, as Sir Henry Strong's decision demonstrates that when our property is seized, burned, or destroyed by revolutionary bands, there is absolutely no redress. International law should have nothing to say in the matter. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," and the best way to obtain redress is to prevent the perpetration of the outrage. In other words, the United States should establish civilized governments in those countries, which would make pillage by revolutionary bands impossible. Until that is done, if international law is not adequate to protect our citizens in Salvador, protection should be afforded them by some other method.

II. CHRONIC ANTAGONISM DISPLAYED TOWARDS AMERICA

The Latin Americans, whether in Brazil or Costa Rica, whether in Chili or Santo Domingo, are constantly looking for trouble. One would suppose that Brazil would have a different feeling. We pour about $60,000,000 of gold every year into her lap, and it might be supposed that the people would at least be decent towards us. But Brazil is like all our other Sister Republics; only with difficulty does

she restrain her exhibitions of hostility towards our high officials, while our private citizens are as unsafe in Brazil as in Haiti.

An illustration of this inherent trait in the Latin-American race was displayed on the occasion of a visit made to the Upper Amazon by the U. S. S. Wilmington, in April, 1898.

Commander Todd was making a friendly visit to Brazil. On February 28, 1898, Mr. Dawson, of our legation at Rio de Janeiro, sent a memorandum to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, informing him that the Wilmington would shortly visit Brazilian waters, intending to call in turn at nearly all the ports of Brazil, and added:

"I bespeak for the Wilmington the same cordial reception and courtesy which your Excellency's government has always accorded to the ships of my government, and trust that her visit will still further strengthen the feelings of friendship and good-will existing so happily between the two peoples."

Mr. Charles Page Bryan, American Minister at Petropolis, Brazil, received a telegram, on April 6, from the commander of the Wilmington, saying:

"Wilmington cruising up Amazon. No objection by Governor Para, Amazonas. Obtain permit if necessary. Inform governor."

Mr. Bryan at once went to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and informed him of the telegram, calling his attention to the decree of December 7, 1866, which opened the navigation of the high waters of the Amazon and its tributaries to foreign vessels.

"Dr. Magalhaes said that in answer to a telegram from the Governor of Para, he had, although unnecessarily, telegraphed authorization for the Wilmington to enter the Amazon, which message had not reached its destination before the departure of the American gunboat. The minister expressed gratification at the friendly visit of the Wilmington."

Commander Todd was received with courtesy by the Governor at Pará. The American consul at Pará was informed by the Governor, on March 15, that they would cable to the federal government at Rio de Janeiro the desire of Commander Todd to proceed up the Amazon. On March 19 Commander Todd, supposing that all formalities had been complied with by the Brazilian authorities and that all requisite permissions had been given, started up the river.

A great hue and cry was immediately raised by the newspapers, officials, and finally the people, that Commander Todd had forgotten some ceremony or had not bowed and scraped often enough. He was treated with discourtesy by the Governor of the State of Amazonas, and the American consulate at Manaos was stoned by the inhabitants, in all probability at the instigation of the authorities, to display their displeasure at the visit of the Wilmington.

Secretary Hay very tersely remarked :

"You may assure the government of Brazil that further visits of the public vessels of the United States to the inland waters of Brazil are not to be expected until the assurance of a friendly reception is accorded them. I am confident that when the government of Brazil is made aware of the lack of courtesy with which an American ship on a friendly visit has been treated in Brazilian waters, it cannot fail to regret the action of its agents!"

III. Can MURDER AMERICANS WITH IMPUNITY

The difficulty of obtaining evidence on which to convict murderers in Latin America is illustrated by the report of Robert Grant, United States Consular Agent, Florianopolis, Brazil, dated January 24, 1895, in which he described the murder of American sailors from the vessel Isaiah Stetson, at Santa Catharina, Brazil, on December 16, 1894. The sailors were Nils Johnson, Ingvald Ramstad, Charles Jonson, and Fred Jensen. They were on shore leave, and at about dark were attacked by Brazilian soldiers and hacked all to pieces with knives and sabres. No known motive existed for the attack; there was no quarrel or other disturbance preceding the affray. Mr. Grant said, Ingvald Ramstad had eight wounds, two of which were mortal; Charles Jonson four, one of them being mortal; and Fred Jensen also four dangerous; Nil Johnson had a number of slight cuts in his back."

The captain stated that he had tried to obtain medical aid for the men, but had been unsuccessful; several doctors to whom he applied refused to go with him to see the men. They were finally taken to a hospital, where two of the men died shortly afterward. Mr. Grant states: "During the police investigation further witnesses have been examined. In the beginning the proceedings were very difficult, as the first who were examined, fearing the revenge of the soldiers on the witnesses who should denounce them, denied all knowledge of the affair. Some of them who had seen it all had in fact been threatened with death by the soldiers in case they should make any disclosures. Fortunately indications were discovered which forced some of them to confess that they had witnessed the crime, and to name the perpetrators, who are proved to have been Durval Peixoto, Manoel Cerino, Joad Galdino de Oliveira, and Elias Torquato da Roza, all soldiers of the Seventh Battalion of Infantry, stationed at this city, who seem to have been led to the perpetration of this odious crime only by their perverse instincts, as it has been impossible to discover any other motive."

In this case the courts inflicted a sentence of eight years of imprisonment on some of the criminals, but whether it was ever carried out is unknown.