power from Sam. But this plan was upset when France recognized the new government, followed by Italy and Germany. France, sorely tried at home, nevertheless secured a loan of $1,000,000 and a promise of more for the new government. Whatever may have been Sam's real feeling toward a protectorate, the leader of the next revolution was outspokenly opposed; Bobo would have none of it.

The events of the latter part of July, involving the violation of two Legations, apparently hastened matters. Indeed, an actual fiscal protectorate seemed about to come into existence whether a legal one did so or not, for Caperton was putting naval paymasters in charge of the customs houses of the ports. By the middle of August, Admiral Caperton was reported as of the opinion that the better classes were favoring an agreement with the United States. There continued to be dissent of course. The president of the Senate protested to Washington against our occupation of the capital and General Bobo declared the new President could not have been elected without the help of American guns. At the end of the month, he was in Porto Rico on his way to the Dominican Republic and announced, "The United States has long coveted Mole St. Nicholas and the war in Europe gave an opportunity to get a foothold. Haitians will never submit to the degradation of outside interference." 1 Meanwhile, it was said, the population of southern Haiti showed itself willing to take a protectorate. The insurgents in the north continued to refuse to lay down arms, but after 1 As quoted in the Independent, Vol. 83, p. 287 (1915).

several minor skirmishes surrendered. The convention, which at the end of August was being urged upon D'Artiguenave, the new Haitian President, was of much more comprehensive character than the one in operation in the Dominican Republic, for the United States was, under it, to keep control of the expenditure of all moneys and was to have the right to help in maintaining order. Its chief provisions were:

1. A Haitian receivership of customs was to be created under American control. There was to be an American Financial Adviser. 2. There was to be a native Haitian rural and civil constabulary commanded by American officers.

3. The United States, through its customs control, was to manage all expenditure of public moneys. The receipts were to be devoted to the payment of the expenses of the receivership, to the interest and sinking fund of the public debt, to the maintenance of the constabulary and the remainder to the Haitian Government for its current expenses.

4. Haiti was to promise to cede no territory to any nation but the United States.

5. All revolutionary forces were to be disarmed.

6. The convention was to last ten years, and an equal additional period if its objects were not accomplished within that time.

Secretary Lansing issued an announcement in which he declared: "We have only one purpose-that is, to help the Haitian people and prevent them from being exploited by irresponsible revolutionists. These are not properly revolutions; they are unorganized enterprises which invoke no question of principle, and they are ruining the country. . . . The United States has no purpose of aggression and is entirely disinterested in promoting this protectorate. We have not even asked for Mole St. Nicholas. The arrangement, of course, would

have to be considered by the United States Senate for approval." 1

On September 4, Admiral Caperton proclaimed martial law in Port-au-Prince and on September 16 the treaty for a protectorate was signed. The next day our Administration recognized the new government with D'Artiguenave as its head. The treaty was promptly approved by the Haitian Congress and the Senate of the United States. These events aroused but little comment in the United States. The similar steps taken by the Government before had accustomed the public to the assumption of new duties in the Caribbean. The European War distracted the attention from what, for the moment, seemed minor problems. But the assumption of a protectorate over people of as turbulent a character as those of Haiti is not an undertaking of small moment. It represents a responsibility far greater than that involved in the treaty with the Dominican Republic for the population is twice as great, it is less peaceful, and the economic resources of which the government has control are greater.

Weak states of the Caribbean, like weak states the world over, are passing into eclipse. Whether any of them will again emerge from the control of their powerful protectors only future developments can determine. Outside America such an event seems unlikely, for the taking over of control there, as a rule, is at best only a step toward annexation. In America, on the other hand,

1 Literary Digest, Vol. 51, p. 456 (1915). The text of the treaty, ratified Feb. 28, 1916, is found in Senate-In Executive Session, Executive A, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. (Made Public Feb. 28, 1916).

the supervisional agreements made by the United States have been actuated by a less far-reaching motive. Had this not been the case we could easily have found before this the occasion for extensive annexations. It would have been easy to prove that the disturbed states south of us had become examples of the "divine right to misrule," that they were in more ways than one a menace to their neighbors, that they had "sinned away their day of grace" and should lose their independence because unable to use it.

But our policy has been to guide, not to dominate. As is usual in such cases, our position is to be explained by a mixture of motives. Some impulses have been altruistic, we have faith in republican institutions and want to let our weaker neighbors work out their own problems of self-government, but are willing to give them neighborly aid, and in so doing the permanent governing of one people by another has seemed opposed to the principles of democracy. We have sought to make our functions temporary or make them preventive rather than corrective. Political motives also have urged us toward control. If some supervision is necessary we prefer that it should be our own rather than that of some European power. It would complicate our foreign policy and involve a reversal of our traditional position to allow non-American powers to interfere. Taken all in all, the expansion of our authority has been imperialistic only in a modified sense. The partial eclipse which it has seemed to involve for weak Caribbean states does not mean that we are taking the first steps toward their national extinction. That annexa

tion will never come in any case it would be foolish to assert. That it will occur in a case where guidance without actual possession by the United States will bring peace is unlikely. The attitude of those who have guided our foreign policy toward our weak neighbors may be judged by the declaration of one of those who in recent years did much in its shaping. Secretary of State John Hay writing to Mr. J. N. Léger, the Minister of Haiti in Washington, declared in February, 1905, "In reply to your inquiry addressed to me this morning, I take pleasure in assuring you that the Government of the United States of America has no intention to annex either Haiti or San Domingo, nor does it desire to acquire their possession either by force or by means of negotiations, and that even in case the citizens of one or the other republic should ask incorporation in the American union there would be no inclination on the part of the Government or in public opinion to accept such a proposal. Our interest in harmony with your desires is that you should continue in peace, prosperous and independent."

1

II. ECONOMIC INTERESTS

The natural resources of Haiti are said to be of great value but their development has only begun. The richness of the soil-the national life depends almost entirely upon agricultural products-is testified to by the fact that within its 10,200 square miles the country sup

1 Deschamps, Enrique, La Republica Dominicana, Santiago de los Caballeros D. R. n. d., p. 201. (Translation.)