POLITICAL P A P E R S . I. THE WAR WITH SPAIN. II. THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. BY THEODORE MARBURG. "Reprinted from The Baltimore Awerww. BALTIMORE: JOHN MURPHY & C O . 1898. PRICE 15 C E N T S . POLITICAL I. II. PAPERS. THE WAR WITH SPAIN. THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. BY THEODORE MARBURG. Reprinted from The Baltimore American. BALTIMORE: JOHN MURPHY & CO. 1898. I. THE WAR WITH SPAIN. CONTENTS. CHAPTER. I. PAGE. INTERVENTION—THE L A W AND T H E PRAC- TICE—AMERICA MUST ACT ALONE, II. OPPRESSION FLAGRANT AND ULTIMATE DESTINY RETRIBUTION OF FOR SPAIN, - 5 PERSISTENT— CUBA — J U S T - - III. R I G H T OF H I G H E R CIVILIZATION, - - 19 IV. WISDOM OF O U R COURSE, - - 21 - - 14 THE WAR WITH SPAIN.1 [May 1, 2, 8, 1898.] I. Intervention—The Law and the Practice— America Must Act Alone. HP H E past few months have witnessed a conflict of emotions in the breast of the people. A traditional policy and a wholesome horror of war have been drawing them in one direction, whilst indignation at inhuman acts impelled them in another. Those who felt the justice of America's position and at the same time valued the President's noble attempt to enforce that position without resort to war, realized that to 1 Copyright, 1898, by Theodore Marburg. 5 6 T H E WAR WITH SPAIN. give utterance to their thoughts could only serve to encourage the war spirit and further hamper the President. Now that war has begun, it is important to examine candidly the principles involved. The assertion most commonly heard is that we have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of another nation. A fundamental rule of international law is that the independence of a state must be respected. Its laws must be presumed to be fit and their execution just, and the state must be allowed to accomplish the fulfillment of its own destiny free from outside interference. Few writers on international law have failed, however, to recognize exceptions to this rule, and some of the greatest among them include among these exceptions interference on grounds of humanity. H E F T E R recognizes it, and VATTEL. says, " If the prince, by attacking the fundamental laws of the country, gives his people legitimate THE WAR WITH SPAIN. 7 ground for resistance, if tyranny becomes insupportable and rouses the nation to rebellion, any power has a right to succor the oppressed people if they solicit its aid." Prof. ARNTZ is of the opinion that interference is justified "when a government, even though acting quite within the limits of its sovereignty, violates the laws of humanity, either by measures hostile to the interests of other states, or by excessive injustice or cruelty which seriously attack our morals and our civilization." " T h e right of intervention must be recognized because no matter how much the rights of sovereignty and of independence are to be respected, there is one thing even more entitled to respect and that is the right of humanity and of human society, which must not be outraged." WOOLSEY asserts that interference is justified when crimes are committed by a government against its subjects. 8 THE WAR WITH SPAIN. Acceptance of such a principle may, of course, lead to abuses, but CALVO very properly remarks that a principle must be judged by its logical and common results, and not by possible abuses to which it may lead. H A L L states " that interference for the purpose of checking gross tyranny or for helping the efforts of a people to free itself is very commonly regarded without disfavor." These opinions are cited not to prove that intervention on grounds of humanity is authorized by international law; many writers, among them a majority of the Italian school, reject it. The opinions are cited simply to show that the question is, at least, an open one. A ju§t estimate would probably be that international law has not yet been developed to a sufficient extent to cover all cases of international action and that, furthermore, it has its natural and inherent limitations due to the fact that it lacks a punitive sanction. Behind the law within the state are the police THE WAR WITH SPAIN. 9 and the whole military power of the state. Behind international law there is nothing to enforce its decrees except war. I n intervening in behalf of an oppressed people the state is probably no longer moving in the sphere of international law, but must justify its acts by an appeal to the common interests of humanity or high state policy. There are but few occasions which justify the individual in violating the wonderful and comprehensive system of law prevailing within the state. There are many occasions when the people acting in their national capacity must step outside the limits of the circumscribed body of rules called international law. If respect for international law had proved the ruling influence with her government, France would not have aided America, and the accomplishment of American liberty would have been postponed, if not actually defeated. If in 1827 the powers had obeyed the in- 10 THE WAR WITH SPAIN. junctions of international law, Greece would not have been freed. If in 1859 Louis Napoleon had felt that the observance of international law was the highest duty of the state, he would not have marched into Italy to drive out the Austrian and bring to a successful issue the noble aspirafions of Cavour and Victor Emmanuel for Italy's unity and independence. Actual practice shows numerous instances of interference in the internal affairs of a nation. The idea prevailing in former times that the stranger was an enemy has been rapidly breaking down under the strides of commerce, travel and frequent communication, and the tendency to find kinship amongst men has as steadily grown. We no longer look with unconcern on acts of oppression, no matter what the blood, nationality or religion of the oppressed people may be. Most intervention has been founded on policy, but occasionally it bears the stamp of disinter- THE WAR WITH SPAIN. 11 ested action. This is largely true, for example, of the episode of NAVARINO, an event of the Grecian struggle for independence already referred to. The barbarity with which the Turk conducted the war, pillaging, murdering and carrying off the Greeks into slavery, aroused Europe. England, France and Russia sent ships to patrol the Grecian islands and coast to prevent this, and a collision with the Turkish fleet, in October, 1827, resulted in the annihilation of the latter. Greece had then belonged to Turkey for nearly four centuries, the occupation of the Morea by Venice for a time excepted, so that this act was armed intervention in the internal affairs of Turkey. The grounds on which it was justified were: humanity, request of one of the parties, and the propriety of putting a stop to piracy and anarchy. I t differs from our intervention in Cuba in that it was the joint act of several European powers, but in this connection there is this to 12 T H E WAR WITH SPAIN. be considered. A little over two years ago we flung at the head of the world's great colonizer* and civilizer a missive which told her that we were the arbiters on this continent, and that a policy born of the necessities of our early days was still adhered to. That policy forbids a European nation to interfere outside the sphere of her own possessions here (are not our own obligations all the heavier on this account?) and it would likewise make it difficult for us to invite any European nation to co-operate in the present armed intervention. The desire to act more in conformance with the practice of nations with respect to intervention might next lead us to seek the cooperation of some of the American countries. When European governments co-operate, it means the co-operation of equals. An alliance of the United States with any other American government or group of governments would not be such. Without any desire to disparage other American countries, it may be safely THE WAR WITH SPAIN. 13 asserted that our power is so preponderant here, there are so many ways in which we could secure allies and influence their action, that the moral force of such an alliance would be lacking. Co-operation with other American powers would be more or less empty form, a simple reflection of European methods without their significance. I t is, then, fitting that with respect to foreign questions generally we should act alone. In the solution of this particular question, what American countries are there whose cooperation we might hope to secure? Canada is not an independent American government, whilst the balance of the powers in the western world, with the exception of the few settlements in the Guianas, are of Spanish and Portuguese origin, and could hardly be counted upon to co-operate with us in actual war against the mother country and a closely affiliated country. Logically, then, it is the United States alone that can intervene in Cuba. 14 THE WAR WITH SPAIN. II. Oppression Flagrant and Persistent—Ultimate Destiny of Cuba—Just Retribution for Spain, I t remains to consider whether intervention* at this time is justified. The oppression which warrants intervention in the internal affairs of a state should be flagrant and persistent., Many people in America and elsewhere believe1 that the violation of the laws of humanity and justice has been flagrant and persistent in Cuba. There has been not one revolution nor shortlived oppression which we might patiently wait for Spain to correct, but continuous oppression for the greater part of the present century and repeated protests in the form of rebellion put down in a bloody manner. The century is drawing to a close, and we see the sense of injustice and oppression in the Cuban as keen as ever and an attempt on the part of Spain to reassert its authority the most THE WAR WITH SPAIN. 15 bloody and disastrous of all in the history of the island. Whilst England has lost only one of her colonies, and great regions of the world are to-day content to remain under her flag, Spain has lost all the colonies that were strong enough to resist her power. A few islands, readily accessible and easily overrun with troops, are all that remain of her former magnificent colonial empire. Her unjust government, plunder of the people by officials, and over-taxation for the benefit of the home country have done this. This fact alone constitutes a serious arraignment of Spain's attitude in the modern world. Cuba is so close to our shores that the long story of its wrongs has been forced upon our attention. The cry of distress which has gone up from the island so often during the century has more than once aroused the sympathy of our people. We have, indeed, been patient. I f the Spanish character were different, if we 16 THE WAR WITH SPAIN, could be led to believe that Spain would be just to Cuba in the future, we might, even at this late day, have refrained from armed intervention, but such hope is belied by the history of the island during the century. The vital consideration is that the most liberal government which the Spaniard could! grant the Cuban would not bring with it a permanent solution of the Cuban question. It is generally admitted that with her present population Cuba is unfit for self-government. This means that she must be governed from outside, and if she remains under the Spanish flag, it means that after an attempt at autonomy the cruel and greedy hand of Spain will again be found at her throat and in her pocket. That which we have just witnessed is, then, to be repeated. The American people have arrived at the just conclusion that no permanent solution of the Cuban question can be reached without turning out the Spaniard, and they feel that it is time to act. Few deceive THE WAR WITH SPAIN. 17 themselves as to the ultimate destiny of Cuba. When we turn the present government out, the logic of events will bring us the island. We of course propose to let the inhabitants decide for themselves and try to work out their own destiny, but every thing points to the conclusion that the insecurity of life and property under self-government will in time lead them to apply for admission to the Union. Once under stable and just rule, immigration there from Anglo-Saxon countries should ultimately give a sufficient basis for sound local government. If the unhappy island can realize in no other way the very reasonable wish for enlightened and humane government in this advanced age, is not our course proper? The world knows very well that it was not the desire to add Cuba to our territory which led to war, but if the Cuban question can be solved in no other way than by action which will ultimately bring the island to us, we should not hesitate 2 18 THE WAR WITH SPAIN. to assume the full responsibility of such action. I t is best to face such an issue squarely and frankly. I f we are right, it matters not whether certain of the Powers approve of our course or not; the situation at home is too delicate for them to do more than enter a diplomatic protest^ I t will be difficult to collect an indemnity from a country already bankrupt, and the war, which the dictates of humanity have led us to undertake, will cost us a round sum, so that we cannot be charged with acquiring the island gratuitously. As for Spain, leave out of consideration all previous rebellions in Cuba, even all her other deeds in the present campaign of three years, and consider the sole fact of her having penned up several hundred thousand non-combatants, preventing them from earning a living, and then failing to supply them with the necessaries of life until one-half of the whole number perished. Is not the loss of Cuba a just retribution for such an act ? THE WAR WITH SPAIN. 19 III. Right of Higher Civilization. Another important consideration is that of the higher civilization supplanting the lower, When the white man came to America there were about 500,000 Indians in what now constitutes the United States. To-day there still remain 225,000. We have then brushed aside 275,000 Indians, and in place of them have this population of 70,000,000 of what we regard as the highest type of modern man. The fact that the Indian, who was tolerably prolific, did not number more than 500,000 after all the centuries he must have lived here, indicates a formidable struggle against nature, a struggle against cold, famine, disease and loss of life through internecine war; in other words, a great sum of human misery which we have been quite justified in brushing aside and supplanting with the peace and comparative contentment and high pursuits which prevail over the continent. 20 THE WAR WITH SPAIN. The question presented by Cuba differs only in degree. The Spaniard and his American descendant are very much the same people they were several centuries ago. What are the Spanish countries of South America, what is Spain itself doing in all the walks of life which make for progress ? In previous centuries Spain has done a splendid and useful work in the western world, but she has failed to keep abreast of the world in moral and intellectual progress, and must pay the penalty. The principle that the higher civilization is justified in supplanting the lower is a dangerous one to admit, because of every nation regarding its own type as the highest, but there are certain broad facts which must force the impartial observer to admit the superiority of our own race, the Anglo-Saxon, in the qualities that contribute to human advance. At any rate, we hold to the opinion that we have done more than any other race fo conquer the world for civilization in the past few centuries, and we will probably go on holding to this opinion and go on with our conquests. THE WAR WITH SPAIN. 21 If we believe that there is a distinct purpose in all that is about us and in our own presence here, we cannot escape the conclusion that man's express duty is the uplifting of man. The duty to improve and elevate himself and his fellows thus becomes an end in itself and a justification of life. Every rational human being, no matter how humble his station in life, has the power to help or hinder this process. He is influenced principally by his environment, made up of the national character and tendencies, and a nation in its collective capacity directs the process. Any nation which blocks the way of human progress must expect to be brushed aside by more powerful and vigorous blood. IV. Wisdom of Our Course. Is the step we have taken wise? The first concern of a government is the welfare of its own people, and if these people 22 THE WAR WITH SPAIN, are an enlightened, a moral, and a progressive people, the world's work is best furthered by their healthy growth. If intervention in Cuba will seriously interfere with such growth here, it must be condemned. When the Louisiana territory, extending to the headwaters of the Mississippi and west to the Rocky Mountains, was acquired in 1803, few could foresee the portentous consequences of the act. It is now apparent that without it we would not have seized what then became a contiguous territory, California, nor made a successful claim to Oregon, and unless all this had been acquired we would have been confronted with the possibility of a rival power on the Continent, involving a standing army, extensive lines of fortification, and an occasional war. The electric telegraph and steam navigation, the handmaids of foreign trade, are of such recent origin (within the memory of living men), that trade between the nations must be THE WAR WITH SPAIN. 23 in its infancy. I f this is so, the future will witness a great development of wealth along the seaeoast, important cities, expensive harbors, and approaches, and with them a growth in naval power. The possession of the West Indies may then acquire an importance resembling that of the Louisiana Territory. Presuming that our institutions are lasting, the position of power which the future will bring, must some day draw the West Indies to us. We must expect a renewal of the forward movement which led to our overrunning and acquiring Texas. The planting of its outposts in a constantly widening circle on the part of a vigorous and healthy race, is one of the most familiar processes of history. Such a matter need give the living generation but little concern as time is an element in working out such questions. When the movement of races or the history of nations is under consideration, a century or so is a short period; but to acquire the largest and richest of the Indies now may 24 THE WAR WITH SPAIN. make our inevitable task lighter in the future. When we have owned Cuba for half a century it will be a simpler matter to persuade some European government, particularly if it is seeking our moral or active support at the moment, to release or sell to us some other of the islands. Our first President laid down for us a policy of non-interference and freedom from alliances in Europe. Soon afterward came the enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine which meant that we regarded the growth of European influence on this continent as a menace to our liberties. In our weakness we could not afford to meddle in the disputes of Europe and could not afford to have a European government constitute itself a too powerful neighbor on our own continent. This policy was next extended to include non-intervention by us in the affairs of American countries as well. We have here a creditable perception of the needs of the young state. But that state expands in territory, in numbers, in knowledge, THE WAR WITH SPAIN. 25 and in wealth, and that which was fitting in its youth and unripeness, hampers and dwarfs and stifles it in its manhood. Itself subject to the belittling influence of a discussion revolving in a narrow circle around the tariff and finance, it beholds kindred races playing such part in the world's affairs that questions from all quarters of the globe are daily knocking at their doors for solution; it recognizes the inspiring influence of such larger part; the spirit and moral motive and power are there, and the nation presently moves to its proper place among its fellows. Only overcrowded countries can colonize successfully. Others send their merchants abroad, but these are not true colonizers because only numbers and the men who labor with their hands can colonize. The self-seeking of the colonist has spread civilization, and nothing but self-seeking will carry on this work. America, which is not in a position to colonize at a distance, cannot at present take 26 THE WAR WITH SPAIN. part in the work, but it can throw its influence in favor of the best races engaged in it. I t can play another role, too, an important and noble one, and play it the more successfully because it is not under any pressure to acquire territory at a distance, and its action will, therefore, be recognized as disinterested. It is the role of the arbiter who proclaims that justice shall be done, and who is powerful enough to see that justice is done. May it not happen that we can throw our weight on the side of justice abroad without interfering with home progress? Might not such a course even serve to distinctly further home progress? A great fillip would be given the national spirit through awakening the higher instincts of the people and fostering a sense of unity of purpose and proper national pride. No one denies that these were tremendous quickening factors in Germany after the FrancoPrussian war, starting her on her career of prosperity and power. THE WAR WITH SPAIN. 27 Such things afford a striking example of how that which is regarded as unreal and intangible may become of the highest practical value. Local questions which are so slow of solution now might find a solution in the new attitude of the public mind. If it succeeded in bringing a different class of men into politics the splendid machinery of our government would be made to show what it can do. There is evidence in many directions that, whilst we have made such marked progress in intelligence and wealth, the moral sense of the people has grown, too. If our politics are debased, it is not because the mass of the people are debased. In the course of the world's history it has generally been the minority that has ruled. When history was great, it was a minority of great men who made it. When an age appears degenerate, it is often because a minority of inferior men rule it, the majority remaining apathetic. A minority of the unscrupulous and active may govern a majority of honest and 28 THE WAR WITH SPAIN. indifferent. Under American institutions elective b6dies should really represent the best that is in the community. They ought, at least, to represent something above the average. What often actually takes place is that they do not even represent the average, but represent a minority of the worst. The reference above is to the solution of questions such as this. In the next place^ the gain in diplomatic prestige, which would follow such participation in the world's affairs, would help the country's commerce. Growth of political power is usually followed by a sharp rise in commercial importance. In other words, whilst a moral and a progressive nation serves the world best by regarding its own interests first, and thus strengthening and developing itself, the field of an enlightened self-interest is wide enough to include discreet action abroad in the interest of humanity. We have abundance of land and a condition THE WAR WITH SPAIN. 29 of politics within the country which pronounces against any further extension of territory until certain pressing questions are solved. The mass of the people will recognize this as the proper policy to be pursued under ordinary circumstances, but it will not prevent them from dealing like men with an exceptional condition. In brief: Spanish rule in Cuba has caused much human misery to which it is the duty of the United States to put a stop; this can only be done by her ultimately acquiring the island since no other solution of the question would be permanent; the loss of the island to Spain is but a just retribution for inhuman acts; its ultimate .acquisition by the United States may be an act of high state policy. II THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. [Reprinted from Baltimore American of Dec. 22,1895.] War and the Military System. \ I J H E N the cause of justice calls for war, commercial interests should never be allowed to block the way. Aside from the question of national honor, there are many compensations in war. The armaments of Europe are often spoken of as a deadly weight upon, the energies of the respective European countries. I t is pointed out that the men are taken from their callings for service in the army in the best years of their life, the inference being that they lose a knowledge of their trade or profession, and lose the taste for work. 3 33 34 T H E VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. In the face of this we see Germany, which has brought its military system to the highest scientific perfection, rapidly becoming one of the great commercial and manufacturing nations of the world. Italy, also, has undoubtedly benefitted by her military system. One explanation of this apparent contradiction is that men are brought together from different sections of the country, acquire new tastes and ideas, and are impressed with the benefits of organization and the necessity for order and obedience. The country lad, who ordinarily would have no ideas above his plow and the routine of farmwork, becomes a broader man, and at the end of his military service is a more useful citizen. Adequate strife of one kind and another, in the present order of nature and throughout nature, means progress. A few years ago Bluntschli, who presided at the Congress of International Law in Oxford, sent to Von Moltke a copy of the regulations which had THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. 35 been drawn up by the congress for the conduct of armies in time of war, their express object being to lessen the hardships of war. In his reply, Von Moltke said that he could express but little sympathy with the movement. He believed in war, not only as a necessity at times, but in war for its own sake. He maintained that without it the nations would degenerate into money-loving and selfish people; that war brought out the nobler traits in men, and that to be ready to lay down one's life for his country was an ultimate test of manhood. Again, we are forced to recognize the benefits of a successful war. Of these the most important relate to the political life of the nation, internal as well as external. But when the spirit of a healthy people is aroused by a stirring national event the results are not solely political. Such an event permeates the whole world of mind and produces definite results in industry as well. What explains the surprising repair of waste often witnessed is 36 THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. that the greatest factors in production are the character and trained habits of the people. These remain, even much of the machinery of production remains, after the most devastating war. The people and machinery can produce much more than they are ordinarily called upon to produce. When, therefore, the economic void which the waste of war has created sets all the people and all the machinery at work there follows a period of unusual prosperity, the effects of which are cumulative and lead to real development. German unity with all its results for Germany, and for the world, could probably not have been attained in any other way than by a great war. It is likewise difficult to see how, without the frightful drama of the Civil War, America could have liberated the slave and demonstrated to the world that the Union was a thing of permanence and meant to fulfill the great destinies mapped out for it by the framers of its wonderful constitution. I t has never THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. 37 known such a period of prosperity as that which followed the Civil War. This is one side of the picture; the other has been too vividly painted by the brush of experience, and is too deeply burned in the hearts and brains of Americans to need description. By common consent, the dictates of humanity, and a sense of the awful suffering that accompanies war, clearly enjoin the avoidance of an unjust war. The true strength and manhood of an individual and of a nation are shown by their asserting their power only when a just occasion calls it forth. Is there such an occasion now in the controversy with England? The Monroe Doctrine. Our own authorities tell us that, from a standpoint of international law,we have nothing to stand upon. What we are about to do is to endeavor to insert into the international code a principle for which we have at times con- 38 THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. tended, but which has never yet been recognized. Is the principle justly interpreted by Secretary Olney ? And were this so, is the present occasion a fitting one upon which to introduce it? And is the nation, to whom we are allied so strongly by ties of blood and tradition, the proper one upon which to make war in order to establish the principle? In the minds of those who enunciated it, the Monroe doctrine clearly meant that no European government should be allowed to overturn the liberal governments of the western world in order to substitute for them a monarchical government, nor to seize upon territory there for purposes of colonization. Secretary Olney has so enlarged the scope of the doctrine that it embraces any territorial dispute between an Americm power and a European power. This is admittedly true, because he specifically disclaims any knowledge of the merits of this particular controversy. His language is : " I t is not admitted, how- THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. 39 ever, and, therefore, cannot be assumed, that Great Britain is in fact usurping dominion over Venezuelan territory/' England's Attitude Toward Arbitration. Great Britain admits that the real ownership of a portion of the territory is open to question; with respect to this portion she is ready to submit to arbitration. In addition to this, however, Venezuela claims territory which Great Britain asserts to be hers absolutely, and which has been settled by her people. Because of her aggressive policy,which has really resulted in settling large regions of the globe with a religious and a moral people, and a people with traditions of political liberty, she has but few friends amongst the nations, and experience has taught her that she cannot rely upon arbitration for fair decision of disputes to which she is a party. She is in the position of a man, who, in a hostile land, has had brought against him a claim for the pos- 40 T H E VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. session of property which he feels to be rightly his and his children's, and is asked to submit the claim to the judgment of a biased tribunal. However much the members of an international tribunal may be bent upon absolute fairness, it cannot be denied that national prejudice will unconsciously play an important part in their decision. I t is admitted that the Monroe doctrine is not a part of international law, and it would appear from the above, moreover, that it is questionable whether the doctrine is applicable to the present dispute. It remains to be considered whether England is the country of all others with whom we should enter upon a war, the justice of which is questionable, for the establishment of a new principle as a part of international law. The English-sjieaJcing People. The spread of the English-speaking people, of whom we form an important part, is one of T H E VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. 41 the significant facts of the century. It has been pointed out that in 1700 there were 7,000,000 English-speaking people; at the beginning of the present century there were 20,000,000, and to-day we constitute a body of 115,000,000. What does this signify? Nothing less than the spread of liberal institutions, political freedom, humanity and enlightenment over a great portion of the world. If we arrive at the conclusion that it is not to our interest to colonize, why should we block this movement, so important to civilization, by checking English colonization? Reflection will show us that we have many more ties with England, France, Germany or Italy than we have with the South American republics. They are building up everything that makes the modern world, science, art, philosophy, the principles of a broad humanity and the science of government. 42 THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. The South American Republics. What are the South American republics doing in all these walks? They are republics in name, but are they democracies in fact? The form of government has much to do with the happiness of a people, but the adoption of a good form cannot alone give the people a good government. Unless a government is so fortunate as to possess men enlightened and conscientious to a degree above their fellows (which is not often the case), it is a*pt to be good or bad, according as public opinion and the attention given to its expression insist or not upon its fulfilling its duties. The sense of civic duty, like everything else in the moral and intellectual world, depends upon environment. I t is not uncommon to see a law passed which is quite in advance of public sentiment and which eventually educates public sentiment up to its high level; but generally it is unwise to count upon this. Laws will depend for their THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. 43 efficacy upon public support. If they do not reach the public conscience, they will do more harm than good. The harm is in their nonenforcement, which throws discredit upon law in general. The South American republics are examples of admirable laws and institutions applied to people wholly unequal to the task of grasping their meaning. They may have other admirable qualities, but traditions of political liberty and a capacity for their exercise do not go with the Latin blood. I t will require long years of practice to acquire them. We know how unstable their governments are, to what frequent revolutions they are subject, and how sadly they are found wanting when measured by the standard of international morality. To protect them against discipline at the hands of European powers means that we must ourselves be responsible for their actions, our readiness to do which Secretary Olney specifically and rightly disclaims. 44 THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. England's Province. England is charged with being grasping. In its foreign policy a nation should, above all, be a trustee—a guardian first of its people's honor, and then of their material interests. Considerations of general human sympathy and theoretic justice may play their part, but always subservient to the trusteeship. If a nation represents what is best in the world—and every nation must, of necessity, believe itself to represent the best either in its present state or future possibilities—it serves the interests of the world at large in extending its own possessions and influences by colonization. As commerce, in seeking its own ends, has brought about a revival of Roman law in Europe, and has supplanted savagery with civilization in many regions of the world, just so the self-seeking of a great nation unconsciously accomplishes a great good. England may have been unjust to us in our earlier days—even then it was THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. 45 largely party and not the whole people— but for many years she has had no other intention than to treat us as nearest of kin and regard us as her friend. Whilst our school books, in treating of the Revolution, instil animosity toward England in the breast of the majority of American children—and, unfortunately, the mass of the people remain children in this respect—English children are taught to respect the spirit of the American Revolution, to honor the names of their own great statesmen who advocated our cause at the time, and to believe that our cause was just. They regard the events which brought about the American Revolution as a stupid mistake on the part of the king and a clique who happened to be in power. The people, as a whole, have no other than the most friendly regard for us. When the Monroe doctrine was framed, we were so weak that the growth of a foreign power on the American continent constituted a 46 THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. menace to us. Truly, no sensible man regards it as such to-day. Dispassioned observers must admit that we are rapidly becoming the great government of the world, and will soon be forced to take our place at international councils, in spite of our home-keeping policy. We are destined to be the peer of all in everything that constitutes an enlightened people and an enlightened government. Jealousy should therefore be beneath us. Instead of courting war with England, we should accept the invitation extended by the members of the English House of Commons to form a permanent treaty of arbitration, and stand with her before the world for all that we both represent in politics, religion and morals. Such a union would be the most powerful the world has ever seen, and make for enlightened progress everywhere. Our True Interests. Moreover, if we are farseeing, we will not block the extension of English colonization in THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. 47 America. In this connection what French colonization did for England is significant. In India the French conquered an important region which eventually fell into the lap of England. France paved the way for England in Egypt. She was in the Mississippi Valley before England, and colonized Canada for her. Few doubt that our northern neighbor, by mere force of gravity, will in time become part of us, and the same would be the tendency with respect to English settlements elsewhere in America. We might accomplish the same end by the establishment of a protectorate over the weak and more unstable South American countries, so that Anglo-Saxons would settle there. I t is, however, to be questioned whether we have as yet sufficiently digested the heterogeneous immigration which has been coming to us, and whether our sinews are sufficiently formed to undertake such a disturbing task. Watch a stone which is thrown from a tall cliff, and 48 THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. you will see it drawn into the cliff before it reaches the ground below. The same law of gravitation will inevitably cause the nation to the north of us, allied by blood and tradition, to some day knock at the doors of the great republic for admission. If the natural process is too slow, we might take Canada by force. The objection to embodying Mexico, and Cuba likewise, on the ground that they are peopled by a race with traditions different from our own is not a valid one, because if they become part of us the emigration from the United States and from Anglo-Saxon countries would soon give us a preponderance of Anglo-Saxon blood in them. If, on the other hand, we decide that our policy for the present should not be that of expansion and colonization, why should we obstruct English expansion either in America or elsewhere? This involves discarding a portion of the Monroe doctrine, which, as has been pointed out, is really out of date, but leaves to us the nobler and more THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. 49 disinterested part of the doctrine, that which constitutes us the guardian and propagator of liberty in America. To Sum Up: First. The Monroe doctrine is not at present a part of the international law. Second. The doctrine is not affected by the present controversy. Third. To force ourselves into the controversy and to endeavor to establish the doctrine as a part of international law by a war with England is more than foolish, and would be a wrong to mankind. Fourth. A part of the Monroe doctrine has lost its usefulness and should be discarded. England and America stand for political progress ip the modern world. All the governments in Continental Europe, except Russia and Turkey, are modelled either on the lines of the English government or American govern4 50 THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE. ment. We have together developed political liberty, and to enter into war with one another would most surely be a blow to civilization.