informed of what before it was not certain that it is under no liability.

We have now seen that different umpires, reasoning under practically identical protocols, have arrived at diametrically opposite conclusions. According to Gutierrez-Otero equity means equity; according to Ralston equity means horrible injustice. And other umpires and commissioners hold equally irreconcilable opinions on other points.

From this "matter unformed and void" one fact emerges, clear as the rising sun: foreigners in Latin America have but little to hope for from these mixed commissions, and less than usual from those presided over by American politicians surcharged with Monroe Doctrine, whose lacrymal glands are overworking through sympathy for our "Sister Republics.'

Umpire Ralston says: "To require it [a government] . . . to pay for the powder and ball expended and the soldiers engaged in an attempt to destroy its life, is a proposition difficult to maintain, and yet it is to this point we arrive in the last analysis, if governments are to compensate wrongs done by their would-be slayers when engaged in attempts to destroy them."

This is absurd. A “revolution" in Latin America does not imply any attempt to "destroy" the "life" of a government. It means merely that one gang of cutthroats is trying to oust another gang of cutthroats. The term "government," in the broad sense here used, means far more than the administration of the government by the body of men at any specific time in office; it means the whole nation organized as a political body, with its official institutions, properties, and systems, -the entire body politic.

Mr. Ralston confounds the administration of the government with the government itself. A Dictator (supported by all the other officeholders) may administer the government of Colombia, for instance; but neither the Dictator alone, nor yet the complete array of officeholders, constitutes the government. No matter how many successful revolutions may occur in a country, e. g., Peru, the government itself does not change — what changes, pari passu, is merely the administration of the government.

When Mr. Ralston tries to show that a government ought not in equity to be held for acts committed by revolutionists, engaged in an attempt to destroy its life, his reasoning powers play upon a fallacious premise, and lead him into a double irrationality; for revolutionists never attempt to destroy the life of a government. They merely attempt to change the personnel of its administration, that is, to overthrow the administration, to oust those who are administering the government, so that the revolutionists themselves may administer it.

If Venezuela should lose its individuality, and its identity as a government, every time that a successful revolution should take place, its case would be sad indeed.

Umpire Ralston further says:

"It has already been pointed out that 'injury' imports a damage inflicted against law. It involves a wrong inflicted on the sufferer, and of necessity wrongdoing by the party to be charged, as otherwise it could not be called 'wrongful,' as against him. Applying this doctrine, which the umpire believes to be unassailable, by what process of ratiocination can he imply to Venezuela the wrongful intent lodged in the bosoms of those who were at enmity with her and seeking to destroy her established government? And if he may not do so, how can he charge Venezuela with the commission of acts of which she is innocent? And how, under such circumstances, can he find that an injury has been committed with which, by the law of nations, she should be so charged?"

It would be hard to find in all the literature of fallacies a more ridiculous specimen of alleged "ratiocination" than the quoted words supply. A blind fool is not so blind as is a fool who is not blind but who will not see.

The revolutionists are not "at enmity" with Venezuela; on the contrary, they profess and doubtless possess a patriotism fully as high as that of the rabble in power. Neither do they seek to "destroy her established government" - they seek merely to change the personnel of the administration of that government.

Venezuela herself, the government of Venezuela, is a distinct political entity. Mr. Ralston recognizes this when he says: "For about seventy years Venezuela has been a regular member of the family of nations. Treaties have been signed with her on a basis of absolute equality."

The "crowd" in office is no more a part of Venezuela than are the revolutionists. A revolutionary general to-day may be to-morrow a member of the cabinet, or Jefe Supremo. The "administration" of to-day may be the revolutionists of to-morrow.

"How can he charge Venezuela with the commission of acts of which she is innocent?" Venezuela is not innocent. She is to blame.

If a foreigner's life is assailed, or if his property is seized by revolutionists, wherein is Venezuela guilty of any "wrongful” act, wherein is she to blame?

The answer is plain. Venezuela is to blame because her government does not maintain the standards established by civilization; because in practice, at least, there has never been a really constitutional government in the country, but one military dictatorship succeeds another; because the rabble in power are no more representative of the people than are the rabble in revolution; because these military dictatorships are the very incarnation of tyranny and oppression, corruption, and license, and thus themselves incite rebellion; because officials of the "administration" frequently start revolutions

with loot and plunder as their object; because neither revolutionist nor adherent of the administration is ever punished for looting, robbing, or murdering foreigners; because the so-called "government" itself levies "forced loans," and imprisons and otherwise maltreats the citizen who refuses to submit, and is always ready to aid in looting foreigners; because "government" troops are found indiscriminately supporters of the "outs" as well as of the "ins"; because, no matter how bitter the internal strife, the warring factions are always ready to establish a truce and fight side by side if any pressure is being brought to bear by foreign governments in behalf of their citizens; because these revolutions are wholly mercenary; because oftentimes the property seized by the so-called revolutionists passes directly into the hands of the "government."

If a nation repudiates its obligations, international and domestic, tramples on its own constitution and laws, and persistently refuses or fails to maintain a government that is decent and civilized, it ought in the name of justice and sound policy to be compelled to pay the damages sustained by law-abiding foreigners who suffer through, and are in no wise to blame for, its shameful, wicked, and unnatural intestine dissensions.

A

CHAPTER VII

THE FORCED LOAN

COMMON form of exaction imposed upon foreigners is the

forced loan. I have known personally of several extortions of this variety. Now and then an intended victim boldly refuses to be bled. I know of one case where a big German house had paid tribute time and again, until its resident partners, thoroughly aroused, alarmed, indignant, called a halt. The bandit government's next demands received a flat refusal, backed up by the German minister, who added, in clear crisp sentences, that any further levies would be met and resisted by a squadron of the Imperial battle-ships.

The Dictator appeared to desist, but issued a decreta declaring communication with a certain section of the country shut off, under the pretext that a revolution or invasion was there brewing. Of course the German minister could not object to this move, as it related solely to internal administration and was protected by the sacred Monroe Doctrine.

It happened, however, that the offending German house had advanced one million six hundred thousand dollars cash, gold, against consignments of coffee in the shut off district. This the Dictator well knew, he was teaching the stubborn Germans that standing out against him would prove a costly business. The movement of that coffee was retarded for almost two years, and in the end it had to be brought out over a route and through a country not on the original schedule, and at great expense.

Five of our countrymen defend on all occasions the Latin Americans. These five are Mr. W. L. Scruggs, of Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Marrion Wilcox, Mr. W. I. Buchanan, Mr. Herbert W. Bowen, and Mr. John Barrett. Here follows Mr. Scruggs' description of forced loans (The Colombian and Venezuelan Republics, p. 150):

"Nor is he [the peon] the only victim of the disorders incident to these perennial 'revolutions.' Take the usual 'war contribution,' for example, which is, of course, only a polite name for robbery. When horses, mules, saddles, blankets, cattle, and provisions are wanted, they are seized without leave or ceremony; the pretext being either 'military necessity,' or alleged sympathy by the victim with the enemy. If the sufferer can establish his neutrality, he may obtain some kind of a voucher, though often of

very remote

and uncertain value. If the seizure is made by the successful party in the contest, there may be a small but long-delayed indemnity; if made by the unsuccessful party, compensation is never expected. Resident and transient foreigners who are wise and prudent enough to preserve an attitude of strict neutrality are seldom disturbed. Generally their property rights are respected by both factions; and when this is not the case, and their claims are properly presented, compensation, or at least the promise of it, is usually made when peace is restored. But, unhappily amid the exciting scenes of disorder, resident foreigners sometimes have opinions of their own and are apt to express them; and when this is not the case, their very silence may be construed into covert hostility to one or the other faction. In any case there is always a batch of foreign reclamations to be adjusted, many of which are not only inequitable but manifestly fraudulent; and to sift the good from the bad generally becomes the duty of an arbitral commission appointed by the two governments.

"The forced loan or the imprestito, as it is called in the language of the country is a still more serious matter. It is a favorite scheme of both sides for raising ready money, and if a citizen is reputed to be wealthy, his chances of escape are very narrow. His first assessment may range anywhere from five to thirty thousand dollars, according to his supposed ability to pay; and this is liable to be duplicated many times over before the war closes. The exaction is almost certain to be repeated by the adverse faction whenever it gets the person assessed within its power; for the very fact of his compliance with the first demand, however reluctant, becomes a convenient pretext for assessing him as 'a sympathizer' with the enemy.

"The person assessed is generally allowed a reasonable length of time in which to raise the money, nor will he be imprisoned or maltreated so long as he shows a disposition to pay. But if he tries to evade payment, or if payment be unreasonably delayed, off to jail he goes without ceremony or trial. If in order to avoid imprisonment he conceals himself or flees from the country, his property, real or personal, or both, is seized and sold to satisfy the assessment. If to avoid arrest and imprisonment, he shuts himself up in his residence and claims the inviolability of private domicile as guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the country, he soon discovers his mistake. An armed squad of soldiers will be stationed at the doors and windows of his dwelling, and both he and his family made prisoners in his own house. All egress and ingress is rigidly prohibited. Not even a servant or the family physician is allowed to pass in or out. Of course it is only a question of time when the whole family is starved into capitulation.

"It is a very common thing in such times for wealthy natives to seek asylum in one of the foreign legations; and in some cases this has been incautiously granted, even by American ministers. Of course such action on the part of a foreign representative is wholly indefensible. It accords neither with the traditions of our own government nor with modern international law. Asylum can be given only in cases where life, not property, is in imminent peril, and then only during an exceptional emergency. The moment the emergency is past, the right of asylum ceases. And yet we once came perilously near getting into a disgraceful war with one of the South American Republics because our President, who was a candidate for re-election, sustained the resident minister in his unwarranted action in opening the legation to natives who sought merely to save their property."