the bombardment of one of its ports, and the establishment of a rigorous blockade along its shores. If such proceedings were to be definitely adopted they would establish a precedent dangerous to the security and the peace of the nations of this part of America.

The collection of loans by military means implies territorial occupation to make them effective, and territorial occupation signifies the suppression or subordination of the governments of the countries on which it is imposed.

Such a situation seems obviously at variance with the principles many times proclaimed by the nations of America, and particularly with the Monroe doctrine, sustained and defended with so much zeal on all occasions by the United States, a doctrine to which the Argentine Republic has heretofore solemnly adhered.

Among the principles which the memorable message of December 2, 1823, enunciates, there are two great declarations which particularly refer to these republics, viz. "The American continents are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for colonization by any European powers," and "... with the governments... whose independence we have... acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States."

The right to forbid new colonial dominions within the limits of this continent has been many times admitted by the public men of England. To her sympathy is due, it may be said, the great success which the Monroe doctrine achieved immediately on its publication. But in very recent times there has been observed a marked tendency among the publicists and in the various expressions of European opinion to call attention to these countries as a suitable field for future territorial expansion. Thinkers of the highest order have pointed out the desirability of turning in this direction the great efforts which the principal powers of Europe have exerted for the conquest of sterile regions with trying climates and in remote regions of the earth. The European writers are already many who point to the territory of South America, with its great riches, its sunny sky, and its climate propitious for all products, as, of necessity, the stage on which the great powers, who have their arms and implements of conquest already prepared, are to struggle for the supremacy in the course of this century.

The human tendency to expansion, thus inflamed by the suggestions of public opinion and the press, may, at any moment, take an agressive direction, even against the will of the present governing classes. And it will not be denied that the simplest way to the setting aside and easy ejectment of the rightful authorities by European governments is just this way of financial interventions as might be shown by many examples. We in no wise pretend that the South American nations are, from any point of view, exempt from the responsibilities of all sorts which violations of international law impose on civilized peoples. We do not nor can we pretend that these countries occupy an exceptional position in their relations with European powers, which have the indubitable right to protect their subjects as completely as in any other part of the world against the persecutions and injustices of which they may be the victims. The only principle which the Argentine Republic maintains and which it would, with great satisfaction, see adopted, in view of the events in Venezuela, by a nation that enjoys such great authority and prestige as does the United States, is the principle, already accepted, that there can be no territorial expansion in America on the part of Europe, nor any oppression of the peoples of this continent, because an unfortunate financial situation may compel some one of them to postpone the fulfillment of its promises. In a word, the principle which she would like to see recognized is: that the public debt can not occasion armed intervention nor even the actual occupation of the territory of American nations by a European power.

The loss of prestige and credit experienced by States which fail to satisfy the rightful claims of their lawful creditors brings with it difficulties of such magnitude as to render it unnecessary for foreign intervention to aggravate with its oppression the temporary misfortunes of insolvency.

The Argentine Government could cite its own example to demonstrate the needlessness of armed intervention in these cases.

The payment of the English debt of 1824 was spontaneously resumed by her after an interruption of thirty years, occasioned by the anarchy and the disturbances which seriously affected the country during this period, and all the back payments and all the interest payments were scrupulously made without any steps to this end having been taken by the creditors.

Later on a series of financial happenings and reverses completely beyond the control of her authorities compelled her for the moment to suspend the payment of the foreign debt. She had, however, the firm and fixed intention of resuming the payments as soon as circumstances should permit, and she did so actually some time afterwards, at the cost of great sacrifices, but of her own free will and without the interference or the threats of any foreign power. And it has been because of her perfectly scrupulous, regular, and honest proceedings, because of her high sentiment of equity and justice so fully demonstrated, that the difficulties undergone, instead of diminishing, have increased her credit in the markets of Europe. It may be affirmed with entire certainty that so flattering a result would not have been obtained had the creditors deemed it expedient to intervene with violence at the critical financial period, which was thus passed through successfully. We do not nor can we fear that such circumstances will be repeated.

At this time, then, no selfish feeling animates us, nor do we seek our own advantage in manifesting our desire that the public debt of States should not serve as a reason for an armed attack on such States. Quite as little do we harbor any sentiment of hostility with regard to the nations of Europe. On the contrary, we have maintained with all of them since our emancipation the most friendly relations, especially with England, to whom we have recently given the best proof of the confidence which her justice and equanimity inspire in us by intrusting to her decision the most important of our international questions, which she has just decided, fixing our limits with Chile after a controversy of more than seventy years.

We know that where England goes civilization accompanies her, and the benefits of political and civil liberty are extended. Therefore we esteem her, but this does not mean that we should adhere with equal sympathy to her policy in the improbable case of her attempting to oppress the nationalities of this continent which are struggling for their own progress, which have already overcome the greatest difficulties and will surely triumph - to the honor of democratic institutions. Long, perhaps, is the road that the South American nations still have to travel. But they have faith enough and energy and worth sufficient to bring them to their final development with mutual support.

And it is because of this sentiment of continental brotherhood and because of the force which is always derived from the moral support of a whole people that I address you, in pursuance of instructions from His Excellency the President of the Republic, that you may communicate to the Government of the United States our point of view regarding the events in the further development of which that Government is to take so important a part, in order that it may have it in mind as the sincere expression of the sentiments of a nation that has faith in its destiny and in that of this whole continent, at whose head march the United States, realizing our ideals and affording us examples. Please accept, etc.

LUIS M. DRAGO

132. THE AWARD OF HIS MAJESTY EDWARD VII, KING OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, EMPEROR OF INDIA, IN THE BOUNDARY QUESTION BETWEEN THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC AND CHILE

[November 20, 1902. Monthly Bulletin of the International Bureau of the American Republics, XIV (1903), 1-2. Reprinted by permission of the PanAmerican Union.]

The boundary dispute between Argentina and Chile had been of long standing; in fact, it had begun as soon as the two countries became independent. In 1884 the frontier had been established with the highest peaks of the Andes as the division line. Differences arose over the exact interpretation of this line of demarcation. In 1895 the relations between the two republics became very strained, and both began active preparations for war; but this calamity was averted, and the surveys were continued. In 1898 a violent dispute arose over the boundary in the district known as Puna de Atacama. Chile sent an ultimatum demanding arbitration. General Julio A. Roca had been elected president of Argentina. He had served as president from 1880 to 1886 and as secretary of the interior from 1890 to 1892. He accepted arbitration as a means of solving the whole boundary dispute. Edward VII of England was accordingly chosen to arbitrate the boundary dispute south of Puna de Atacama, and

a commission of three for the northern boundary. The finding of Edward VII is given in the document below:

ARTICLE 1. The boundary in the region of the San Francisco Pass shall be formed by the line water of parting extending from the pillar already erected on the pass to the summit of mountain Tres Cruces.

ART. 2. The basin of Lake Lacar is awarded to Argentina.

ART. 3. From Perez Rosales Pass, near the north of Lake Nahuelhuapi, to the vicinity of Lake Biedma the boundary shall pass by Mount Tronador, thence to river Palena by the line water parting determined by certain obligatory points which we fixed upon rivers Manso, Puelo, Funtaleufu, and Palena or Carreleufu, awarding to Argentina the upper basins of these rivers above the points which we fixed, including valleys Villegas, Nuevo, Cholila, Colonia 16 de Octubre, Frio, Huemales, Corcovado, and awarding to Chile the lower basins below these points. From the fixed point on the river Palena the boundary shall follow the river Encuentro to peak Virjen; thence to the line which we fixed, crossing Lake General Paz; thence by the line water parting determined by the point which we fixed upon river Pico; from whence the boundary shall ascend to the principal water parting of the South American continent at Loma Baguales, and follow that water parting to the summit known as La Galena. From this point the boundary shall follow certain tributaries of the river Simpson or Southern Aisen, which we fixed, and attain peak Apywan, from whence it follows the water parting determined by the point which we fixed on the promontory from the northern shore of Lake Buenos Aires. The upper basin of the river Pico thus is awarded to Argentina, and the lower basin to Chile.

The whole basin of the river Cisnes or Frias is awarded to Chile; also the whole basin of the Aisen, with exception of the tract at the headwaters of the southern branch, including the settlement Koslowsky, which is awarded to Argentina.

The further boundary is determined by lines which we fixed across lakes Buenos Aires, Pueyrredon or Cochrane, and San Martin, thus assigning the western portions of the basins of these lakes to Chile and the eastern portions to Argentina, the dividing ranges carrying mounts San Lorenzo and Fitz-Roy. From Mount Fitz-Roy to Mount Stokes the frontier is already determined.