Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

tends itself, under different forms amidst the widely different circumstances which present themselves with each particular case, throughout the whole series of these addresses. One traces everywhere in reading them that large comprehension of detail and the liberal and just readiness to admit into consideration the rights and privileges on both sides of the controversy which are, in fact, characteristic of Mr. Root's method in discussing questions of international law.

It is not necessary for us to do more at this time than to refer the reader to the numerous articles contained in the volume itself. We cannot pass by without referring, however, to one or two of these, as well because of the peculiar interest with which they will be read by students of international questions as on account of the intrinsic value of the investigations made by Mr. Root into the merit of the questions to which they directly relate and of the conclusions arrived at by him.

Certain of these, as, for instance, "The Real Monroe Doctrine," may be accepted as amongst the most decisive pronouncements that have been formulated upon the subject in recent times. It is not too much to say that, in this particular address, which was delivered before the American Society of International Law, in April, 1914, we have an authoritative declaration of the policy of the United States Government itself in regard to its attitude towards foreign Powers in their relations with the American Continent. The scholar or diplomatist of any country, who seeks to inform himself, could not do better than to take it into attentive consideration and study.

The events of the last three years in Europe have changed considerably, no doubt, the actual relationship between the European States and the Republics of South America; and they have substantially removed, for the duration at least of the lives of those of us who are living today, any menace of colonization or aggression upon the part of foreign governments that might cause apprehension to us. But we have this statement, made by Mr. Root in the most emphatic terms, that, whilst it is undoubtedly true that the specific occasions for the declaration of Monroe no longer exist,—the Holy Alliance long ago disappeared, the nations of Europe no longer contemplate the vindication of monarchical principles in the New World, and France, the most active of the Allies, is herself a republic, yet

The declaration, however, did more than deal with the specific occasion which called it forth. It was intended to declare a general principle for the future, and this is plain not merely from the generality of the terms used but from the discussions out of which they arose and from the understanding of the men who took part in the making and of their

successors.

As the particular occasions which called it forth have slipped back into history, the declaration itself, instead of being handed over to the historian, has grown continuously a more vital and insistent rule of conduct for each succeeding generation of Americans.

No one ever pretended that Mr. Monroe was declaring a rule of international law. . . . It is a declaration of the United States that certain acts would be injurious to the peace and safety of the United States and that the United States would regard them as unfriendly.

[ocr errors]

The doctrine is not international law, but it rests upon the right of self-protection and that right is recognized by international law.

So, also, in "The Ethics of the Panama Question" we have what may be taken in the same manner as an authoritative statement in regard to American policy, of extraordinary value to those who seek the point of departure and the real forces which, having been brought to bear through a series of years, reached finally an effective and determining governmental action. This address, delivered before the Union League Club of Chicago, in 1904, bears the imprint of a complete mastery of the subject and of the views upon it that were held by the Administration at the time, as these were reflected from Mr. Root's own participation, not only in the discussions which took place, but undoubtedly in the decisions arrived at, whilst the impression was still fresh upon his mind.

He announced in opening the address that he intended to present some of the fundamental facts bearing upon "the question of right in the Panama business," in the hope that they might thus reach the attention of those of our citizens who were troubled about the matter.

There remain [said he] good and sincere men and women who have thought our course to be wrong, and many others, whose character and patriotism entitle them to the highest respect, are troubled in spirit. They would be glad to be sure that our country is not justly chargeable

with dishonorable conduct. May the time never come when such men and women are wanting, or are constrained to remain silent, in America.

He made it evident that the relations of the United States Government to the Republics of New Granada and Colombia for many years before must not be left out of sight, nor their logical and inevitable consequences neglected, if the situation at the time of the actual construction of the Panama Canal is to be understood and the measures taken by the Administration are to be clearly described as a means toward the carrying out of that tremendous undertaking. Mr. Root has defined these in a manner to allay apprehension, not only on the part of those who listened to him in Chicago, but of those also, now and hereafter, who shall read his addresses contained in this volume. It throws an exceedingly illuminating side-light upon the whole subject as it was regarded by the authorities in Washington at that time, and is undoubtedly so regarded now.

The United States considered that "by the rules of right and justice universally recognized among men and which are the law of nations, the sovereignty of Colombia over the Isthmus of Panama was qualified and limited by the right of the other civilized nations of the earth to have the canal constructed across the Isthmus and to have it maintained for their free and unobstructed passage." By the treaty of 1846, New Granada applied to the Government of the United States to engage to protect that country against the seizure of the Isthmus by other foreign Powers. "In effect, she acknowledged the right of way and asked the United States to become the trustee of that right which qualified her sovereignty." Mr. Root declared that New Granada recognized by this transaction the subordination of her sovereignty to the world's easement of passage by railroad or by canal, and, apprehending that other nations might seek to exercise that right through the destruction of her sovereignty and the appropriation of her territory, she procured the United States to assume the responsibility of protecting her against such treatment.

The United States received a grant of power and assumed a duty herself to keep the transit free and uninterrupted and unmolested, and to keep the territory of the transit neutral.

The duties assumed by the United States to maintain neutrality and free passage were undertaken for the benefit of all the world.

The effect of the treaty was, therefore, that foreign Powers were to be excluded from the opportunity to construct the canal; and, consequently, if private enterprise should fail to build it, the United States assumed the obligation to build it herself. We could not refuse to permit the work to be done by any one else competent to do it and refuse the burden ourselves. The obligation of the United States to build the canal and the obligation of Colombia to permit her to build it, both followed necessarily from the relations and obligations assumed by them in the treaty of 1846.

We took the responsibility [says Mr. Root] upon ourselves alone, to do for civilization what otherwise all the maritime Powers would have united in requiring; it was for us alone to act; and I have no question that our right and duty were to build the canal, with or without the consent of Colombia.

But, even beyond that, he declared that:

Throughout the centuries since Philip II sat upon the throne of Spain, merchants and statesmen and humanitarians and the intelligent masses of the civilized world have looked forward to this consummation with just anticipations of benefit to mankind. No savage tribes who happened to dwell upon the Isthmus would have been permitted to bar this pathway of civilization. By the universal practice and consent of mankind they would have been swept aside without hesitation. No Spanish sovereign could, by discovery or conquest or occupation, preëmpt for himself the exclusive use of this little spot upon the surface of the earth dedicated by nature to the use of mankind. No civil society organized upon the ruins of Spanish dominion could justly arrogate to itself over this tract of land sovereignty unqualified by the world's easement and all the rights necessary to make that easement effective. The formal rules of international law are but declarations of what is just and right in the generality of cases. But where the application of such a general rule would impair the just rights or imperil the existence of neighboring states or would unduly threaten the peace of a continent or would injuriously affect the general interests of mankind, it has always been the practice of civilized nations to deny the application of the formal rule and compel conformity to the principles of justice upon which all rules depend.

We have further in this address a narrative of the events in Panama through the period of unrest and open discontent under the control of the Colombian authority against which the incessant efforts of the people of the Isthmus were directed. Mr. Root sets forth their political development, with the close analysis which always accompanies the investigation of a legal or constitutional question by him. He arrays the facts and supports the arguments with documentary proofs, so that the reader may follow the course of local history in Panama into and through the contests in which the people fought to exhaustion in 1885 to prevent the loss of their liberty and were defeated through the action of the naval forces of the United States. Three times since then they arose in rebellion against their oppressors. In 1895 they arose and were suppressed by force; in 1899 they arose again, and for three years maintained a war for liberation, which ended in 1902 through the interposition of the United States by armed force. The rising of November, 1903, was the fourth attempt to regain their rights. This time the United States Government would not, in view of the strained relations created by the situation at Bogota, exercise her authority again, as she had done before, to aid the troops of Colombia. "She was under no obligation to do so, and she could not do so without aiding in the denial of her own rights and the destruction of her own interests." Upon that the people of Panama relied in their last attempt, and they relied upon it with

reason.

Every one knows that in the revolution which then broke out these people succeeded finally in declaring and maintaining their independence, and that subsequently to this, as the United States decided that the inhabitants of Panama were the real owners of the canal route, we might, in consequence, deal with them as an independent sovereign state. The circumstances led, naturally, through the course of reasoning adopted at that time by the Administration at Washington, to the final adjustment and to the completion, years ago now, of the Panama Canal; and Mr. Root shows that this country's participation in the enterprise was just and right.

By all the principles of justice among men and among nations [said he] that we have learned from our fathers, and that all peoples and all governments should maintain, the revolutionists in Panama were right,

« AnteriorContinuar »