hands and at the mercy of the Paraguayan authorities, caused a serious compromise of the American flag, and could not be justified upon any consideration of personal safety; and that Minister Washburn, in justice to his position and in honor of his flag, ought not to have accepted his passport until permitted to withdraw with every member of his legation.

"3. That in the hostile or unfriendly attitude assumed by Minister Washburn toward Lopez and the Paraguayan government in his relations and intercourse with the President of that Republic, and in associating Bliss and Masterman with his legation (one a British subject, suspected by Lopez of a conspiracy with his enemies and the enemies of his country both adventurers and of doubtful reputation) Minister Washburn committed a grave act of imprudence, which resulted in most, if not all, of the complications attending his residence in Paraguay.

“4. That Admirals Godon and Davis, in command of the South Atlantic squadron, have committed no act to subject them to the censure of this government or the investigation of a court-martial, said officers having, to the best of their judgment and understanding, complied with the instructions of the Navy Department and received its approval.

"5. That no legislation is required on the part of Congress, growing out of the facts stated in this record and the correspondence now on file in the State and Navy Departments.

"6. That this Committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject."

So solicitous for the honor of the flag are these gentlemen of the minority! Had they been in Asuncion, there would they have remained for Lopez to shoot down. Of such wonderful stern stuff is the little American when there is no danger in sight! In fact, however, this minority should have known that had Minister Washburn conducted himself in any such inane manner as they have above outlined, he would doubtless have been murdered by Lopez; and that not only the position of Bliss and Masterman would not have become more secure, but the chances of their execution would have been considerably enhanced.

But the especial animus of the minority report is found in the third resolve an attack upon gentlemen shown by the evidence to be quite as high-principled as any member of the Committee on Foreign Relations; and these strictures are seen to have been doubly despicable in view of the almost inconceivable outrages already endured by the men assailed.

Let us turn back with relief to the majority report. Surely, after this, some redress was exacted; some good came at last from these trenchant, ringing resolves? Not an iota. The government of the United States continued to trudge stolidly along its beaten path, to maintain its traditional do-nothing policy, its policy of affording absolutely no protection whatever, either before or after the fact, to its citizens in those lands of Cimmerian darkness.

That "gem of purest ray serene," the Monroe Doctrine, gleamed on, as lustrous as ever; our dainty and modest "Sister," Paraguay, had not been rudely accosted by any of the rapacious monarchies of Europe. As for the innocent and helpless men, women, and children who had been tortured and slaughtered by Lopez- who cares for them!

CHAPTER XVIII

THE BLOCKADE OF VENEZUELAN PORTS, 1903

MR

OST Americans think that the blockade of Venezuela, instituted in 1903 by England, Germany, and Italy, was an unjustifiable infringement of the Monroe Doctrine, and an assault upon a weak and innocent nation for the purpose of compelling it to pay debts of doubtful validity, which "accrued under absolute freedom of contract"; and, furthermore, that the creditors, having taken their risks knowingly, were hardly within the pale of our sympathies.

At the beginning of that blockade not only was the average American "yellow" newspaper ready for war against the allies, but even the most responsible journals and the weightiest magazines were greatly aroused. A correspondent who wanted to abuse the allies was welcome to all the space he wished, but one who sought to show the true status of affairs was generally denied the opportunity.

I was a member of the latter category, and usually my communications were declined without thanks.

In the spring of 1903 one of my articles, "Is the Monroe Doctrine a Bar to Civilization?”. -"By an American business man,' was published by the "North American Review"; but as a whole the attempts by myself and others conversant with the facts to place the truth before the American people through the press were futile. It seems a practical impossibility to get into an American newspaper such facts and arguments upon the Monroe Doctrine as do not correspond to the previously conceived notions of the editors or to the "policy" of the paper.

During the episode of the blockade not one American newspaper or magazine, so far as I am aware, defended the allies, or expressed any sympathy for the hundreds of Englishmen, Germans, Italians, and other civilized men who had been murdered, imprisoned, or robbed by the Venezuelans.

Even our most distinguished orators and writers were unreservedly hostile to the allies; and President Roosevelt was criticised as if he had shown an excess of forbearance toward them. In a typical article in the "North American Review" for March, 1903, "A Jeffersonian Democrat" says:

"It is possible, if not probable, that the unavowed purpose of the British, German, and Italian governments, in their undertaking to enforce certain claims against Venezuela by acts of war, was to ascertain whether the American people would uphold the definition of the Monroe Doctrine set forth by President Roosevelt in his last Annual Message. That is to say, would they uphold the principle that a European government has the right, not only to inflict exemplary damages on an American republic for insults to its flag or to its official representatives, or for wrongs perpetrated on its subjects, but also to resort to the same process of violent coercion for the collection of ordinary debts - by which are meant debts that are the outcome of absolute freedom of contract - and to confiscate for the payment thereof the customs revenue of an American republic for an indefinite period? That is the fundamental and momentous question upon which the outcome of the Venezuela imbroglio will be likely to throw some light.”

--

Having begun in this frame of mind, the "Jeffersonian Democrat" takes but a few minutes to decide that

"The facts show, however, that, under the pretext of exacting reparation for wrongs, a secondary, if not the principal, aim of the joint expedition is the enforcement of the payment of ordinary debts due from the government or citizens of Venezuela to British, German, and Italian creditors."

Of course this is a very wrongful purpose, in the opinion of the "Jeffersonian," and dire consequences may be apprehended. He continues:

"If thirty per cent of the customs levied at certain Venezuelan ports can be sequestrated for the payment of ordinary debts, it follows that the whole customs revenue of another South-American republic may be confiscated, if such wholesale confiscation be needed to provide interest and a sinking fund on the debts due to European creditors. . . . There is not, indeed, a single Latin-American republic, with the possible exception of Chili, the customs revenue of which would not, soon or late, be exposed to confiscation, if the American people at this time acquiesce in the assertion of the principle that European powers are at liberty to collect by force ordinary debts from the Commonwealths of Central and South America."

Quite a mare's nest our Jeffersonian Democrat is discovering, indeed! He proceeds:

"Did or did not Mr. Roosevelt mean to say by the words ('just obligations') which we have quoted from his second Annual Message, that debts of the kind last mentioned are collectable by acts of war? Apparently, that is what the British, German, and Italian governments have undertaken to find out by their joint demonstration against Venezuela; or, rather, they have gone further, and propose to extort by coercion the payment even of those ordinary debts upon which no judgment has yet been obtained from Venezuelan courts."

"Jeffersonian Democrat" himself ought to have the experience of trying for a judgment against a military Jefe in the "Venezuelan

courts"! If he ever succeeds in obtaining such a judgment, he will not need any foreign government to collect it for him! But let him proceed:

"Mr. Roosevelt has not yet seen fit to explain that he did not include ordinary debts in the 'just obligations' which, as he said in his second Annual Message, were collectable by any acts of war that should stop short of the permanent occupation of the debtor's territory. We hope that such explanation will yet be forthcoming from him, and we are pretty sure that the American people will demand it when they are thoroughly awakened to the danger of allowing European Powers to exact from Latin-American republics the payment of ordinary debts by a 'temporary' or 'provisional' occupation of seaports, or by the confiscation of customs duties for an indefinite period. We have put the words 'temporary' and 'provisional' in quotation marks, because those were the soothing phrases applied to the occupation of Egypt by Great Britain."

These are sad words about Egypt! Is it not deplorable that England does not withdraw her army, and abandon Egypt to the tender mercies of the Porte, so that it may sink back into the barbarism that it formerly enjoyed! Oh, these Boston anti-imperialists and Jeffersonian Democrats - if they would only remove to the countries they profess to love so much!

But I have digressed. Here follows a final extract:

"It is unquestionably true that, if President Roosevelt should determine that fidelity to the letter and spirit of the Monroe Doctrine would require him to protest against attempts on the part of European Powers to enforce by acts of war upon Latin-American commonwealths the payment of ordinary debts, that is to say, debts accruing, or alleged to have accrued, under absolute freedom of contract, - he would feel it to be his duty, as a matter of decorum and consistency, to impose a similar rule upon our State Department. Unfortunately, it is undeniable that the power and influence of our Federal Executive have more than once been employed to extort from our sister American Republics the payment, not only of ordinary debts acknowledged to be valid, but also of claims known from the outset to be questionable and subsequently proved to be fraudulent. All honest Americans deplore the pressure that was at one time brought to bear by our State Department to compel Mexico to acknowledge and pay the notorious Weil and La Abra claims. There is reason to believe that claims, almost equally indefensible, against Haiti and Dominica have at times received diplomatic support from the United States. If we purpose to go into an international court on behalf of our Latin-American friends and to demand the application of the maxim 'caveat emptor,' we must do so with clean hands. Our State Department must refrain hereafter from assisting our native creditors in the collection of ordinary debts from the governments or citizens of Latin-American Commonwealths. In the case of Latin-American Republics, as in the case of Great Britain, France, or Germany, American creditors must content themselves with an appeal to the courts of the debtor country, and then with a clear conscience we can insist that European creditors shall be relegated to the same remedy.