were enclosed to him, in case he should wish to leave the United States; but he was informed that, in case he should remain in Washington, he would be received on the same footing as the representatives of the revolutionary factions in control of the eastern and western parts of the country; that is to say, as "unofficial channel" of communication with "de facto authorities," who, pending the establishment in Nicaragua of a government with which the United States could maintain diplomatic relations, would be held severally accountable for the protection of American interests in the districts which they respectively occupied. The reasons given for this step were (1) that President Zelaya had repeatedly violated the Washington conventions of 1907, which were designed to preserve the neutrality of Honduras and maintain peace in Central America, and had kept Central America in continuous turmoil; (2) that he had practically destroyed republican institutions and free and orderly government in Nicaragua; (3) that he had caused two American citizens, concerned in a revolutionary movement, to be executed with "barbarous cruelties," had menaced the American consulate at Managua, and had by "petty annoyances and indignities" made it impossible for the American minister longer to reside there; (4) that his rule had produced a condition of anarchy in which, responsible government having ceased to exist, the United States was obliged to look to factions in de facto control of particular districts for the protection of American life and property. January 10, 1911, Mr. Knox signed a loan convention with Honduras, for the purpose of rehabilitating the national finances. The Senate of the United States failed to ratify it. A similar fate awaited a treaty concluded with Nicaragua, June 6, 1911, which contemplated a loan by American bankers and followed the lines of the Dominican receivership. These efforts were popularly assailed as "dollar diplomacy." The aid of American bankers was indeed to a certain extent actually obtained. In August, 1912, in the midst of disorders, the United States, on the request of the Nicaraguan President, landed marines, explaining that it did so for the defence of its legation and the protection of American life and property, but declaring that the conditions that had prevailed under President Zelaya could not be restored. The marines had several encounters with revolutionists, and a detachment remained at the capital. Subsequently Mr. Knox made a tour of the countries of Central America, as well as of Panama, Venezuela, Haiti, Santo Domingo, and Cuba. He sought to dispel apprehensions concerning the attitude of the United States, and particularly concerning the application of the Monroe Doctrine, which, in a speech at Panama, he said, would "reach the acme of its beneficence when it is regarded by the people of the United States as a reason why we should constantly respond to the needs of those of our Latin-American neighbors who may find necessity for our assistance in their progress towards better government or who may seek our aid to meet their just obligations and thereby to maintain honorable relations to the family of nations." In his opening address to the Second Pan-American Scientific Congress on December 27, 1915, Mr. Lansing, as Secretary of State, observing that the Monroe Doctrine was "founded on the principle that the safety of this Republic would be imperiled by the extension of sovereign rights by a European power over territory in this hemisphere," said that the United States had "within recent years... found no occasion, with the exception of the Venezuelan boundary incident, to remind Europe that the Monroe Doctrine continues unaltered a national policy of this Republic." Meanwhile, the American republics had "attained maturity"; and from the feeling that they constituted "a group, separate and apart from the other nations of the world" and "united by common ideals and common aspirations," there had resulted the "international policy of PanAmericanism." Addressing the same body on January 6, 1916, President Wilson, while declaring that the United States had proclaimed the Monroe Doctrine "on her own authority," and always had maintained and always would maintain it "upon her own responsibility," stated that it "demanded merely that European governments should not attempt to extend their political system to this side of the Atlantic." But, as it did not "disclose the use which the United States intended to make of her power," there had come to exist among the States of America an uncertainty which must be removed by establishing "the foundations of amity so that no one will hereafter doubt them." References: As to the Policy of Non-Intervention, see Trescot's Diplomacy of the Administrations of Washington and Adams; Schuyler's American Diplomacy; Wharton's Digest of International Law, I, 172 et seq.; Hodges, The Doctrine of Intervention. As to the question of Recognition, see Wharton's and Moore's Digests, supra, and Goebel's Recognition Policy of the United States (New York, 1916). As to the Monroe Doctrine, see Adams's (John Quincy) Memoirs (Diary); Moore's Digest of International Law, VI, 369 et seq.; Hart's (Albert Bushnell) Monroe Doctrine, an Interpretation; Johnson's America's Foreign Relations; Reddaway's Monroe Doctrine; Rush's Memoranda of a Residence at the Court of London, Second Series (1819-1825); Kraus's (Herbert), Die Monroedoktrin (Berlin, 1913); Pétin's Les États-Unis et la Doctrine de Monroe; Schouler's History of the United States; Tucker's Monroe Doctrine; Woolsey's America's Foreign Policy. VII THE DOCTRINE OF EXPATRIATION THE Declaration of Independence enumerates as among the "inalienable rights" with which "all men" are "endowed by their Creator," "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It has often been remarked that this dogma, like the associated affirmation that "all men are created equal," was evidently considered as an abstraction, since its announcement was not conceived to render inadmissible the continued holding in bondage of a large servile population. This criticism, however, cannot, certainly in its more sinister sense, be accepted as just. All general declarations of human rights to a large extent represent aspirations, for the perfect fulfilment of which conditions altogether ideal would be requisite. So long as human conditions are imperfect, the realization of the highest human aspirations will be imperfect. Even admitting, therefore, that the enumerated rights belonged to “all men" and were "inalienable," there yet remained the task of determining what they actually included and what were their practical limitations. No |