Venezuelan arbitration. Ar^ums i-1
; s Bague Tri tunal on Octc
October 5t ' , 190?.

ac ?eagh.
Sfashrogton, D. C. ,1903.

-TALE«¥MII¥lEI^SIir¥o

WWVT.WW.VTO.WvWW

19^

_ _ ¦ "___'i__. " " 'Z"~"".-".":"r~ '--•''."'"¦ ,-—-¦

THE VENEZUELAN ARBlTRAtlON

ARGUMENT

OF

Wayne Mac Veagb

BEFORE

ftHE H AGUE TR I BU HA L

ON OCTOBER 3rd AND OCTOBER 5th, 190?

WASHINGTON, D. C.
jpJWP & T.ETW$II,ER, PRINTERS-

ARGUMENT.

May it please Your Honors :
I beg you to believe that I fully appreciate the courtesy
of the court and of all the counsel in affording me this early
opportunity of expressing in oral argument the views enter
tained by the governments of Venezuela and the United
States ofthe controversy which has been submitted for your
decision. We congratulate ourselves that 'we are enabled to present
this controversy to the three learned and distinguished arbi
trators who have been selected by His Imperial Majesty the
Emperor of Russia to hear and decide it. The longer one
lives in the world the more assured one feels that men very
rarely secure the high regard and confidence of the com
munity in which they live without deserving it ; and each
of you, iu your way and place, has won and enjoys that
regard and confidence.
We are also fortunate in our opponents. They worthily
represent the bar of Great Britain, the foremost in juridical
learning in the world, and with them are associated learned
-representatives of the jurisprudence of Germany and of
Italy. We are also fortunate in our associates who repre
sent those creditor nations whose contention will be the same
as ours ; and I am especially fortunate that the President of
Venezuela and the President of the United States, acting in
entire accord, have supported me by the two associates who

sit by my side. Mr. Bowen is the diplomatic representative
of the United States in Venezuela, and he has achieved the
difficult task of thoroughly safeguarding the interests of his
own country, and at the same time securing the absolute
confidence of the government to which he is accredited.
He enjoys the confidence of both governments to such an
extent that his government acceded gladly to the request of
the government to which he is accredited that he should be
invested with the fullest and amplest powers to negotiate
with the blockading powers a settlement of the acute and
dangerous situation then existing. How he settled it is
known to all, and it is his happy fortune that he is young
enough to look forward to other achievements even, if pos
sible, more creditable. There is also associated with me in
this case a gentleman occupying one of the most honorable
and important offices in our country — that of the responsi
ble legal adviser ofthe Department of State of the United
States. In that position Judge Penfield has won and holds
the confidence of Secretary Hay by his discretion, his intelli
gence, and his fidelity. I speak, therefore, not only for my
self but for my two distinguished associates as well, and I
speak not only for the government of Venezuela but also for
the government of the United States. We are here repre
senting both countries, and the government of the United
States after careful consideration adopted the preliminary
examination presented on behalf of Venezuela, reserving
only the privilege of adding anything further which the
course of the proceedings may render necessary.
The governments which we represent have conceived,
wisely or unwisely, that the controversy now submitted to
you is of the greatest possible importance for the future

welfare and peace of the world ; and I propose to discuss it
broadly and fully aud, I trust, in a spirit not unworthy of its
character. What is that question ? We have not been able
to regard it in the light in which many of our learned oppo
nents have seemed to consider it, nor have we been able to
discover that it turns at all upon any dispute as to facts; as
for the facts, we rely entirely upon official publications.
As soon as the protocols were signed, on May 7, 1903, we
were charged with the duty of presenting to this Tribunal
the views of the governments of Venezuela and the United
States. Immediately after they were signed, May 8, 1903,
Venezuela presented her respectful request to the Emperor
of Russia to designate the arbitrators who were to decide it;
and assuming that the other signatory powers would dis
charge their duty with equal promptness, we were directed
to prepare the case we intended to submit and to come here
in ample time to exchange cases before the Tribunal met,
so as to enable the Tribunal, when it did meet, to proceed
without further loss of time with the oral discussion. We
came here accordingly, but, owing to circumstances to which
it is not necessary now to refer, th e Tribunal was only com
pleted and able to meet on the first of October instead of
the first of September. As soon as we learned the good news
that the third member of the Tribunal had been appointed,
we offered at once to exchange cases with our opponents.
They were quite within their right in declining our proposal ;
but assuming that it would be accepted we enclosed copies
of our case, with all the evidence upon which we rely, to the
secretary general of the court, to be presented to you. We
did not contemplate, owing to the absence of disputed facts
from our point of view, that this controversy would require

4
the same order of procedure as many international arbi
trations had required, although it is undoubtedly to be re
gretted that some order of procedure was not embodied in
the protocols. It was impossible, however, in the earlier cases
before this Tribunal to foresee everything, and we took it
for granted that ou the first of Septe mber the cases would be
exchanged and the oral discussions would soon thereafter
commence. In that expectation we were disappointed, but
we have now presented our case and all the evidence upon
which we rely to each of the counsel, as well as to each of
you, and by your courtesy and their courtesy I am now at
liberty to discuss the question for your decision. It is a ques
tion of international law, as such law exists since The Hague
Conference adjourned and its action was ratified by the par
ties represented in it. Are Great Britain, Germany, and Italy
entitled to preferential treatment in the payment of their
claims against Venezuela as demanded by them, or are all
her creditor nations entitled to equality of treatment in the
payment of their claims ?
That question, it seems to us, depends largely upon the
meaning of this Tribunal. There is no desire whatever on
our part to exaggerate in the slightest degree the character of
this Tribunal, or the far-reaching consequences of The Hague
Conference itself; but the latter did make, undoubtedly, a
very great change in the situation of the civilized nations of
the globe and their action towards each other when engaged
in controversies which might eventuate in war. We certainly
desire to consider the question in no narrow spirit, nor to
press for any undue advantage ; and I earnestly hope that
if at any time during my argument I shall seem to any
member of the Tribunal to put improper weight upon any

consideration, to exaggerate any argument which I may
suppose is in our favor, or to undervalue iu any degree any
argument which I may suppose is against us, Your Honors
will feel at liberty to ask any question or make any correc
tion which you think the argument requires.
Your decision, as we understand this controversy, will re
quire you to decide between equality of treatment for all
independent nations and preferential treatment for Great
Britain, Germany, and Italy over all others, and in making
that decision you will of necessity have to pass upon the re
spective merits, in view of the facts laid before you, of two
different courses of action — that of resorting to the methods
of war against Venezuela, the seizing and sinking of her ships,
the blockading of her ports, and the bombarding of her
forts, as was done by the three great nations claiming pref
erential treatment of their claims, and the peaceful methods
pursued by the other creditors of Venezuela in urging pay
ment of their claims, including the United States, Mexico,
France, Spain, Sweden, and Norway, the Netherlands, and
Belgium. This question, as you will at once appreciate
upon the mere statement of it, cannot depend for its
proper solution upon the doctrines of international law as
heretofore interpreted and accepted, strongly as those doc
trines have always emphasized the equality of all independ
ent states, nor can it be hoped that many precedents cau
be found, even with the most exhaustive search of the
relations of independent states, which precedents could
be of essential service to you in reaching your decision. In
deed the only precedent we have beeu able to find is the
recent case of China, where a great indemnity was extorted
by allied nations by force, but the indemnity thus extorted

was distributed upon terms of exact equality among all the
nations presenting claims, whether they joined in the march
to Pekin or not.
That, we submit, is a precedent of very great value. Each
of the three great nations now before this Tribunal denying
the right to equality of treatment to the other creditor na
tions of Venezuela, participated in that march and shared in
the indemnity extorted by force. Each one recognized the
principle that all states having claims against China were
to be equally treated in the distribution of the indemnity
which was extorted. We have been unable to discover the
slightest difference in principle between the two cases. In
that case, as in this, money was extorted in payment for
alleged losses by the use of force, and in that case when the
money thus extorted was to be distributed, Great Britain,
Germany, and Italy assented to the proposition for which
we contend — that the distribution should include, upon
exactly equal terms, the nations which did not share in
the exercise of the force which produced the fund. Of
course, such equality of treatment is the inherent right
of independent nations, and that is what we are asking,
while our opponents are contending that by making war
upon Venezuela, and, by war extorting the fund to be dis
tributed, they have entitled themselves to an award of merit
from this Tribunal in the form of preferential payment of
their claims.
Now, in the forum of international law all sovereign states,
weak or strong, small or great, stand upon the footing of ab
solute equality, and when, therefore, three nations come for
ward and say that we are entitled to preferential treatment
over seven other nations, it must be that they are going to

follow that statement by convincing you that their conduct
has been so meritorious that they are entitled to an award
of merit for it, and that, relatively speaking, the conduct of
the peace powers, as they have been called in this contro
versy, has been so lacking iu merit that there is a proper
basis for discrimination against them in the distribution of
the fund to be distributed.
As the allied nations are appearing here demanding an
award of merit at your hands, it is, we think, of the utmost
possible importance to consider what you are, what the his
tory of your creation is, and what you represent.
When the blockading powers requested PresidentRoosevelt
to act as arbitrator, notwithstanding the considerable pecuni
ary interest citizens ofthe United States had in securing equal
ity of treatment, they must have recognized that, considerable
as that interest in this controversy was, it is as nothing com
pared with the interest the United States has in the proper
decision of the question of international law as enlarged and
modified by Tlie Hague Conference now at issue. Upon that
¦decision great and vital interests ofmany nations may depend,
while upon how this fund may be distributed no great or vital
interest can depend. It is not too much to say that the
government ofthe United States would have hesitated long
before invoking this tribunal to decide whether some claims
of American citizens should be paid in advance of some
olaims of British citizens, or whether they should be paid
on a basis of equality. That contention is important to the
individual claimants, but it is not of great importance to the
United States or to Great Britain ; but it is of great impor
tance to Venezuela and the United States to know whether
this Tribunal is at liberty to grant an award of merit to the

8
blockading powers for making war upon Venezuela under
the circumstances then existing.
It is for that reason that I desire to emphasize at the
very outset of my argument the story of the creation of this
court and the ethical quality which permeated all the pro
ceedings culminating in its creation ; and our desire to
do so is great because we believe such emphasis is indispen
sable to lifting the spirit of our discussions and of your de
liberations above the pride of martial strength and the
willingness to make aggressive war, which is a natural con
sequence of such strength, into the higher and serener air
where equality is always recognized as equity, the air of
that international forbearance and long-suffering which
seeks for righteousness and, if possible, for peace in all the
relations of the peoples of the earth ; and in claiming equal
ity of treatment for all the creditor nations of Venezuela we
wish to emphasize as strongly as possible the essential moral
difference between unnecessary and aggressive warfare waged
by strong nations against weak nations for the selfish objects
of intimidation, of extortion, or of conquest; and the neces
sary and heroic warfare waged unselfishly for the unity of
kindred peoples, or in defense of national honor and inde
pendence, or for the maintenance of Christiau civilization
and the true welfare and progress of mankind.
War may be just or unjust. War may be necessarv or
unnecessary. We know as well as you know that emergen
cies arise in which the noblest spirits are summoned to die
for their country, and we have no desire whatever to elimi
nate the element of even physical courage from the human
character. All we desire to do is to insist upon the broad,
plain, feasible demarcation which separates unjust and un-

9
necessary war from just and necessary war; and such, as we
understand it, was the motive which influenced the august
sovereign to whom we owe the initiation of The Hague Con
ference in asking the civilized nations to assemble here by
their chosen representatives. He said, and it is to be taken
for granted, as the world has always taken it for granted,
that he meant exactly what he said :
" In the conviction that this lofty aim is in conformity
with the most essential interests and the legitimate views of
all powers, the imperial government thinks that the present
moment would be very favorable for seeking, by means of
international discussion, the most effectual means of insur
ing to all peoples the benefits of a real and durable peace,
and above all to put an end to the progressive development
of the present armaments. The intellectual and physical
strength of the nations, labor and capital, are for the major
part diverted from their natural application and unproduc-
tively consumed. Hundreds of millions are devoted to ac
quiring terrible engines of destruction, which although
today regarded as the last word of science, are destined to
morrow to lose all value, in consequence of some fresh dis
covery in the same field. National culture, economic
progress, and the production of wealth are either paralyzed
or checked in their development. This Conference should
be, by the help of God, a happy presage for the century
which is about to open. It would converge in one power
ful focus."
May it please Your Honors, you are that focus. You
have been converged here to represent the efforts of all
states which are sincerely seeking to make the great idea of
peace triumph over the elements of trouble and discord.
It would, at the same time, confirm their agreement by
the solemn establishment of the principles of justice and

10
right, upon which repose the security of states and the welfare
of peoples.
Now, the significant feature of this invitation is that it did
not proceed from Holland with a powerful neighbor on her
border, nor from Belgium with a powerful neighbor on her
border, nor from Switzerland surrounded by powerful neigh
bors, but from a ruler of the greatest military power on
earth — a ruler more free from constitutional limitations
than any other and followed wherever he leads by a pop
ulation as numerous, as brave, as loyal, as ever followed the
oriflamme of any leader. Emanating from such a source
and breathing such a spirit, the proposal was lifted out of
the regions of commercial debate, away from discussions
about money, away from all forms of disputes and arbitra
tions which concern pecuniary gain, into the higher at
mosphere, where may properly be regarded only those
considerations and principles which, as His Imperial Majesty
declared, " make for the security of governments and the
welfare of peoples."
How did the nations meet that bugle-call to ascend to a
higher platform in international relations and to lay the
foundations of a nobler system of international law than
had yet been recognized in the world ? The British gov
ernment accepted the invitation at once, through Mr.
Balfour, then in charge of the Foreign Office in the absence
of Lord Salisbury, Mr. Balfour saying that the British gov
ernment most warmly sympathized with and approved "the
pacific and economic objects which His Imperial Majesty
has in view ; " and the government of the United States also
at once accepted the invitation iu the most cordial terms pos
sible. The British government sent to His Imperial Majesty

11
this message, which must have given him great pleasure :
" This sympathy is not confined to the government, but
is equally shared by popular opinion in this country, as has
been strikingly manifested since the Emperor's proposal has
been made generally known, by the very numerous resolu
tions passed at public meetings and societies in the United
Kingdom," thus showing that the appeal not only com
mended itself to responsible governments, but they were glad
to testify that it met also the approval of the people they rep
resented. The Charge dAffaires of the government of the United
States at St. Petersburg wrote that the novelty of the proposal
was its " humanitarian aspect looking towards a future uni
versal peace which, while it has long been the dream of phi
lanthropists, has never before, I believe, been recognized as an
attainable end, even in the distant future, in the materialism
which governs state policies and international relations. As
the law of force has heretofore reigned supreme, it has now
become a subject of practical discussion by responsible sov
ereigns, statesmen and diplomatists, whether in the words of
the Emperor of Russia, the principles of justice and right
may not take its place."
I wish always to emphasize the fact that in pleading for
this humanitarian aspect we do not class ourselves with
dreamers or idealists, with men who close their eyes to the
practical side of life, but with statesmen, with rulers, with
diplomatists, with soldiers, with sailors, for it was such men
whom this call assembled in this ancient and historic city ;
and it is necessary to speak of the ethical character of the
question now before you, because it was the ethical basis

12
alone which gave value to the proposal of His Imperial
Majesty, and which enabled it to result in the far-reaching
consequences which we are engaged today in discussing.
I need not trouble you, as it is fully presented to you in
our case, with the character of the responses of the other
governments or the action of the Russian government
itself. It is enough to say that explicit and cordial declara
tions of approval were heard from every quarter, and the
Conference was therefore most distinctly and authoritatively
committed, by the very character of its existence, to en
deavor to substitute for the right of the stronger to make
war, in order to despoil the weaker at its own mere will and
pleasure, " the principles of justice and right upon which
repose the security of states and the welfare of peoples."
It was unquestionably a sublime mandate. It was given
at what was believed to be an auspicious time, just as the
twentieth century of the Christian era was beginning and
nineteen hundred years after " peace on earth and good will
to men " was first announced as the true relations of men to
each other. It emanated from the sovereign of the largest
military power, with resources for increasing its military
strength unrestricted by constitutional or parliamentary lim
itations. It assembled a hundred men, not dreamers of im
practicable dreams, but fit representatives of the world's
statesmanship, diplomacy, jurisprudence, and war, sensible
and practical men of affairs accredited by twenty -six inde
pendent nations and authorized to speak in their name ; and
it is only just to declare that the results of their labors were
eminently worthy of the sovereign to whose initiative they
owed their assembling, to the mandate they had received,
and to their own well-earned renown.

13
Representing, as we do, in this controversy a weak South
American republic, it may be permitted to us to state the
great and profound regret felt by all the republics of the
American continent that they were not all equally invited
to take part in a conference of such world-wide import. The
fact that of those great and growing republics only the
United States and Mexico were represented at the Conference
was chiefly to be regretted because the delegates present at
it were denied the privilege, as well as the advantage, of
hearing the views entertained by the statesmen and diplo
matists of Central and South America upon many interest
ing and important questions of international law and the
usages of nations, as well as their possible improvement
along practical lines. Those republics, however, very wisely
declined to take umbrage at their exclusion from this first
great council board of the nations, and they resolved to
avail themselves of the advantages of this Tribunal, al
though it was constituted without consultation with them.
By the terms of the conventions themselves and by her own
declaration of willingness to conform to them, Venezuela has
not only entitled herself to be heard by you on an exact
equality with her great and powerful opponents, but she is
to be credited, until the contrary appears, with an unusual
devotion to the conclusions which the Conference reached.
The proceedings of the Conference are well known to all
the members of this court, and you will recall the inspir
ing words with which the minister of foreign affairs of the
Netherlands welcomed the delegates, as you will also recall
the elevating words of Baron de Staal in assuming the presi
dency of the Conference. He said :

14
" The name of Peace Conference, which the instincts of
the people, anticipating a decision on this point by the
governments, has given to our assemblage, indicates accu
rately the essential object of our labors. The Peace Confer
ence must not fail in the mission which devolves upon it.
It must offer a result of its deliberations which shall be
tangible, and upon which all humanity waits with confi
dence. The eagerness which the powers have shown in ac
cepting the proposition contained in the Russian circular
is the most eloquent testimony of the unanimity which
peaceful ideas have attained. * * * The very mem
bership of this assemblage is a certain guarantee of the
spirit in which we approach the labor which has been con
fided to us. The governments are represented here by
statesmen who have taken part in shaping the destiny of
their own countries, by eminent diplomatists who have been
concerned in great negotiations, and who all know that the
first need of the peoples is the maintenance of peace. Be
sides, here there will be found savants who, in the domain
of international law, enjoy a justly merited renown. The
general and superior officers of the armies and navies, who
will help us in our labors, will bring to us the assistance of
their high competence. Diplomacy, as we all know, has for
its object the prevention and the appeasement of conflicts
between states, the softening of rivalries, the conciliation of
interests, the clearing up of misunderstandings, and the sub
stitution of harmony for discord. * * * We shall also
undertake in a special manner to generalize and codify the
practice of arbitration, of mediation, and of good offices.
These ideas constitute, so to speak, the very essence of our
task. The most useful object proposed by our efforts is to
prevent conflicts by pacific means. * * * The ties
which unite all parts of the human famity are ever becom
ing closer. A nation could not remain isolated if it wished.
It finds itself surrounded by a living organism, fruitful in
blessings for all, and it is and should be a part of this same

organism. Without doubt rivalries exist. * * * Such
rivalry may do good, provided that above it all there shall
remain the idea of justice and the lofty sentiment of human
brotherhood." * * *
The same lofty ethical idea was expressed by one of the
members of this Tribunal, M. de Martens. Indeed it per
meated every address made at the Conference, and it was
not astonishing that the conclusion of the labors of the Con
ference called to such a high mission of justice and of peace
should have resulted in recommending the application,
when circumstances allow, of special mediation in the fol
lowing form :
" In case of a serious difference endangering the peace,
the states at variance shall each choose a power to which
they entrust the mission of entering into direct communica
tion with the power chosen on the other side, with the ob
ject of preventing the rupture of pacific relations. During
the period of this mandate, the term of which unless other
wise stipulated, can not exceed thirty days, the states in
conflict shall cease from all direct communication on the
subject of the dispute, which is regarded as having been
referred exclusively to the mediating powers, which shall
use their best efforts to settle the controversy."
The Conference then made these lofty and epoch-making
declarations :
"International arbitration has for its object the deter
mination of controversies between states by judges of their
own choice, upon the basis of respect for law."
"In questions of a judicial character, arbitration is recognized
by the signatory powers as the most efficacious and at the same
time the most equitable method of deciding controversies which
have not been settled by diplomatic methods."

16
" With the object of facilitating an immediate recourse to
arbitration for international differences which could not be
settled by diplomatic methods, the signatory powers under
take to organize a permanent court of arbitration, accessible
at all times."
When this great pact of peace had been signed, M. de Staal
determined that the whole result of their labors should re
main in the same high altitude to which the Russian Em
peror had summoned the members of the Conference, and
he declared :
" In the course of years, I have seen the gradual growth and
influence of moral ideas in political relations. This influ
ence has today attained a memorable stage. * * * Gentle
men, the first step is taken. Let us unite our efforts aud
profit from experience. The good seed is sown. Let us
await the harvest. As for me, having come to the end of
my career and the decline of my life, I consider it a supreme
consolation to see the opening of new perspectives for the
good of humanity, and to be able to look forward into the
bright vistas of the future."
Great Britain, Germany, and Italy associated themselves
with the other signatory powers iu adhering to the forego
ing declarations in favor of mediation, of arbitration, and
of peace, which were signed July 29, 1899, and thus they stood
committed by their voluntary action to giving practical
effect, whenever opportunity offered, to those objects in their
relations with all other nations.
We are now, therefore, prepared to consider how they dis
charged this obligation, and whether in a manner to entitle
them to an award of merit from this Tribunal or not. I
do not care to discuss whether such seizing and sinking

17
of her small vessels of war, such blockading of her ports
against all commerce, neutral and other, and such bom
barding of her forts as these great powers practiced towards
Venezuela constituted a state of war or not. It is not
necessary, for the purpose of this discussion, to con
sider the question of the possibility of a pacific blockade, as
all tbe authorities upon international law agree that such a
blockade must not extend to interference with the rights of
neutrals to have undisputed access to the ports in question ;
and, indeed, Mi1. Balfour declared in the House of Commons
on December 18, 1902, that " of course a state of war existed
between Great Britain and Venezuela, as you could not have
a blockade effective against other nations except when a
state of war existed." I do not wish unduly to emphasize
the word war or use it for the purpose of creating the slightest
misconception of what was done, but after the prime min
ister of Great Britain admits that " of course a state of war
existed," it is not improper to say that it was warfare, and
that they did make war upon Venezuela.
We are now at a point to properly consider another ques
tion, which is : What was the character of the diplomatic
correspondence between these great allied powers and Ven
ezuela which preceded the war ?
It seems to us after careful consideration that no injustice
will be done to either of the other blockading powers if we
assume that the conduct of Great Britain may be regarded
as fairly representative of the conduct of all of them. In
the first place, as they became allies the}' stand or fall to
gether and each became distinctly, by the terms of the gen
eral demonstration, responsible for the acts of the others ;
but even if that were not so, it is hardly to be supposed that

18
Greajt Britain would exhibit greater harshness or less respect
for the obligations she had assumed to the international law
of The Hague Conference than either Germany or Italy.
There is nothing in her past history to warrant such an as
sumption, and therefore it is not unfair to confine ourselves to
a discussion of the diplomatic correspondence between Great
Britain and Venezuela as illustrating for the purposes of your
decision how far she adhered and how far she departed
from her proper line of duty before she entered upon the
actual war which she waged in alliance with Germany and
Italy. Of course if it should hereafter appear that in thus
selecting the action of Great Britain by which to judge her
allies the slightest injustice is done to either of the other
blockading powers we will be very glad to make any cor
rection, and we beg the Tribunal to see that no injustice
is done by the selection we have made of the diplomatic
correspondence of Great Britain with Venezuela as illus
trating the general course of conduct of the blockading
powers. There is another reason why this selection should
be made. The protocols having designated the English
language as the official language of the proceedings, it was
much easier for us to deal in detail with the diplomatic cor
respondence between Great Britain and Venezuela than with
such correspondence between Germany and Venezuela, or
between Italy and Venezuela. In the case of Great Britain,
on her side it was carried on in the English language,
and on the side of Venezuela in Spanish, which the English
government has itself translated. And then there was
another valid reason. Great Britain continued her cor
respondence with Venezuela down to the very moment of
the declaration of war, whereas Germany ceased her cor-

19
respondence, as far as we are able to discover, six months
before the war began. The date at which Italy ceased her
correspondence is not quite so clear, but it was some time be
fore the outbreak of hostilities. So that, taking the British
correspondence, we have at least a greater probability of put
ting ourselves precisely in the position which the parties
themselves occupied at the moment when they resorted to
force to extort payment of their alleged claims.
Let us therefore now carefully consider on behalf of the
United States and Venezuela the diplomatic correspondence
between Great Britain and Venezuela, which eventuated in
war, as throwing light upon the decision you are required
to render as to whether it was or was not a just and neces
sary war.
The Hague Conventions were signed July 29, 1899, aud on
February 21, 1901 — twenty months thereafter — the gov
ernor of Trinidad, an island belonging to Great Britain in the
West Indies, reported upon an alleged outrage by officials of
Venezuela upon alleged subjects of Great Britain. In deal
ing with the question of all the alleged outrages I rely ex
clusively for the facts upon the Blue Book published by Great
Britain containing the correspondence with Venezuela, a copy
of which Blue Book we have furnished to each of you, as well
as to each of the counsel in the cause. The island of Trin
idad, it will appear, is a dependency of Great Britain, just
north of the mouth of the Orinoco, the great river of
Venezuela, aud the two horns ofthe island almost reach the
Venezuelan coast. This island has long been believed by
the government and people of Venezuela to be a refuge for
two classes of unlawful enterprises, one being the promotion
of insurrections in Venezuela by lending assistance to in-

20
surgents, and thus encouraging operations against the author
ities of Venezuela, and the other being the evasion of the
customs laws by the smuggling of goods from Trinidad into
Venezuela. Venezuela at the time of these alleged out
rages was engaged in a life-and-death struggle against a
powerful insurrection, under the leadership of General
Matos. In that effort she not only needed the friendship of
a power situated so close to her, but she needed all proper
revenue from her custom-houses, not only to meet her ordi
nary expenses, but to meet also the extraordinary expenses
devolving upon her in the suppression of the insurrection.
That situation, and I do not wish to press it unduly or
give undue weight to it, would almost necessarily lead to
bitterness, to misunderstandings, and probably to unwise
and ill-advised action on the part of Venezuela. There was
this island close to her coast, belonging to a powerful mari
time nation thousands of miles away, believed to afford a
starting point from which to launch insurrectionary move
ments, and from which it was possible to conduct smuggling
operations in Venezuela.
This weak, distracted republic today possesses one of the
most attractive territories on the globe. Watered by the
most noble rivers, with every variety of climate, from the
tropical coast of the sea to the ridges of the loftiest moun
tains, there are growing in her fertile valleys the products
of many different lands. With her great coast line
and her great rivers, she was especially exposed to such
expeditions as she believed were organized in Trinidad.
That is the situation with which Great Britain — powerful >
civilized, intelligent — found herself confronted, and, without
laying undue stress again upon the attitude of Great Britain,

21
we say she ought to have known, and, knowing, she ought
to have taken into account, the bitterness of feeling on the
part of Venezuela owing to this situation. On the contrary,
that bitterness is plainly shown to have been reciprocated by
the authorities of Trinidad towards Venezuela.
Then, as if that was not enough to make their relations
strained, there is a little uninhabited island, the ownership
of which is in dispute, Great Britain and Venezuela both
claiming it. It is a half-way house for smugglers and insur
rectionists between Trinidad and Venezuela, called the island
of Patos. This is the situation, or would have been the sit
uation but for another element of bitterness on the part of
Venezuela. Attention has often been called to the boundary
arbitration between Great Britain and Venezuela. That had
been the subject of long, earnest, and fruitless entreaty by
Venezuela to Great Britain, to submit the question to arbi
tration. For many years, in season and out of season, this
defenseless country had been declaring to Great Britain :
" You are encroaching continually upon our territory.
Each year the territory claimed by British Guiana has been
enlarged. Why will you not agree to an amicable arbitration
and have the line between us amicabty settled ? " Great
Britain said, " No, we will not," adding that it was territory
she was entitled to occupy. But at last the situation became
intolerable to the United States. The United States had , at the
instance of Venezuela, more than once interposed an offer of
good offices for arbitration, which Great Britain refused, until
it became the subject of acute diplomatic controversj', and
as a result of President Cleveland's message and the action
of Congress in support of it, an arbitration was finally agreed
upon to settle the boundary line between Great Britain aud

22
Venezuela ; but the two great and powerful nations which
confronted each other — Great Britain aud the United States —
made what would seem to be the mistake of choosing the
arbitrators wholly from their own countries, not allowing
this weak country a single representative upon it. Of course,
it is easy to criticise what statesmen do when one is not
responsible for the conduct of a controversy. So many
elements enter in of which the person outside is ignorant that
it is perhaps presumptuous to criticise it at all. The states
men responsible for the peace of those two great countries
may have found themselves so situated that that was the
best possible solution which could be found. I do not say
it was not, but it left a feeling of bitterness in the mind of
Venezuela, and the award gave a considerable accession of
territory to Great Britain, justly no doubt, but after all an
award without Venezuela being represented on the tribunal
which made it. Of course she assented to it, because she
could do nothing else. I am not alluding to this for the pur
pose of passing judgment upon it or asking you to do so, but
to show that it should naturally have been expected by Great
Britain that the memory of it would be embittered with a
sense of injustice.
M. De Martens : As I presided over that arbitration, I
desire to say that Venezuela was well represented by the two
competent and distinguished arbitrators from the United
States. Mr. MacVeagh : That is entirely true, but it is also true
that Venezuela could not be expected to feel that she was
properly treated while two citizens of her adversary sat
upon the tribunal settling the boundary in dispute and no
citizen of hers was allowed to sit upon it.

23
With these causes of dissatisfaction, with Trinidad and
Patos so near, with the insurrection raging, with smuggling
believed to be going on, we come to consider what was the
conduct which this court had a right to expect from Great
Britain, even if some aggressions had been made of some
unimportant character upon some of her alleged subjects.
It seems to me that in such a situation the wise words
of M. de Staal recur with ever-increasing force :
" Diplomacy, we all know, has for its object the prevention
and the appeasement of conflicts between states, the soften
ing of rivalries, the conciliation of interests, the clearing up
of misunderstandings, and the substitution of harmony for
discord." We do not wish unduly to press the vast inequality of
strength between Great Britain and Venezuela, but it cer
tainly is a proper element in considering what her line of
conduct should have been. She is one of the most powerful
nations of the earth, and she was confronting one of the
weakest nations, then torn by internal commotion and need
ing every particle of strength she possessed and every dol
lar of revenue she could collect at her ports to maintain her
own existence. " 'Tis glorious to have a tyrant's strength,
But tyrannous to use it like a giant."
And we insist that this disparity of strength ought to
have impressed Great Britain with the need of great care
to avoid causes of irritation, and the use of conciliatory
methods in seeking to bring about the settlement of any
claims she presented. This disparity in strength is clearly
shown in the Statesmen's Year Book for 1903, an accepted

24
authority in such matters, which details the great and efficient
standing army of Great Britain, as well as her supreme con
trol of the seas by her vast navy, while it reports that the army
of Venezuela consists of nine thousand men, and her navy of
three steamers, two sailing vessels, and some small gunboats ;
and the propriety of great forbearance in pressing doubtful
claims by so powerful a nation against a nation so incapable
of resistance ought, it would seem, to have been always
recognized even before the high-sounding proclamation of
the Peace Conference. • Indeed an English writer in " The
Nineteenth Century and After " for April, 1903, au English
magazine of high character, says, speaking of the interven
tion of European nations in the affairs of the South Ameri
can republics : " To justify such intervention, it would seem
" to be the duty of foreign states to observe certain rules
" which one and all of them have in the past been inclined
'' to disregard * * * such as refusing to support by
" diplomatic action, and in the last resort by force, claims
" which, prima facie, are plausible, but which have never been
" examined thoroughly, or to press to the utmost demands
" which may turn out, and which, according to the experi-
" ence of many mixed commissions do turn out to be bad or
" much exaggerated, and which are in the end settled for a
" small sum." The writer adds that " before such interfer-
" ence, the European nations ought to do away with all pre-
" text for the charges, true or false, persistently made, that
" much smuggling has in past time been carried on." The
writer then suggests that mixed commissions should be
organized, to which such claims should be automatically
referred, as they would help " to propitiate national pride
" and remove a grievance, for such the constant pressure

25
" from the outside is regarded." Such, it seems to us, are
the wise and considerate methods which a mighty nation,
just having signed the conclusions of the Peace Conference,
might reasonably be expected to pursue in dealing with a
weak and distracted people struggling to preserve their gov
ernment from overthrow by revolutionary leaders seeking
to destroy it ; and it is not too much to declare that the
course actually pursued was in the greatest possible contrast
to the course which was reasonably to have been expected.
I wish to emphasize one fact. That is, that notwithstand
ing what I have read to Your Honors this morning of the
conclusions of The Hague Conference to which the Allies
cordially adhered, which conclusions declared that in con
troversies where there is no guaranty of settlement there
should be mediation, or there should be at least a proffer
of arbitration, that there will be found in all these
controversies and disputes no word from this powerful and
mighty nation of Great Britain proposing to this weak and
defenseless sister in the family of nations mediation of any
kind or character whatever, whether of the class declared to
be desirable by the Conference, the conclusions of which it had
just signed, or not; no friendly word suggesting that these mat
ters of controversy were proper subjects of arbitration ; no
friendly word intimating that the blessings of peace between
Great Britain and Venezuela were of incalculable importance
to the weaker power; no consideration of any kind for the
weakness of Venezuela, and no allowance of any kind for the
fact of the absorption of all her possible strength and of all
her possible resources in the suppression of the insurrection
then raging in the country. Indeed, there will be found
in this whole record nothing but harsh demand followed

26
by harsher demand, and harsh threat followed by harsher
threat. One asks in vain, in reading it from the first word to
the last, where does there breathe in all its pages the least re
semblance to the spirit of the Peace Conference which consti
tuted this Tribunal ? Where is there to be found the slight
est allusion to the solemn declarations to which the Allies
had just affixed their names and given their approval ? The
answer must be that there is not anywhere to be found in the
whole of these demands and threats, as printed in the
British Blue Book, the slightest sign of a desire for media
tion or arbitration, or of any recognition of the troubles and
weakness of Venezuela as contrasted with the overwhelming
power and strength of her great adversary.
While in the course of this statement it has been neces
sary to point out the failure of the British government to
offer mediation or arbitration to Venezuela, the fact has not
been overlooked that the German government, on July 16r
1902, six months before the war began, did make an offer of
arbitration to the government of Venezuela. The German
government well knew that Venezuela at that time was
wholly engrossed in her efforts to suppress the Matos
insurrection, and there was an interruption of all corre
spondence apparently for six months, when suddenly
the alliance between Great Britain and Germany was-
formed, the fleets were dispatched, the ultimatums were
delivered, and the war upon Venezuela was begun. It
the alliance had been formed to make joint proffers in
November, 1902, of the offer Germany alone had made-
in July for arbitration, it is reasonably certain that the offer
would have been accepted ; but the alliance was not an
alliance for mediation or arbitration or peace, but for war..

27
Yet there can be no doubt of the fact, and instances can be
cited to show that collective pressure and firm insistence
would have brought about arbitration or settlement, as it
did when Belgium, England, France, Germany, and Italy,
on February 26, 1902, resorted to collective diplomatic action
against the republic of Guatemala, and obtained a peaceable
adjustment of the claims of their subjects, as recorded in the
Foreign Relations of the United States for 1902, pp. 569-580.
It was the principle of equality of treatment which guided
the Venezuelan government during all its negotiations
with the Allies at Caracas and at Washington. On February
13, 1903, Venezuela signed separate protocols for the refer
ence to mixed commissions of the claims of the Allies sub
ject to reservations of preferential treatment of certain claims,
to which Venezuela submitted through force. On the 17th
day of February, 1903, the United States and Venezuela
signed a protocol for the submission of all unsettled claims
to a mixed commission. This protocol contained provisions
which simplified the procedure and the questions to be de
cided, and prescribed the currency in which the awards
should be payable. It was intended to remove from the
field of discussion some of the troublesome questions which
might naturally arise from the omissions of the British, Ger
man, and Italian protocols. After the United States protocol
had been signed, the Allies requested of Mr. Bowen the
same treatment, and the plenipotentiary of Venezuela at
once accorded the same treatment to the Allies by making
new protocols with them.
I labor, of course, in this argument under the disad
vantage of not knowing the point of view of our learned
opponents, and we appreciate how their learning and

28
subtlety may well succeed in presenting considerations
to this court which we cannot foresee ; but, exercising the
best judgment we possess upon the situation as it is now
presented to us, we confess ourselves wholly unable to un
derstand how it can be seriously argued, considering the
character of this Tribunal and the history of its creation,
that the manner pursued by the Allies in dealing with
the problems which were then confronting them can com
mend itself so highly to your approval as to justify you
iu declaring that it distinctly merits an affirmative prefer
ence over the policy pursued by the other creditor nations
of Venezuela, which did not see their way clear to resort
to war, in view of the then distracted and impoverished
condition of Venezuela, in order to enforce the payment
of their claims. For it is impossible, by any learning,
or by any subtlety, or by any ability, however great, to con
fuse the question now presented for decision. That question
can never be other than this plain and simple one : Has the
conduct of the Allies in making war upon Venezuela
when they did, and in view of all the circumstances then
existing, so merited the approval of this Tribunal that it
will accord them preferential treatment in the payment of
the claims presented by them against that country over the
claims presented by her other creditor nations, which did
not under the circumstances then existing see their way to
make war upon her?
It is not enough that the conduct of the allies in making
war upon Venezuela was equally meritorious with the policy
pursued by the other creditor nations in abstaining from
war and in seeking to collect the claims presented by them
by peaceful methods. Before you can award preferential

29
treatment to their claims, you must declare their conduct to
be more meritorious than the conduct of those nations which
abstained from making war; for equality of treatment is
the rule, and preferential treatment can only be accorded as
an award of merit.
It is, of course, to be greatly regretted that Venezuela did
not, when these demands were first made, repeat the same
requests for arbitration she had so persistently and so vainly
made for so many years in the boundary dispute. That
would have been her wisest course to pursue, but she
is not here asking this court to decree that her conduct in
failing to do so is meritorious, which is what the Allies are
asking. So far from being meritorious, her conduct in so
abstaining was very unwise ; but she is able to offer as ex
cuses, though not as justifications, for so abstaining, the
history of her fruitless beseechings for arbitration in the
boundary dispute, the refusal to permit her to name from
her own citizens a single arbitrator when arbitration was
extorted from Great Britain by the United States, and the
all-important fact that her government was required to de
vote all its attention and all its energy to terminate the for
midable insurrection against the constituted authorities then
distracting and devastating the country. Notwithstanding
these persuasive excuses for her not suggesting arbitration,
we do not for a moment contend that they would entitle
her to claim, as the Allies are claiming, that failure to re
quest mediation or arbitration in the hope of averting war
would entitle her to an award of merit from this Tribunal.
Indeed, I do not imagine that I could secure an affirmative
decree that the conduct of Venezuela throughout this con
troversy merits the distinct approval of The Hague Tribunal.

30
But her adversaries say that their conduct does merit such
approval, and that is the only real question now before
you. All nations indeed have a very serious interest in
knowing what this Tribunal judges to be wise and proper
conduct for a great nation to pursue having claims against
a weak nation, now that the provisions of The Hague
Conference have become a part of the law of nations.
Then, too, it will no doubt be said, and properly and truly
said, that Venezuela was an irritating neighbor to the gov
ernor of a dependency of a mighty world-power thousands of
miles from his own country and clothed with all her great au
thority, and that he would inevitably be annoyed, and
justly annoyed, very often by the conduct of a distracted
country like Venezuela, close to the island he is gov
erning. But there is another consideration which ought
always to be borne in mind by a great power dealing with
a small and weak power, and especially if the weak power is
a South American country. Those countries are apprehen
sive ofthe ultimate objects of demands upon them. Rightly
or wrongly, they attach great importance to the literature
with which portions of Europe and America are now flooded,
declaring that it is the duty of some powerful state to
take possession of them. It is not an idle chimera. I was
delighted to read the other day the calm, statesmanlike
declaration of Chancellor Von Bulow, absolutely denying
the existence of any such purpose on the part of Germany.
It is a very interesting communication he has made. But in
Germany and also in the United States the commercial ad
venturer, the promoter of enterprises in foreign lands, links
himself with the spirit of aggression in all the fighting and
dominant races, and he is able to create a public opinion of

31
sufficient gravity, not perhaps in the centers of responsible
government, but in the literature of those countries, declar
ing that it is the duty of some strong state to conquer Vene
zuela. Even in the United States we are not exempt from it.
We have persons declaring distinctly in public organs of
great authority that Germany should be given a free hand
to take Venezuela and Colombia, if she desires, and, if Ger
many will not do so, the United States should do it because
there is so much money to be made there, and the possible
profits are shamefully allowed to go to waste.
The quantity of literature upon this subject is really in a
sense amazing, and since I came to The Hague I find a book
has been published in London filled with the declarations of
important persons in Germany, professors of universities and
moulders of thought, declaring that Germany needs a great
fleet and that she needs colonies in South America; and I
found in an English magazine only last week an article by
a person long resident in Germany, saying that the pro
fessorial class and other leaders of public opinion strongly
advocate such a policy. Against all that I put Mr. Von
Bulow's statement and rest upon it ; but you must not expect
that the people of Venezuela can rest upon it quite as
calmly as I do. Brazil finds that a German colony is set
tling in the southern part of their territory, and a most
desirable class of settlers they are. They form a German
-colony, and Brazil may readily suspect that there is a plan
to seize some portion of her territory. Meanwhile these ad
vocates of aggression demand that Venezuela shall suddenly
become as safe for the foreigu investor as the United States
is, and in default of such safety it is said that the strong,
^.powerful, and wise governments of the earth should step in

32
and suppress this people and govern them for their benefit
and ours. Then there is another very serious apprehension —
a corollary of the other. They are in danger of believing
that the collection of debts by war is not practiced for the sake
of the debts only, but is intended to be an entering wedge for
their conquest. The correspondence between Great Britain
and Venezuela shows that their statesmen, and there are
statesmen in South America as well as elsewhere, insist that
the denial to them of the right to treat foreign residents with
the same measure of justice as their own citizens is meant to
introduce, first, the right of diplomatic intervention, then
the gunboat, and then the conquering army ; and I beg you
not to dismiss this proposition without serious consideration.
For myself, and I speak only for myself, I declare that
the collection of bonded indebtedness by making war is, in
my judgment, an absolutely indefensible practice. In the
first place we know how the debts are created ; we know the
commercial and financial and promoting persons who seek
these countries, and often by corruption of officials obtain
concessions, contracts, and loans and then unload the bur
dens upon the bowed backs of the toiling masses, generation
after generation; and, as Lord Salisbury said, such persons,
if British subjects, seem to expect that they shall make no
losses in those countries, but have the securities they obtain
endorsed by the British government. For that is what it
means. An American promoter — one can always use one's
own countrymen as an example — goes to Caracas and secures
a concession for a water works, or a railway, or any other
enterprise. He secures the terms he wishes, and then he may
return home, leaving his part of the contract only partly com
plied with ; and then he may say to the United States gov-

33
ernment: Venezuela gave me this contract, and now I ask
you to send a fleet there and compel compliance with it.
Personal injuries to the citizen of a foreign State, anything
that really infringes the security implied in saying Civis
Bomanus sum, may afford ground for action, and, if for
such wrong reparation is denied, a resort to force may
be justifiable — but not for the enforcement of contracts
or the collection of debts — at least such is my opinion.
In the United States it has happened more than once that
unoffending Chinamen and Italians have become the objects
of the senseless wrath of a mob and have been murdered.
In such cases, beyond any doubt, their governments have a
right to demand and exact reparation for the wrong. But
if some person seeking pecuniary gain secures a concession
or a contract he may not be at liberty, in my opinion, to ex
tort compliance with such concession or contract by resort to
war. Of course, in dealing with such questions it is quite
impossible to lay down rules which are applicable in all
cases, but it seems to me there is no more discreditable work
in which great nations can engage than in trying to collect
from weak nations alleged debts by force.
Take an instance from the United States. We have
a great, growing aud rich State in our Union. It owes a
very large sum of money to British bondholders. There
is no question about the indebtedness. There is no pre
tense of taint upon the obligation. The state declines
to pay it. Great Britain does not send her fleet. She em
barks no soldiers. She sends no ultimatum. For many
years those creditors have been asking that state to pay them
their just debt. They continue to ask her. They are asking
her now. Prominent American citizens are endeavoring to
3

34
assist them by appealing to her moral sense, but no person
has ever suggested that Great Britain should collect this just
debt by force. Why, then, should she thus collect debts
from weak states ? If international law is to receive the
sanction from this court which all true lovers of jurisprudence
must hope, then one of its duties will be to see that the small
states are treated with exactly the same justice and exactly
the same principles of right as govern the intercourse of
great nations with each other.
What could be expected when Venezuela found that
in authoritative journals of public opinion the demand was
made that she should be conquered and held as a de
pendency ? The memory of the long wars of independ-
dence against Spain is still living in the hearts ofthe people ;
and while others may think their independence far less valu
able to them than they suppose, it is not reasonable to
expect them to entertain that notion. Great Britain, with
an overflowing treasury, with the greatest navy in the world,
with a great army, was confronting Venezuela while she
was trying to suppress an insurrection which taxed all her
resources. I ought to say, before going further, that Vene
zuela is not alone in feeling apprehensive of an attempt at
conquest. Mr. Drago, then minister for foreign affairs of the
Argentine Republic, addressed a letter to the Secretary of
State of the United States, pointing out in very clear, con
cise, and temperate language that this apprehension exists
all through South America, and that the collection of debts
by war must inevitably lead to conquest of territory, and that
it is only the first step which costs. It is a very thoughtful
state paper, worthy to have emanated from any European
chancery, and Secretary Hay made a becoming and con-

35
servative reply to it. However unfounded such apprehen
sions may be, they are an element to be taken into account
in dealing with the situation as it existed when this trouble
first arose.
Iu view of all these circumstances, the irritation which it
was reasonable to expect Great Britain would feel towards
Venezuela found, it seems to us, most unreasonable and vio
lent expression. Of course, the influential and financial in
terests possessing at present great political power in all the
aggressive and fighting nations, as well as the fighting in
stincts of the people of such nations, combine to demand large
armies and large navies, and they must sometimes be used
when possessed ; and while for more than an entire generation
no great power has ventured to attack any other great power, every
one of them has been at war, and some of them often, with some
small and defenseless power, and has been engaged in despoiling it.
It may be true that before the Peace Conference met there was
no usage of international law which could be invoked to pre
vent Great Britain, Germany, and Italy from collecting claims
which had never been impartially examined from Venezuela
by war. But since The Hague Conference, and since this
court was constituted, a totally different situation is presented.
I repeat, it may be true that before the Peace Conference met
there was no usage or principle which had received the as
sent of the civilized nations of the world which could have
been successfully invoked to prevent Great Britain, Germany,
and Italy from assembling their allied navies in the harbors
of Venezuela, and, while refusing to allow their claims to be
examined, to demand, at the cannon's mouth, the immediate
payment of such amounts as they saw fit to ask. But from
the day the pact of peace was signed in this city by these

36
three great nations, and an invitation was extended by them
to all the non-signatory powers to avail themselves of this Tri
bunal, the situation was absolutely changed. Thenceforward,
they were bound to conduct themselves toward Venezuela
in accordance with the principles they had themselves an
nounced, and to act towards her, from the beginning to the
end, in the spirit which permeated the action of the Peace
Conference ; because at last the nations of the earth had
reached a parting of the ways. I repeat, before the signing
of that pact of peace and justice for the nations, there may
have been no such rules to be observed, but from the
moment it was signed then all was altered, and its letter
and spirit became obligatory upon every civilized nation of
the earth, for all the civilized nations had either signed it
or had adhered to it.
Now if the spirit which permeated the Peace Conference is
to be exercised in any case, surely it ought to be exercised
in the collection of pecuniary claims. Why do I say that ?
Because such claims have had an evil repute for more than a
generation. They are known in many cases to be incapable
of bearing searching investigation before a judicial tribunal .
they are known to be exaggerated ; aud several have been
found to be absolutely unfounded. The United States was
itself deceived in at least two cases — one was against Vene
zuela herself — in attempting to enforce claims which were
subsequently found to be unfounded. She discovered herself
used for the same purpose against Mexico, and even after the
money had been received upon these unfounded claims, she
was required, by her sense of justice, to pay it back into the
treasury of Mexico. The result has been that such claims
are now generally submitted to mixed commissions, where

37
both countries are represented and the claims are judicially
examined and must meet the approval of a disinterested
umpire before payment is demanded. A brief summary of
the total number and amounts of claims demanded, and of
the total amounts awarded by the five most important arbitral
commissions to which the United States has been a party dur
ing the past forty years will illustrate the singular exaggera
tion practiced in these claims. Nothing is accidental in this
world of ours. Not only the physical world, but the moral
and political world follow just as inevitably their own inex
orable laws. You sow wheat, and you reap wheat. You sow
tares, and you reap tares. You sow military force against a
weak and defenseless state, and you reap injustice. You sow
doubtful and dishonest claims, and you reap perjury, corrup
tion, and fraud. Men do not " gather grapes of thorns, or
figs of thistles," any more in international relations than in
horticulture. I beg your careful attention to these facts. There was a
commission constituted July 4, 1868, to settle the claims
presented by the United States against Mexico and by
Mexico against the United States. The record shows that
the total amount of claims presented by the United
States against Mexico was $470,126,613.40, and the total
amount allowed, $4,125,622.20 ; the percentage of allowance
therefore being .00877. The claims presented by Mexico
against the United States amounted to $86,661,891.15, and
the amount allowed was $150,498.41, making the percentage
of allowance .00162. In the commission constituted May 8,
1871, to settle the claims arising out of the Civil War in the
United States, the claims presented by Great Britain against
the United States amounted to $96,000,000, and the amount

38
allowed was $1,929,819, making the percentage of allowance
.0201. The claims presented by the United States against
Great Britain amounted to $1,000,000, of which nothing what
ever was allowed. In the commission constituted February
12, 1871, to settle the claims presented by Spain against the
United States, the total amount of the claims presented by
Spain was $30,313,581.32, and the amount allowed was
$1,293,450.55, making the percentage of allowance .0426.
In the commission constituted January 15, 1880, to settle
the claims presented by France against the United States
and by the United States against France, the total amount of
the claims presented by France was $17,368,151.27, and the
total amount allowed $625,566.35, making the percentage of
allowance .003601. The claims presented by the United
States against France amounted to $2,427,544.99, while the al
lowance was $13,659.14, making the percentage of allowance
.00056. In the commission constituted August 7, 1892, to set
tle the claims of the United States against Chile, and of Chile
against the United States, the total amount of the claims
presented by the United States was $26,042,976.96, and
the amount allowed was $240,564.35, making the percent
age of allowance .00923. This commission expired by
limitation, leaving undisposed of claims against the United
States for $232,240, and against Chile of $9,130,620. These
undisposed-of claims were submitted to a new commis
sion, constituted May 24, 1897, and the claims presented
to it by the United States against Chile amounted to
$9,130,620, while the allowance was $28,062.29, making
the percentage of allowance .00307; while the claims
presented by Chile against the United States amounted
to $232,240, and the allowance was $3,000, making the per-

39
centage of allowance .0129. Now, these commissions repre
sented claims presented by the United States, by Mexico, by
Great Britain, by Spain, by France, and by Chile, so that
the character of the nations presenting the claims may be
said to be fairly representative of all the civilized nations ;
and it will be observed, it is believed, with equal surprise
and pain by this Tribunal, that the total amount of claims
presented by these six representative nations aggregated over
seven hundred and nineteen millions of dollars, while the
total allowances by the arbitral commissions appointed to
investigate and settle them amounted to less than eight and
a half millions of dollars.
Notwithstanding these very suggestive experiences of the
character of uninvestigated claims when these great allied
powers came to present their uninvestigated claims to Vene
zuela, they accompanied them with their ultimatums, and on
refusal of their ultimatums they began the war. Of course
one ought never to be betrayed in the heat of argument
into speaking disrespectfully of such great and powerful
nations — nations to wbich the world is so much indebted
in so many directions and which have made the life of the
human spirit so much more enjoyable, as Great Britain,
Germany, and Italy have done. Least of all, should I do
so, for each of them has a very warm place in my heart, and
each of them has added greatly to my enjoyment of life.
But, after all, $719,000,000 of claims were presented by six
representative nations, and only $8,000,000 of claims were
allowed, and yet, at the cannon's mouth, Great Britain de
manded from Venezuela $27,500 for alleged claims which
she refused to have examined ; and Italy said, apparently, as
Great Britain is asking for $27,500, we will demand a like

40
amount, although we do not know why she demanded that
particular amount. Germany, it was supposed, was will
ing to take the same amount, but she raised it to $325,000.
So that this distracted and impoverished South American
republic has been compelled to pay to these three great na
tions $380,000 while in the throes of insurrection, and while
the basis ofthese claims has never been impartially examined.
It would be unjust to draw from these facts the conclusion that
these claims were wholly unfounded ; but it was unjust to
have insisted upon payment, although no inquiry by im
partial persons had been made as to their justice. Even if
the claims were just, even if Venezuela owed the money, still
they should have been presented before some impartial tri
bunal, especially when the history of such claims shows that
of $719,000,000 of them only $8,000,000 were found to be
honest when they were impartially examined.
I propose now to call Your Honors' atteution in some de
tail to the different cases of alleged outrage as illustrating
just what course was pursued and what course ought to have
been pursued, and I rely entirely on the British Blue Book
for the facts.
The first claim made by Great Britain relates to the
landing of twenty Venezuelan soldiers, January 22, 1901,
on the island of Patos, between Trinidad and Venezuela,
the title to which, as I have already stated, was in dispute
between Great Britain and Venezuela. These soldiers are
alleged to have seized four small boats belonging to peace
ful traders, the crews of which had taken refuge from rough
weather on the island, confiscated the cargoes and valuables
found on the boats, and carried away some ten or eleven
persons, leaving on the island, without food or water or means

41
of escape, the others " who had escaped into the scrub." Only
three days thereafter, however — that is, on January 25,
1901 — the Venezuelan consul, accompanied by the chief of
the Venezuelan navy, reported to the British authorities
that the facts relating to the matter were as follows :
"Several boats were coming from Venezuela, having on
board many revolutionists leaving Venezuela. They were
chased by the Venezuelan gunboat ' Augusto.' The revolu
tionists forced the boats to put into Patos island, where they
were landed. * * * The consul reports this because
the people are still on Patos. He also asks if the police
cannot prevent Patos being made the point of departure of
the revolutionists."
In this statement of the Venezuelan consul it is alleged
in the British Blue Book that he admitted that Patos was
British territor}' ; but this is not very probable, because in
the statement of the same consul, made February 27, 1901,
he declared that the nationality of Patos was a disputed
point. Of these four boats only one was alleged to have been the
property of a British subject — one Edward Brown, resident
in Trinidad; but it is alleged that other British subjects
were carried away by the Venezuelan gunboat which had
landed the soldiers on the island of Patos, and among others
the following names are given as those of such subjects :
" Mrs. Jones, Dolphus, Domingue, Montout, Maxwell,
Manto (?) and George." Of these, Mrs. Jones, the only
British name on the list, was landed at Yaqua aud returned
unharmed to Trinidad. George was landed at Mapire,
" and John Manto (? or Graham) at Guyria." The most of
¦these names are certainly not suggestive of British origin,

42
and the uncertainty relating to them is well expressed by
the interrogation marks and the doubt's in the statement
which is copied textually from the report of Governor
Moloney to Mr. Chamberlain, the British secretary for the
colonies, as printed in the British Blue Book. The governor
reports that he took advantage of the presence at Trinidad
of " the commander-in-chief of the North American and
West Indian squadron," and accompanied by the colonial
secretary and the deputy inspector general of police, in His
Majesty's ship Quail, he visited the island of Patos, when he
found it uninhabited and with no house ; and he then adds :
" Very serious notice should be taken of this incident, as other
wise neither life nor property will be safe on those parts of
Trinidad which are close to Venezuela."
Now would it not strike any reasonable mind that
this was a very trifling occurrence indeed, and probably
involving three disputed questions : First, as to the
ownership of the island of Patos. Second, as to whether the-
British subject, named Edward Brown, residing in Trinidad,
was or was not engaged in transporting revolutionists, as
that is the statement promptly made by the Venezuelan
consul and the chief of the Venezuelan navy. Third,
whether the alleged British subjects on board the three
Venezuelan boats were not engaged in the same or some
other illicit traffic. At most this was a trifling and dis
puted occurrence in which the blame may be on one-
side or the other, or may be equally distributed ; but, how
ever that may be, no great harm was done to anybody.
The Venezuelan gunboats chased these boats until they
landed at Patos ; the boats were not harmed ; the people
were not harmed ; and a dispute exists as to whether the-

43
governor of Trinidad was right or Venezuela was right. But
nobody was harmed. In the intercourse of nations of equal
strength, what would happen in a matter of this kind under
the circumstances as represented in the British Blue Book?
The authorities at Trinidad seemed to be determined to
find a basis of complaint in this occurrence against Vene
zuela. There was no effort to examine into the allegations
made by the consul of Venezuela ; there was no damage
suffered, and if the Venezuelan statement was true there
was no shadow of claim for any reclamation. And yet it
has been dignified by being made the subject of twenty-
nine separate communications and statements. Now, surely
this is not a case calling for war by a power fresh from sign
ing The Hague Convention for mediation and arbitra
tion ! It would not be possible to make many such claims
justify a declaration of war.
Take the next complaint, following the order of the British
Blue Book, made March 22, 1901. It concerns au alleged
outrage on a British subject named James Nathan Kelly,
born in Trinidad, aged forty, " but who has been living in
Venezuela for the last fifteen years " — that is, ever since he was
twenty-five years old — '' where he had purchased an estate and
was cultivating coffee and cocoa to a considerable extent in Bio
Grande." That statement presents another question of great
interest to these South American countries ; and it is also
of great interest to some European countries — that is,
whether a person who deliberately changes his domicile,
who abandons the country of his birth, and by every sign
of value indicates his intention to remain the rest of his
life in another country is still to be accorded exceptional
treatment by the country with whose lot he has cast in his

44
own. I beg you to consider if a British subject had taken
up his home, when twenty -five years of age, in the United
States, had lived there for fifteen years, had invested his
means there, and had given no sign of intention to return
to his own country, whether Great Britain would demand
for him better treatment than is accorded the citizens
of the country where he has made his home ; for in con
sidering this question of reclamation by one country on be
half of persons born in it against another country in which
they reside, there certainly ought to be some forbearance when
the persons on whose behalf the reclamation was made have
abandoned the" country of their birth, chosen a home in an
other country, invested their means there, and are living there
without the slightest apparent intention of returning to the
country of their birth. Another fact of importance in Kelly's
case was that at this time the province of Rio Grande was oc
cupied by troops of the Venezuelan government in pursuit of
the insurrectionists' forces, and it is alleged an officer arrested
Kelly, who was sitting at his own door, and dragged him be
fore a court-martial. In the meantime, it was also alleged
that his house was broken open and pillaged. " Goods to the
value of three hundred dollars, furniture worth three hundred
dollars, cocoa to the value of ten hundred and forty dollars,
fifteen hundred dollars in cash, and a cutter valued at five
hundred dollars " were taken away by the soldiers. These
values in round numbers so closely resemble the exaggerated
claims usually made in such cases as to have called for very
careful investigation. Kelly's wife took refuge, it is said, in
the woods near Rio Grande, and, making her way to Guyria,
eventually reached Trinidad in great distress. Since the
first pillage above recounted, Kelly's estate had been sub-

45
jected, it is alleged, to further depredations ; but surely
it is needless to say that occurrences of this character are
almost certain to occur during the existence of civil war in
almost every country, and, of course, they are far more
likely to occur in a country like Venezuela than in more
settled communities. But they occurred frequently in
the United States during our Civil War. They are never
to be excused, but they are always to be expected, and
when they happen they should be very carefully exam
ined. In other words, a British subject who has been
living there for fifteen years was arrested by the soldiers,
his property taken, and himself taken before a court-martial
Venezuela replied that Kelly was engaged in aiding the in
surrectionists in Rio Grande, and that his losses were grossly
exaggerated. Here were three serious questions demanding
an impartial investigation : First, was Kelly assisting the in
surrectionists? Second, had he virtually abandoned Trinidad
and become a Venezuelan ? Third, what amount of loss had
he really sustained ? Instead of examining any of these mat
ters, the British minister at Caracas remains quiet under this
allege outrage upon a British subject from June 19, 1901, to
November 20, 1902, just five months after Great Britain and
Germany had agreed upon joint action against Venezuela, and
eighteen months after Venezuela had made her answer to
the complaint ; and this is not an unfair sample and type of
the cases which now are offered to yo\x as a justification for
making war upon Venezuela; and the British authorities
then introduced evidence such as one would expect to find
in operatic comedy, for they offer to you as proof of the
loyalty of Kelly the affidavits of the chief of the insurrec
tion and of two of his officers who were then living in

46
Trinidad under the protection of the British government
While it is frankly admitted that " it is impossible for any one
to give an opinion as to the value of the amount of the loss,"
which, " according to Kelly's estimate, amounts to $3,640,"
an amount which is stoutly denied by the Venezuelan in
spectors, it is nevertheless demanded that Venezuela shall
pay to Kelly all he claims on the extraordinary ground that
the Venezuelan government " has not disproved Kelly's claim."
Justice to the British Foreign Office requires it to be said,
however, that Lord Lansdowne did not allow this case of
Kelly to appear in his list of alleged wrongs by Venezuela,
dated at the foreign office July 20, 1902, nor in the list of
July 29, 1902, nor in the memorandum furnished the ad
miralty August 8, 1902, nor in the memorandum of such
alleged wrongs communicated to the German ambassador
October 22, 1902. It may therefore be safely asserted that,
even in the opinion of Great Britain, this case did not call
for war by a power fresh from signing The Hague Conven
tions for mediation and arbitration.
There is no doubt whatever that if England, Germany,
and Italy can satisfy this Tribunal that they had adequate
cause for declaring war, causes which were of such a char
acter as to merit your approval, then they are entitled to
preferential treatment. But if they had no such causes as in
your judgment justified the delivery of the ultimatums they
delivered, and recourse to the force which they employed,
then it is impossible to award them preferential treatment.
We desire, therefore, that the true character ofthese alleged
outrages shall be apparent to you, and that each of them
shall be carefully examined by you ; and they are sum
marized in a note of the British government demanding im-

47
mediate reparation for these alleged wrongs, and upon
failure to grant it the declaration of war followed. Unnec
essary war, of course, ought not to come here for an award
of merit. This is the Tribunal of the Peace Conference,
and therefore not a Tribunal which can possibly award
merit for making war unless the war was fully justified. If
the causes alleged for the war are utterly insufficient, then
the war is not justified ; so that not only in this case but in
all similar cases the nations of the world will know what is
expected of them. They must not attempt to collect friv
olous, unimportant, or unverified claims by a resort to force.
Let us take the next complaint. It relates to the burning
of a small vessel, a sloop called the " Maria Teresa," the
property of an alleged British subject, by a Venezuelan
gunboat off Guyria ; but the " Maria Teresa," it appears,
was sailing under tlie Venezuelan flag, although alleged to be
owned by D. Wilson, a native of Grenada, and therefore by
birth a British subject. It further appears that during a
then recent disturbance in the gulf of Paria this vessel fell
into the hands of disaffected persons at Yrapa, and that the
owner obeyed their orders and took au officer of the insur
rectionary forces on board. In this situation the " Miranda,"
a Venezuelan gunboat, entered that port and fired two shots
at the " Maria Teresa," and she was afterwards captured and
set on fire. During the burning of the ship, Wilson, the
owner, appears to have been on shore at Guyria, as an al
leged prisoner of the insurrectionary authorities. These
facts show that this boat was sailing under the Venezuelan
flag, but in the custody of the insurrectionists, and it would
seem to be eminently proper that the Venezuelan gunboat
should capture and burn her. Venezuela was engaged in

48
suppressing a formidable insurrection, and here was a vessel
sailing under her own flag and serving the insurrectionists,
and she captured and burned her. Why should not she do
so ? And yet the British Blue Book discloses that this pre
tended outrage was reported in great detail and commented
upon in no less than twenty-six communications and state
ments. The Venezuelan government gave a prompt and full state
ment of the circumstances the moment they were questioned
about it. The commander of the gunboat said that they
were crossing opposite the harbor of Guyria, then in the
control of the rebel forces :
" Having drawn near to the shore, we noticed a sloop
putting out to sea with great haste. By Gen. Rosales'
orders we started in pursuit of her, but the sloop not obey
ing the signal to stop, it was necessary to fire one or two
blank shots to make her lie to, as she afterwards did. She
turned out to be the ' Maria Teresa.' The only two men on
board of her informed us they put into Guyria by order of
the rebel chief, that he was then at Yrapa, and that they
had, seeing the steamer, endeavored to flee. General
Rosales then ordered them to sail to Trinidad, setting them
at liberty. We were already leaving the spot when we saw
that the ' Maria Teresa,' instead of sailing for Trinidad, was
making for the land as fast as she could, with her bow
pointed to Yrapa. This being exactly opposite to the orders
she had received, and exceedingly suspicious at such a time,
we therefore again gave her chase and captured her. Not
being able to tow her into any port, because by so doing we
should abandon the cruise, General Rosales resolved to de
stroy the sloop as being one of the vessels used by the revo
lutionists. The boat was in ballast, and nothing whatever
of her contents was touched. The two men who comprised

49
her crew were transferred to the ' Miranda ' without ill-treat
ment of any kind whatever. No documents were fouud on
board the ' Maria Teresa ' which might prove the ownership
of the vessel. The statements of the men and their doubly
attempted flight proved their complicity with the rebellion."
It does seem incredible that a government like Great
Britain, even if these facts were inaccurate, would make the
destruction of a vessel sailing under the Venezuelan flag,
with two men on board alleged to be in the service of the
revolutionists, a basis for war.
Look at the next alleged outrage, April 9, 1901. That
outrage was alleged to have been committed upon
John Craig, a fisherman of Trinidad, and his fishing
boat the " Sea Horse." He is said to have proceeded to
the suspected island of Patos and there to have met another
boat, " the ' Buena Fe,' belonging to Simon Revera, a Vene
zuelan citizen." This meeting place of these two boats, it will
be observed, was the island of Patos, of disputed sovereignty
and of very suspicious reputation; and to this island came
three men from a small Venezuelan guarda costa, who are
alleged to have assaulted Simon Revera, a Venezuelan citizen,
but are stated not to have touched John Craig, a British
citizen. As in the former case, there was a suspicious run
ning away by at least one of the men who had landed upon
this suspicious island, and the Venezuelan sailors are then
alleged to have seized, not only the " Buena Fe," which be
longed to Simon Revera, a citizen of Venezuela, but also the
fishing boat "Sea Horse," belonging to John Craig. In
this case it would certainly be natural that as John
Craig took his fishing boat, the " Sea Horse," to the suspicious
island of Patos, to meet there another boat owned by a
4

50
Venezuelans suspicion should arise that they were engaged
in some illegal or contraband transaction. This alleged out
rage is treated in sixteen communications and statements.
In this case not only was the British claim to exclusive
sovereignty over the island of Patos flatly contradicted on
behalf of Venezuela, which itself laid claim to such sov-
eignty, but the citizenship of John Craig was also a matter
of dispute, the Venezuelan authorities claiming that he was
a native of Marguerita, and therefore a citizen of Venezuela ;
and the British minister at Caracas thought it a sufficient
answer to this allegation to say that John Craig was a British
name, though in the first outrage the list of names suggested
anything but British origin. The Venezuelan authorities
also offered evidence to show that they were justified in be
lieving that John Craig was engaged in smuggling, and
indeed, his own failure to give any reason for meeting the
Venezuelan boat at the island of Patos would seem strongly
to support that suspicion. Now, certainly there are here
presented three most serious questions, affirmed on the one
side and denied on the other: (a) As to the ownership of
the island of Patos ; (b) as to the citizenship of John Craig ;
{c) as to the suspicions attached to the boat at the time of
its seizure ; all of which questions could only properly be re
solved by a reference of them to an impartial examination
and decision.
The alleged outrage itself was very trifling. No damage
was done to John Craig, no injury was suffered by him, and
yet not only did the British government make the occurrence
the subject of complaint and allege it as a cause for war, but
they actually took up the case of the Venezuelan vessel, the
" Buena Fe." The harbormaster at Trinidad felt the em-

51
barrassment of the situation, as is shown by his statement :
" He informs me that he has resided in Trinidad for about
three years, and his vessel being under the Venezuelan flag,
I have advised him to make his complaint to the Venezuelan
consul." He admits that the vessel was under the Vene
zuelan flag. It is not that this claim is for damages, as if
John Craig was before a commission and endeavoring to
satisfy an impartial tribunal that he had been unjustly
treated and entitled to damages, but it is made a cause for
war without examination into the facts and without any im
partial investigation whatever.
If possible, the next case is even more remarkable. It re
lates to the seizure of the sloop "Pastor," August 31, 1901,
by the Venezuelan gunboat " Totuma," and again the
locality of the seizure is off the suspected island of Patos.
The person who, in this case, invokes the protection of the
British government is called Numa Audry. He says he is
a native of the island of Trinidad, and that while off Patos,
in his sloop, the captain of the Venezuelan gunboat
" Totuma " commanded the boat to stop, the captain was
taken prisoner, and the next morning the sloop was towed
to Guyria by the " Totuma," and that he himself " was de
tained for two hours at the custom-house." In the second state
ment, however, he admits that he had a passport dated
August 19, 1901, just twelve days before the alleged outrage,
issued to him by the Venezuelan consul at Port of Spain, so
that evidently he was then a citizen of Venezuela. He
says that his "box was rummaged and his razors were
stolen." Thecaptainwasa Venezuelan. He says, " Everybody
on the sloop was ultimately released, and I returned to the
sloop." Really an occurrence of that character would hardly

52
seem to justify the seizing and sinking of the ships, the bom
barding of the forts, and the blockading of the ports of
Venezuela by a power fresh from signing The Hague Con
vention for mediation and arbitration. If so trifling a mat
ter was to be made the subject of serious complaint, certainly
some method should have been suggested by the British
government for an impartial investigation of the facts con
cerning it; and iu all these alleged outrages it must never
be forgotten that the government of Venezuela believed that
upon the island of Trinidad the enemies of the existing admin
istration of Venezuela were allowed to carry on their plans
with absolute liberty. The Venezuelan government asserted
that " a proof of the hostile deeds which there are done
without hindrance lies in the fact that only a short time ago
two bodies of invaders issued from that colony. The first,
which was completely defeated, returned to the island ; and
of the second, various prisoners, forming a living testimony
of the invasion, fell into the power of the Venezuelan mili
tary authorities as the result of defeat."
It thus became largely a question of attitude. If there had
been shown in these transactions the slightest desire for a
friendly and amicable arrangement some evidence would
have appeared of it. On the contrary, the British minister at
Caracas sent a dispatch to the governor of Trinidad, saying
that the Venezuelan government " has just informed me
that a few days ago a great quantity of rifles and cartridges
were disembarked in the island of Tobago, an island near the
island of Patos, in a suspicious manner, suggesting that an
attempt may be made to produce a disturbance with them
in Venezuela. The minister for foreign affairs has begged
my mediation with Your Excellency in the matter. To this

53
I am replying that it is one entirely for the internal admin
istration of the colony of Trinidad. He also begged me to
communicate with Your Excellency immediately." And on
December 2, 1901, the minister wrote to the Venezuelan
minister for foreign affairs as follows:
" In my note to Your Excellency of the 22d ultimo, I in
formed you that I had lost no time in forwarding to the
governor at Trinidad the request of the Venezuelan govern
ment that measures should be taken as soon as possible to
prevent the export of certain arms from the island of Tobago,
which, as Your Excellency surmised, were possibly to be
used in an attempt to produce a disturbance among the
Venezuelan people. I have now received His Excellency's
reply, in which he states that this matter has been under
his consideration, and that he has no knowledge or control
over the purposes and direction of these arms, and that he
has no information to lead him to suppose they are going
to be used as is alleged. Neither can His Excellency find
any precedent whatever in favor of interference, nor is he
prepared in view of the condition of things prevailing in the
Spanish main, to accept the grave consequences of any such
action against what he is given to understand is legitimate busi
ness." That is, this struggling and defenseless country, seek
ing to suppress an insurrection, through its minister for for
eign affairs addresses a respectful communication to the gov
ernor of Trinidad, saying that arms and munitions of war
are being landed in British territory and are about to be
transferred to Venezuela for use by the insurgents, and re
quests him to give assistance to prevent their application to
such purposes. The governor of Trinidad replies that, in
view of " the conditions existing on the Spanish main," it is

54
quite impossible for him to do so, and that he sees no rea
son for interfering with what he calls " legitimate business."
Everything I am presenting to you I have gathered from
the British Blue Book, of which we have presented you
copies, and you have an illustration in this correspondence
of the temper of the British authorities at Trinidad toward
the Venezuelan government.
You have five complaints by the British government up
to this time, and their character I have fully disclosed to
you ; so that you see on one side prompt answers by Vene
zuela in every case of alleged outrage, and on the other
hand a refusal by the British authorities of Trinidad to help
to prevent assistance being given to the insurrection from
that island.
It is this attitude which led to the blockade ; these are the
matters and the only ones which led up to the declaration
of war, and it is only when Your Honors understand them,
when you weigh their import, their gravity, and the pro
priety of making them causes for war, that you can wisely
know and properly decide whether the war was justified or
not. If the war was justified, then beyond any question the
Allies are entitled to your approval. If the war was not
justified, then as certainly they are not entitled to your ap
proval ; so that the marrow of the whole matter lies in
the true character of the alleged occurrences which are
claimed to have justified the declaration of war; and,
as I said in the beginning, as the Allies made com
mon cause, the acts of one are binding upon them
all, and if we succeed in showing that Great Britain
had no justification for making war upon Venezuela,
then we have succeeded in demonstrating beyond any

55
possible question that she and her Allies are not en
titled to preferential treatment over the nations which did
not make war. It is therefore the very essence of our con
troversy that you should know thoroughly each step taken
towards the declaration of war from the beginning of the
alleged outrages which were said to have justified it up to
the moment when Lord Lansdowne instructed the British
minister to present his ultimatum and allow Venezuela a
very brief time indeed in which to accept it ; and, in default
of acceptance, to have her ports blockaded by the hostile
navies of Great Britain, Germany, and Italy.
That is the meaning of the ethical question which we say
is presented here ; that is the reason why we have never
thought it required any detailed examination of any facts
other than the facts alleged by the Allies themselves as com
pletely justifying their action in declaring war. If they can
satisfy you that they were completely justified, then they
merit your affirmative approval, and you must award them
the preferential treatment they ask. If we can satisfy you
that they were not justified in making war upon Venezuela,
then you cannot award them preferential treatment over the
governments which desisted from making war. So that, I re
peat, the whole marrow of the question, as we understand it,
is there. That question is involved in detail. It is irksome
to me to present it to you as it is irksome to you to hear it,
but it is indispensable, and therefore it is my duty to present
it in detail, and it is your duty to listen to it, as you have
done with the most exemplary patience.
After all, then, it is an ethical question which is presented
in this controversy and only an ethical question, because it
involves the construction of the duties of these blockading

56
powers after the signing of the conventions of The Hague
Conference. It involves the question of the duties ofthe allied
powers and whether they discharged them as required by
those conventions. In other words, was the war they waged
upon Venezuela a just and necessary war or not ? We know
very well that The Hague Conference and this Tribunal com
bined cannot abolish war. Cases have occurred in the past
and will occur again in which it will be absolutely impossible
for the matters in dispute to be brought here. Take the case
of our own civil war. Assuming that this Tribunal had then
been in existence, there were many millions of American
citizens living south of a certain designated line who honestly
believed that they were entitled to have their one country
separated by that line into two countries. North of that line
there were equally honest citizens who believed it was their
duty to spend the last drop of their blood and the last dollar
of their treasure to prevent such separation. That is a con
troversy that it would be impossible to submit to arbitration,
and there are innumerable instances of the same kind ; but
throughout all American history there has been shown an
ardent desire to settle all questions by arbitration which can
be so settled.
When the public mind of a great people becomes inflamed
with martial ardor the government will often be obliged to
accede to the demands of the people ; so that there will be
wars, perhaps neither just nor necessary, the causes of which
cannot be brought here, aud there will be just and necessary
wars in the future as in the past, upon which this Tribunal
ought to put no mark of disapproval. It is a Peace Tribunal,
and was instituted in the interests of peace, but a just and
necessary war offers no occasion to this Tribunal to condemn

o.

it. The question will recur, when you read the British Blue
Book with the care it deserves, was the war waged by these
three great powers against Venezuela, was the sinking of her
defenseless little ships, the bombarding of her defenseless
forts, the closing of her ports to the commerce of the world,
which Lord Lansdowne declared were, of course, acts of war,
which the prime minister declared were acts of war — were
these acts of war just and necessary? If they were, and as
these acts produced the fund you are about to distribute, then
it will be necessary for you to decide whether the principle
of equality of States as recognized in the distribution of the
fund extorted from China should be followed or whether the
parties who made war upon Venezuela are justly entitled
to preference of treatment. But before you can reach that
question you will have to decide that it was a just and necessary
war. It is for these reasons that we have called to your atten
tion the character of tbe incidents alleged by Great Britain
as a basis for making war upou Venezuela. I have shown
you five such trifling, unimportant incidents as I submit
nobody can really argue furnished just cause for war at any
period of history. When, ou the other hand, Venezuela asked
the British authorities in Trinidad to prevent the sale of
arms to insurgents who were engaged in carrying on an
insurrection against a government with which Great Britain
was at peace, she received this reply : " His Majesty is not
able to find any precedent whatever in favor of interference,
nor is he prepared, in view of the condition of things pre
vailing in the Spanish main, to accept the grave conse
quences of any such action against what he is given to under
stand is legitimate business."
That is, au effort to overthrow the lawful government of

58
Venezuela is legitimate business in the opinion of the gov
ernor of Trinidad, and any person wishing to aid the insur
rection by selling it arms and munitions of war is engaged
in legitimate business.
I beg you will not misunderstand the views which prevail
and find frequent expression in the contemporary literature
of the day as to the necessity of some European or American
country conquering Venezuela. It is not for a moment in
tended to assert that those statements are correct. It is only
intended to point out that there is excuse for the existence-
of suspicion on the part of Venezuela, which suspicion must
be taken into account by this Tribunal when complaints are-
made against her of misconduct. It cannot be expected that
the same calm, wise, and conservative action will be taken by
a country which is suspicious of attempts at conquest as by a
nation like Russia or Great Britain or Austria, reposing in the-
confidence of its strength and fearing no assault upon its exist
ence. Their public men are, of course, in a" much calmer
and wiser state of mind than the public men of a distracted
country which believes itself to be confronted with a war of
conquest. We therefore ask you to consider whether a great
nation like Austria would seriously press upon a great na
tion like Russia any causes of complaint of the already
described character or whether Russia would seriously
urge them upon the attention of Austria ; because, after
all, noblesse oblige, and it is important to the peace of
the world that great and powerful nations should treat the
weak and defenseless nations with a respectful consideration
and with a recognition of the fact that, after all, they are
independent members of the family of nations. Suppose,.
for instance, Austria complains that she was endeavoring to-

59
suppress an insurrection, and that Russia was allowing mu
nitions of war to be sent to the insurrectionists, does any one
suppose that Russia would send to Austria the same char
acter of reply which the governor of Trinidad made to
Venezuela ?
We come now to the next alleged wrong. It is that a small
colonial sloop, said to be British owned while in the waters
of Venezuela, was seized and detained by the Venezuelan
authorities. Now, again, the circumstances are detailed in
the British Blue Book. The sloop had no papers, she was
abandoned by her crew, and Venezuela alleged that she had
been engaged in smuggling operations, and there the matter
rests. There was never any investigation, there was never
any inquiry to which Venezuela was a party. Great Britain
accused Venezuela, and Venezuela replied by making alle
gations against the sloop and the people whom she was
alleged to have offended. All the alleged injuries were of
the smallest and most trifling character. No British subject
was killed; no British subject was even seriously injured.
Consider the contrast presented when the complaint is
against one of the powerful nations.
One day the American people awakened to find that
several subjects of the King of Italy while under the protec
tion of our laws had been brutally murdered, and when Italy,
justly indignant, demanded reparation the American Secre
tary of State informed that government that the outrage had
occurred in the State of Louisiana, and that the National gov
ernment could not interfere with the course of justice in that
State or even guarantee that the persons who perpetrated the
outrage were punished. A correspondence ensued discussing
the question on both sides, and finally the United States

60
made a payment of money, as she was bound to do, to
Italy ; but there was no suggestion of sending a fleet
to bombard the port of New Orleans ; there was no
sinking of ships; there was no bombarding of forts.
It was felt that a great wrong had been perpetrated,
but it could not be repaired by war; and, though Italy
possesses a great navy, she never thought of resorting
to war to correct the admitted and grievous wrong which
had been done her. Here, on the contrary, a few little
fishing boats, alleged to be engaged in smuggling opera
tions, are seized by the Venezuelan authorities. One little
boat is burned, one is condemned, and in every other
case the injuries are of a similar insignificant character. In
one ofthese alleged outrages one of the alleged victims is an
American, in another one of them is a citizen of Venezuela,
and in another the vessel was worth only $200. Now, at no
previous period of the world's history, however anxious
governments may have been to find cause for war, would
such occurrences as these, it is believed, have been made an
occasion for war. I wish again to call your very careful at
tention to the facts concerning them. I repeat — I do not
ask you to rely upon my statement of them. They are fully
detailed in our preliminary examination and in the
British Blue Book. Counsel are very apt to be prejudiced
in favor of their side of a controversy and to overstate cir
cumstances on their side and to understate circumstances in
favor of their opponents; and if we have done any injustice
in that respect we hope you will correct it. The govern
ments we represent only wish a just award.
We beg you to consider in detail another of these alleged
outrages :

61
" I saw the schooner ' In Time ' at anchor, the sails un
bent. Two British subjects whose names I do not know, left
the schooner as soon as the ' Crespo ' fired at the village, leav
ing nobody on board. I was on shore hiding about five
hundred yards from the ' In Time.' One of the ' Crespo's '
boats boarded the ' In Time,' hoisted her anchor and towed
her to the ' Crespo ' and made her fast to that vessel. By
their movements on board I knew that they were breaking
up the vessel. Meanwhile she was being towed down the
river by the gunboat and gradually getting lower into the
water. After going about a mile the hull of the schooner
disappeared, her mast remaining visible. I did not see her
again. I am an American citizen, ; was bom in Boston ; I
have been in Venezuela since T was nine years old. My own
boat I had previously secured in a creek and she escaped destruc
tion. Signed, Joachim Bodriguez, his mark."
William Waith, of Port of Spain, a domestic servant,
stated that in October, 1900 —
"I bought for $200 at Morow Hanna, British Guiana,
Parima district, the river boat ' In Time.' In April, 1901, I
took her with a cargo to Ciudad Bolivar. I left the schooner
there." A small boat, bought for $200 by a domestic servant,
whose nationality was not given, passed into the ownership
of an American citizen. She had been, it was alleged,
carrying provisions to insurgents, but had been abandoned,
and she was believed to have been engaged in .smuggling,
and the Venezuelan authorities captured and burned her.
There is a case for diplomacy. What does Mr. de
Staal say? " Diplomacy, as we all know, has for its ob
ject the prevention and the appeasement of conflicts

62
between states, the softening of rivalries, the conciliation of
interests, the clearing up of misunderstandings, and the
substitution of harmony for discord." With these facts be
fore them, the British authorities really seem to have acted as
if it was a case like the famous case in our Civil War, where
Captain Wilkes, of our navy, stopped a British mail steamer
on the high seas aud took from her Messrs. Mason and
Slidell and carried them to Boston and put them in prison
there. There was a case whieh would have fully justified
Great Britain in resorting to extreme measures, but she
allowed us to explain the situation, although there was a
serious infraction of British sovereignty. In that case, sail
ing under the British flag on the high seas, pursuing her
lawful way, a British steamer was stopped by armed force,
two of her passengers taken from her by like force and
then imprisoned. You will find that the governor of Trin
idad and the British governor general and the British min
ister at Caracas showed almost as much hostility and
violence about this little abandoned boat, worth $200,
owned by a domestic servant, alleged to have been carry
ing provisions to the insurgents, as Great Britain showed
in the case of the "Trent." It is impossible to exaggerate
the extraordinary loss of the sense of proportion by the rep
resentatives of Great Britain iii dealing with these small
matters. You will be surprised when you come to read the
treatment this incident received, so clearly out of all propor
tion to its importance. Different nations in Europe were
obliged to remonstrate with us during our civil war for the
ill treatment of their subjects. If you will read the diplo
matic correspondence between the United States and Great
Britain and the United States and Germany during our

63
civil war, you will find many cases of far greater gravity
than an}' in this correspondence, not one of which was
alleged as a basis for making war except the taking
of Messrs. Mason and Slidell from the " Trent." Now, in
these cases, six in all, not a British subject was harmed, not
an indignity was willingly committed, not an allegation of
a wrong was made which was not promptly answered and the
reasons given for the action taken, and yet this extraordinary
telegram is sent by Lord Lansdowne to the British minister
at Caracas: "The liberty and the property of British sub
jects have been in a succession of cases interfered with in a
wholly unwarrantable manner by the Venezuelan govern
ment. The following incidents have been the subject of
serious consideration by His Majesty's government: The
action of the gunboat ' Augusto ' in seizing and deporting
certain British subjects in January, 1901, the seizure of John
Craig's boat and property on Patos in the February follow
ing, the similar efforts on the same occasion in the case of
the ' Buena Fe,' which was accompanied by a violation of
treaty, and the cases of the vessels ' Maria Teresa,' ' Pas
tor,' ' Indiana,' and ' In Time.' No satisfactory explana
tions have been received from the Venezuelan government
in any of these cases." I have told you what their excuses
were ; in every single instance they ought to have been
satisfactory to any fair-minded person, to the extent, at
least, of requiring very careful examination. Yet Lord Lans
downe continues : " His Majesty's government cannot toler
ate a continuance of the conduct which culminated in the
last-mentioned incident and you will address a formal pro
test respecting it to the Venezuelan government. You will
say to the President and the minister of foreign affairs in

64
unmistakable terms that unless the Venezuelan government
promptly pays to the injured parties full compensation when
ever satisfactory evidence has been furnished to His Majesty's
government that such is justly due, His Majesty's government
will take such steps as may be necessary to obtain the repa
ration which they are entitled to demand from the Vene
zuelan government in these cases, as well as for any loss to
British subjects caused by the unjustifiable conduct of the
acting Venezuelan consul at Trinidad, and on account of the
railway claims."
In thus suddenly but very suggestively introducing " the
railway claims " and claims of a similar character these allied
governments would seem to run counter to the views of two
very eminent statesmen. Lord Salisbury expressed himself
with his usual directness as to the impropriety of making
war to collect alleged debts of financial adventurers in
foreign countries, and we find Prince Bismarck of opinion
that it was " undesirable to inject the policy of Germany in
anything that may smack of intervention in favor of specu
lators who undertake transactions in a foreign country with
a full knowledge of doing so for their account and at their
risk." It now appears that war is to be declared not for a little
fishing boat bought by a domestic servant for $200 and
owned by an American citizen, or for detaining suspected
persons two hours in a custom-house, but on account of the
railway claims. " First the missionary, then the financial
adventurer, then the gunboat.-' In this case the missionary
was dispensed with. Now, certainly this dispute is of an
extraordinary character with Great Britain — with such
powerful allies as Germany and Italy on the one side and

65
Venezuela, engaged iii a life and death struggle to sup
press an insurrection and continually hampered by smug
gling and insurrectionary expeditions on the other side,
and in view of the professions of the Allies at The Hague
Conference, as well as in view of the provisions of the
conventions to which they had been principal signatory
powers, it was, we submit, incumbent upon them to urge her
again and again to refer these unimportant matters to im
partial arbitration for the ascertainment of the facts and the
decision whether any, and, if any, what, damages ought to
be paid by Venezuela to any of the alleged sufferers from
these occurrences, as well as to refer to arbitration both the
railway and similar claims. On the contrary, they not only
peremptorily declared all the explanations offered by the
Venezuelan government unsatisfactory, but they directed
their diplomatic representatives to inform the Venezuelan
government in uumistakable terms that, unless the demands
thus peremptorily presented were at once granted, compli
ance with them would be enforced by war. Tlie replies of
the Venezuelan government were as dignified, as conserva
tive, and as deprecatory of the wrath of the Allies as pos
sibly could have been expected under the circumstances.
Meanwhile the Venezuelan government, finding these
small and trifling occurrences threateningly arrayed against
her, had recalled attention to the fact that she had been
persistently making a claim against the British government
of far greater importance and resting upon a far more sub-
stautial basis. You will find the story told in the British Blue
Book and the Venezuela Yellow Book in our Appendix, and
it is briefly this :
While Venezuela was engaged in suppressing the insur-
5

66
rection headed by General Matos, who was living in Trini
dad and conducting thence expeditions against Venezuela,
he conceived the idea of securing a warship and having it
assist his insurrection. He bought a ship lying in the
port of London called the "Ban Righ," and under the
eyes of His Majesty's officials he transformed that ship
in the port of London into a man-of-war. Notwithstanding
the earnest protestations of the Venezuelan government, that
vessel thus transformed into a man-of-war was allowed to sail
from the port of London to Antwerp. There she received her
guns and ammunition and then she started on her unlawful
career. Venezuela from time to time implored the British
government to refuse to countenance the buying and fitting
out of this ship by General Matos, as her character was per
fectly well known to the Venezuelan government and had
been com municated to the officers ofthe port of London. And
yet, under the pretense that she was for the Colombian gov
ernment, she was allowed to enlist a crew of English sailors
in the port of London and to sail away to Antwerp and
there receive munitions of war and armament, and then sail
to the Caribbean sea, and while at sea she was transferred to
General Matos, who took command of her — the leader
of the insurrection against Venezuela. She was then
allowed to pursue her course of depredation by the
British government, was given a welcome in British ports,
allowed in such ports to refit and recoal against the protest
of Venezuela, and to change her name and flag three or four
times — running up a British flag or a Colombian flag or a
Venezuelan flag as it suited the purpose of General Matos,
to whom she had been transferred, and changing her name
as freely as she changed her flag ; and to all the protests of

67
Venezuela the British government replied : She is said to be
a Colombian vessel, and we cannot stop her. They knew
that she belonged to General Matos, but they would not take
any steps against her, and they actually threatened Venezuela
that if she injured a single British sailor on this ship, which
was making open war upon her, they would hold Venezuela
responsible to the last extremity.
When Venezuela received this last dispatch she replied
that she could not consider the trifling and unimportant
claims made against her as long as Great Britain refused
even to consider Venezuela's reclamations on account of the
" Ban Righ." Over and over again, in dispatches which
would not reflect discredit on any government, Venezuela
points out what she is suffering from the depredations of this
unlawful ship, and she received only curt replies, refusing
even to discuss the matter.
It is very curious, but it is none the less true, that some
thing very similar happened once before, and on that occasion
also it was the British government which did almost ex
actly the same thing, under almost exactly the same
circumstances. We were engaged in suppressing what we
called a rebellion, although the Confederate States were
a belligerent power, and therefore at perfect liberty, as Gen
eral Matos was not, to employ a recognized flag, and thereby
make their vessels legitimate vessels of war, instead of being
without any recognized flag, as the " Ban Righ " was, and
therefore without any lawful status, even on the high seas,
and much less in the ports of a nation at peace with Vene
zuela ; and one of the most interesting controversies in diplo
matic history is that which details the efforts of our very able
and distinguished minister at London, Mr. Charles Francis

68
Adams, to prevent the sailing of the Confederate cruisers.
His grandfather had been President of the United States,
succeeding General Washington ; and his father had also
been President of the United States, and he was himself
one of our most distinguished and honored citizens. When
he discovered that in the ports of Great Britain vessels were
being fitted out to destroy American commerce and to break
the blockade of the Confederate ports, he very energetically
protested and insisted that it would be a flagrant violation
of international law if Great Britain allowed such ships to
be built in and escape from her ports. A long correspond
ence ensued regarding the fitting out of the " Shenandoah,"
the "Alabama," and the other vessels intended for the serv
ice of the rebellion ; but all protests were unheeded. At
last Mr. Adams sent a brief, pregnant, and decisive dispatch
to Lord Russell, saying in substance : I have' done what I
could to induce the British government to respect its obliga
tions to my government, and now, I understand, in addi
tion to the " Shenandoah " and the "Alabama," you are in
danger of allowing to escape two additional armed ships
from your ports to make war upon my country. We are
in great extremity ; we are struggling to suppress the great
est civil insurrection in history, but it would be super
fluous to notify your Lordship that the escape of these
additional vessels means war. At the last moment the con
servative good sense of Great Britain, which has so often
marked her career, came to her guidance and she stopped
these two vessels, which had not yet put to sea. It was not
the threat of war which caused her to act thus. She knew
we were in a comparatively helpless condition. It was her
sense of justice which prevented these additional vessels

69
from being used against us, and it was a striking coinci
dence that before leaving his post as minister Mr. Adams
witnessed an assembling of the British fleet, and he saw in
the fleet, under the British flag, the two identical vessels
whose sailing he had prevented and thereby possibly pre
vented the disruption of his country.
Mr. Adams' opinions of the conduct of Great Britain with
reference to these vessels are singularly applicable to the
duty of the British government in the case of this vessel,
called at first " Ban Righ," and allowed to prey upou a
friendly government. The language he uses in some re
spects could have been used by the Venezuelan govern
ment in their earnest entreaties to Great Britain to regard
their protests against allowing this hostile vessel to continue
its unlawful career. In the case of the United States the
sense of injustice remained for many years a serious and
ever-growing sourse of danger to the peace of the two kin
dred countries, until at last by the wisdom of conservative
statesmen on both sides of the ocean it was agreed to submit
the question of liability for the depredations of those Con
federate cruisers to the Geneva arbitration, which awarded
the United States fifteen millions of dollars because Great
Britain had done in those cases what appears to bear a strik
ing similarity to what she has done respecting the " Ban
Righ." At least here was a question deserving a reply, a
question deserving to be treated in a tone respectful to Vene
zuela. It was, it seems to us, a question worthy ofthe consid
eration and the decision of this Tribunal : What are the obli
gations of a friendly power towards ships being fitted out
in her ports intended to be used in support of a rebellion
against a power with which she is at peace — such rebel-

70
lion not having been recognized as a belligerent power?
I do not say how that question should be decided, but I do in
sist that it is a proper question for impartial decision, and
that no nation, however powerful, in dealing with a nation
however weak, has any moral right whatever to refuse to
have it discussed and decided by an impartial tribunal. I
do insist that there are substantial merits in such a con
troversy worthy of the cognizance of this great court, a
controversy concerning the depredations of the " Ban Righ "
after she was transformed into a vessel of war in the port
of London, manned by a British crew, and turned over to
General Matos on the high seas, as the leader of an insur
rection which had not been recognized as a belligerent
power, and therefore without his having any flag he was
authorized to put at the masthead of his vessel. Such a
controvery is far more serious in its consequences and in its
character than all of the small and unimportant occurrences
alleged against Venezuela. And yet Great Britain declined
absolutely to consider the matter of the " Ban Righ " ; and
Venezuela, in her weakness, but relying on her self-respect
as an independent-nation, declared that unless you will con
sider the case of the " Ban Righ," we will not consider the
matters of which you have complained, and which we have
already explained to you, and about which we have made
sufficient answers. Great Britain curtly replied that she
would not even consider the reclamations of Venezuela on
the subject of the " Ban Righ."
I repeat, I do not venture to predict how such a question
should be decided ; but I also repeat that it is a question
proper for decision by some impartial tribunal, and that
Great Britain had no moral right to refuse to consider it. It

71
is a long story, and the Venezuelan government finally de
clares : " His Excellency, the President, does not, therefore,
think that such a situation can exist, and much less can he
admit Your Excellency's opinion that the thing is chose jug'ee.
With regard to this be is giving me orders to express very
respectfully to Your Excellency that he awaits the result of
the questions relative to the ' Ban Righ ' in order to be able,
free from any unfortunate interruptions, to continue con
sidering with Your Excellency, on bases of mutual cordiality,
the other matters which reciprocally concern the Venezuelan
government and the legation of Great Britain." It is sub
mitted with great confidence that this communication is
eminently creditable to the government of Venezuela in the
situation in which it then found itself placed, and it is of the
greatest importance to pass judgment upon this communica
tion, because, resting upon it, the Venezuelan government
declined to engage in further discussiou of the slight and
trivial causes of complaint alleged against it by the British
government, unless the British government was also will
ing to make its responsibility for the depredations of this
unlawful vessel the subject of diplomatic negotiations. Con
sideration of the matter was all Venezuela asked, and unless
Great Britain was willing to agree that the depredations of
this vessel, made a man-of-war in her port, manned by
her subjects, and welcomed in other of her ports after
she was transferred to General Matos, should become
the subject of diplomatic negotiations, Venezuela was
unwilling to make the claims alleged against her the
subject of further discussion. That is the position of
Venezuela. What was the reply made to it? Under date
of March 27, 1902, the British minister replies, notwith-

72
standing the notorious character of the ship in question : " I
am instructed by His Majesty's government to inform Vene
zuela that as it would seem that that ship is now ostensibly,
at least, a Colombian man-of-war, and is flying the Colom
bian national flag, they cannot properly direct any action
against her ; " and on May 16, 1902, the British minister at
Caracas reports to Lord Lansdowne that "the government
of Venezuela had made complaint that General Matos, the
notorious insurrectionist, was making Trinidad the base of
his attacks on Venezuela, directing, indeed, the revolution
from there. I then wrote him not to put forward any re
quest which it would be impossible to grant, such as that of
the expulsion of General Matos. * * * I pointed out
that for more than half a century Trinidad had been a
refuge of Venezuelans of all parties, one after another. Had
he ever heard of any being expelled ? Today it was Gen
eral Matos, tomorrow it might be some of the 'other party."
There is another similarity in reference to the two vessels
already mentioned which the British government proposed
to let loose against the United States, but did not let loose,
and the case of the " Ban Righ," for there also a foreign gov
ernment — that of China — was put forward as the ostensible
owner, the agents of the Confederacy having succeeded in
making a loan upon the pledge of Coufederate cotton in
Paris with a well-known banking house there, and the bank
ing house having pretended that they were buying the two
ironclads in question for the Chinese government. The
same thing happened in the case I am discussing. The
pretense of foreign ownership was full}'- exposed by the
Venezuelan government before the vessel sailed, and soon
afterwards the British government was formally notified that

73
she had been actually turned over to General Matos ; so that
it was not becoming in Great Britain to insist that she would
not even reply to the government of Venezuela on the sub
ject, but that she would regard it as chose jugee, to which, as
I have already said, Venezuela replied that it was not chose
jug'ee and could not be admitted to be such, and that, on the
contrary, Great Britain was obliged to enter into diplomatic
negotiations on that subject as well as respecting the com
plaints she made against Venezuela.
There is a striking precedent applicable in this matter.
The British government, many years ago, finding an Ameri
can sloop named " The Caroline " in the waters of the
Niagara river, which it was alleged had been engaged in
carrying arms and munitions of war to the Canadian in
surgents, seized her and set her on fire and sent her burning
over Niagara falls. The British government always re
fused to admit the slightest responsibility for doing so, say
ing that the vessel had been engaged in helping the insur
gents in Canada. Though she was flying an American flag
and was an American boat, they seized and destroyed her.
It seems to us, therefore, that in considering the question
now before you, you will find that when the issue was dis
tinctly made before the war was declared, it presented this
extraordinary situation : Six trifling, unimportant offenses
are alleged to have been committed by Venezuela during a
civil war against persons alleged to be entitled to the pro
tection of Great Britain. No life was lost, no serious injury
was inflicted, no serious damage had been suffered. On the
other hand, Great Britain had allowed a ship to be trans
formed into a man-of-war, to assist an insurrection then rag
ing in Venezuela, in the port of London, to sail thence

74
and to be welcomed in her ports, and had refused to lay her
hands upon her, thereby encouraging her to continue her
unlawful depredations against Venezuela, and the al
leged wrong-doer, Great Britain, assumes the attitude
of the injured party and makes an alliance with Ger
many to force Venezuela by their combined fleets into com
pliance with an ultimatum which refuses discussion even of
the question of the grave depredations of the " Ban Righ,"
which refuses to allow to be investigated the claims put
forward, and demands peremptorily of Venezuela that
she shall agree at once to accept in principle all the de
mands of the Allies, and that Venezuela shall have no
hearing of her complaints as to the " Ban Righ." On
the date of August 8, 1902, in view of this situation, the
British Foreign Office asks the British admiralty for their
views " as to the most effectual and convenient manner of
putting pressure on the Venezuelan government," and it is
added "Count Metternich, the German ambassador, has
suggested that the powers concerned should take part in a
joint naval demonstration." In reply to this inquiry the
admiralty encloses to the foreign office a letter from Vice-
Admiral Douglas naming the powerful ships under his com
mand and with which he could carry out a naval demon
stration against Venezuela. On October 22, 1902, the
British government communicated to the German govern
ment the hope that the latter would unite with His
Majesty's government in putting pressure upon Venezuela
and associating themselves with His Majesty's government
in this preliminary step, and in such case they may be dis
posed to instruct their representative at Caracas to inform
the Venezuelan government that the Imperial government

75
is aware of the communications which have passed between
this country and Venezuela, and " that the British and
German governments have determined to act together in
pressing the claims of their subjects upon the attention of
Venezuela." In this communication the British govern
ment for the first time, as appears by the Blue Book, to
which reference has been made, declared that it would de
mand reparation on account of the claims of the British
railway companies, and stated that there were several British
railway companies in Venezuela " which have had claims
against the government in respect of services rendered and
damage done to property by government troops, aud in
some instances for default of guaranty or else by depreciation
of government bonds."
You are much more familiar with diplomatic history than
I am, yet I venture quite respectfully to challenge my hon
orable friends, our opponents, to produce at their leisure
another instance where one government has endeavored to
extort by force from another government the losses the sub
jects of the former government have suffered by the depre
ciation of the bonds of the latter government. There may
be such cases, but I am not aware of them. On November
13, 1902, the German government informed the British
government that " in the first class of claims Germany
demands the settlement of her claims arising out of the
Venezuelan civil war of 1898-1900." England, in the
first instance, puts forward claims on account of " the
illegal removal and destruction of English merchant ships,"
being the trifling cases of the fishing boats already dis
cussed ; and you are now face to face with the true pur
pose of all this hectoring of Venezuela over these trifling

76
and disputed injuries. In the event of the two powers hav
ing recourse to coercive measures, it was agreed that they
would both make further demands. Germany would demand
the settlement of her claims arising out of the present Vene
zuelan civil war, amounting at the present time to approxi
mately 3,000,000 bolivares, and also the guaranteeing of the
claims of the German creditors, especially those of the Dis
conto Gesellschaft, amounting to approximately 41,000,000
bolivares. England would likewise assert the demands of
her subjects, especially the claims of the English railways in
Venezuela, on account of the damage done their lines and
failure to meet deferred liabilities ; these claims of the second
class to be combined according to their several natures
by the adoption of " the joint proposals recently agreed
upon by the Disconto Gesellschaft and the several groups of
English creditors interested in the settlement of the Vene
zuelan loans of 1881 and 1896. The German government
is of the opinion that these proposals are just, aud may
therefore be considered as a suitable basis for a settlement
of the Venezuelan external debt." And here follows au
extraordinary proposition to emanate from two such gov
ernments : " Among the above named proposals is contem
plated the floating of a new loan." Is there in the archives
of any foreign office such a proposal as that ? Two great
governments and two great foreign ministers engaged in
floating loans for the advantage of the Disconto Gesell
schaft and other promoters of foreign loans; and these
commercial propositions are to be made the basis of war —
the ground for sinking ships, bombarding forts, and clos
ing the ports of Arenezuela against the world. Does the
history of diplomacy furnish another instance of the kind?

77
It may be so, but I doubt it. So, at last, these two great
European monarchies, fresh from signing the conventions
of the Peace Conference, have entered into an alliance
for the purpose of extorting from this weak and dis
tracted country such reparation as they say they deem
proper, and for such demands as they say they deem just,
and, above all, to float a new loan; and at the same time,
in the case of Great Britain, refusing even to consider
the claims of Venezuela based on the depredations commit
ted by the ship " Ban Righ," made a man-of-war at London,
manned by her subjects, and, after her delivery to General
Matos, welcomed in her ports. On November 17, 1902, these
two great nations further agreed that if joint action against
Venezuela is undertaken, "it should be maintained until
the demands of both sides as finally agreed upon are satis
fied. * * * The British claims, as Count-Metternich pre
sumed, were capable of classification. Those on account of
recent cases of unjustifiable interference with the liberty and
the property of British su bjects, including the shipping claims,
would rank first. Claims for injury to British property during
the late revolution, and that which placed President Castro in
power would come next, aud, in the third place, the claims of
the bondholders. His Majesty's government did not, how
ever, desire in their demands upon Venezuela to draw a dis
tinction between the various categories. Their object was
to have a general settlement. They were of the opinion that
to advance one class of claims or, at this stage, to specify any
particular amount would diminish the chance of securing in
all cases the reparation which they considered to be justly
due. If, therefore, the answer of the Venezuelan govern
ment to the communication recently addressed to them would

78
prove unsatisfactory, or if, after a reasonable interval, it
should appear that no answer at all would be returned, His
Majesty's government would propose to proceed to measures
of coercion and to seize the gunboats. If the seizure of the
gunboats should not produce the desired effect, it would of
course be necessary to decide what should be the next step.
This point would be carefully considered."
I beg Your Honors to also consider that there is an ample
justification for the very profound interest the United States
feels in this controversy in the statement I have just quoted.
We have no desire to have trouble with any country in the
world. The country in which we now are placed us under
great obligations because in the neighboring harbor of Delft
our earliest pilgrims found shelter and sailed from thence
to start our country on its career. We would not have
achieved our independence, probably, but for the assistance
of France. We have for two hundred years been indebted
in manifold ways to Great Britain. Our obligations to Ger
many are innumerable. In the ver}' crisis of our civil war
Russia probably saved us from great humiliation and great
disaster ; and to Italy all the world is under obligations for
the charm and grace and culture she has added to human
life ; and we sincerely wish to remain at peace with them
all. Eighty years ago, however, when we were a small and
weak nation, our government thought it its duty to an
nounce that it would not view with satisfaction the further
colonization of any part of the American continent by any
European power. Such a policy is not a part of the law of
nations, and we have never pretended that it is, and no
nation is bound to consider it as a part of international law ;

79
but there are national policies which must be taken into
account by practical statesmen. Therefore, when it was
learned that two great nations whose combined fleets are
irresistible at sea had entered into an alliance to send
those fleets to the Caribbean sea, and had said to each
other, " If the seizure of gunboats should not produce
the desired effect, it will be necessary to consider what
should be the next step," the United States naturally felt
anxious that, if possible, this great Tribunal of interna
tional justice should be given jurisdiction over questions
which otherwise might at any moment lead to the em
ployment of force and the taking of such next steps as
it would be extremely embarrassing to retrace. If you
make unnecessary war, and the seizure of vessels is not suffi
cient to extort compliance with your demands, you must
land troops ; and if you land troops and the enemy retreats,
you must pursue them until you bring them to a decisive
action or take possession of the country ; and if it is a just
and necessary war, nobody would have a right to complain.
We insist, however, that since The Hague Conference
we have a tribunal to which questions of the kind in con
troversy between the Allies and Venezuela ought to be re
ferred. We do not at all say how such questions ought to
be decided, but we do say that they would receive impartial
consideration here, and the decision ought to be cordially
accepted by the parties to which it is adverse. We cannot
approve Great Britain and Germany entering into an alli
ance against a country like Venezuela, by which they agree
to extort payment of claims never impartially examined,
as well as losses incurred by bondholders of Venezuela
through depreciation of their bonds. Those two great nations

80
agree as their first step to seize the gunboats of Venezuela,.
and, if that is not sufficient, " then they must consider what
should be the next step." It is because one such step is only too
likely to lead to another aud another, that we are here rep
resenting the government of the United States and the gov
ernment of Venezuela.
Under date of November 11, 1902, Lord Lansdowne tele
graphed to the British minister as follows :
" Make a communication in the following terms to the
Venezuelan government, in form of a note : His Majesty's
government regrets the unsatisfactory character of the reply
to the representations contained in your note of the 30th of
July. They are unable to admit that the serious causes
of complaint put forward can be met by a refusal to discuss
them," but at the same time Great Britain refused to discuss
the case of the " Ban Righ."
There is a very interesting history of our Civil War writ
ten by the Comte de Paris, who served with honor for a brief
period in our army. He says that both the " Shenandoah "
and the "Alabama " had been guilty of vicious practices
which should have closed the entrance to British ports to
them from the beginning. Those practices were no more
vicious than those of the " Ban Righ " against Venezuela,
and, as I have already pointed out, those Confederate
cruisers had the flag of a recognized belligerent power at
their mastheads, while the " Ban Righ " was hoisting one
flag after another, without a lawful right to any flag. The
Comte de Paris adds, " with regard to the 'Alabama,' her
course from the beginning was a perpetual violation of the
law of nations. As soon as she had received her armament
this vessel, constructed in England, carrying English guns,

81
with a crew of Englishmen, started on her cruise. Conse
quently the Americans did not greatly exaggerate the fact
in calling her an English pirate, and had a perfect right to
call upon the British government to seize her as soon as she
should appear in any English port. No attention was paid
to this request. The 'Alabama ' proceeded to Nassau, where
she met with the kindest reception on the part of the author
ities. She gave serious offense to the British flag by falsely
hoisting it and using it to disguise her nationality. This
act of piracy should at least have excluded her from British
ports." I do not wish to unduly emphasize this matter, but
that is precisely what was done by this ship of General Matos,
and yet the British government refused to allow even any
diplomatic discussion of the subject. I have no doubt they
will offer some plausible explanation of their conduct, but I
cannot myself imagine any.
The Venezuelan government naturally felt aggrieved, and
in their conservative and deprecatory dispatch, already
quoted, they said what appears in a telegram from the
British minister at Caracas to Lord Lansdowne, dated
November 17, 1902 :
" In reply to my note sent in accordance with the instruc
tions contained in your lordship's telegram of the 11th inst.,
the Venezuelan government expressly regarded that it
might be inferred that the Venezuelan complaints in regard
to the ' Ban Righ ' and to the attitude taken by the author
ities of the colony of Trinidad had not been examined by
His Majesty's government, as, if this had been the case, those
complaints would not have been attributed to caprice on the
part of Venezuela. Attention is called to the eagerness of
His Majesty's government or of His Majesty's legation to
discuss matters of comparatively secondary importance

82
when contrasted with the paramount interest felt by Vene
zuela in obtaining due respect for her claims which arise
from the grave injuries caused by the ' Ban Righ ' and the
facilities afforded to the revolutionaries by the colonial au
thorities in Trinidad.
" They add that Venezuela has done nothing contrary to
courtesy or international law, and that she cannot therefore
be held justly responsible for the present situation. The
Venezuelan government would be much gratified if His
Majesty's government would express some desire to come to
an understanding by which the injuries caused by the ' Ban
Righ ' and by the authorities of Trinidad would be remedied,
and they maintain that their claims in connection with
those two subjects have hitherto been met by the most un
fair refusal of His Majesty's government to consider the
matter." The note continues with the statement " that the
Venezuelan government have most gravely considered the se
rious nature of the injuries which resulted from the treatment
of the ' Ban Righ ' and the action of the Trinidad authorities
and that they ask nothing from Great Britain which is not
a legitimate consequence of the situation thereby created.
It therefore appeals to the sense of fairness of His Majesty's
government to effect a settlement of the present abnormal
and regrettable situation by placing matters on a basis of
mutual agreement."

This appeal is made after the Allies had signed the con
ventions of The Hague Conference and after Venezuela had
expressed her cordial desire to adhere to those conventions.
What could be more in the spirit and the letter of that con
ference than that appeal ? " It therefore appeals to the sense
of fairness of His Majesty's government to effect a settlement of
the present abnormal and regrettable situation by placing
matters on a basis of mutual agreement."

83
I have already said that there is always much to be re
gretted in the situation of Central and South America for
the last three hundred years ; but no government, however
civilized, could more completely put itself in the spirit of
The Hague Conference and in the spirit ofthe conventions of
that conference than Venezuela did by this deprecatory, al
most beseeching, appeal to her great and powerful antago
nist ; and it would really seem as if such words of entreaty
would compel a kindly response, even if the parties had been
equally strong, but the enormous disparity existing imposed
the greater obligation upon the Allies to respond favorably
to it.
The answer to that appeal is not contained in any
reply to Venezuela, but in a dispatch to the commander-
in-chief of the British nayy on the North American station.
" In concert with the German government. His Majesty's
government have decided to enforce claims by seizure of all
Venezuelan gunboats. Telegraph when you are ready to
commence operations."
Of course, one encounters in the course of a long life
many extraordinary and unexpected conjunctions of circum
stances; but I have never found anything which caused
me greater surprise than the circumstances I have just
narrated — this appeal by a weak nation, struggling with
an insurrection, to two such powerful nations as Great
Britain and Germany, and their answer to it being a
dispatch to the commanders of their naval forces to proceed
to the seizure of the defenseless vessels of Venezuela : "Tele
graph when you are ready to commence operations." And the
character of the claims thus to be enforced by the great

84
navies of these great powers is stated by Lord Lansdowne
November 20, 1902 :
First. Payment of the German claims arising out of the
civil wars of the years 1898-1900.
Second. Settlement of the claims arising out of the present
civil war in Venezuela.
Third. Guarantee for the claims of German firms on
account of the building of the slaughter-house in Caracas,
amounting to a round sum of 800,000 bolivares.
Fourth. Guarantee for the payment of the claims of the
German Great Venezuelan Railway Company for interest
and sinking fund of the Venezuelan loan of 1896.
" The Imperial government also concurs in the further
proposals of His Majesty's government to demand at once
from the Venezuelan government the acceptance in princi
ple of all the German and English claims, and to reserve a
separate settlement of claims for a mixed commission to be
appointed later. The imperial government, however, attach
importance to the following point: That the German war
claims under paragraph (a) which have already been thor
oughly investigated and have been presented to the Vene
zuelan government for the amounts declared shall not be
subjected to fresh examination at the hands of this commis
sion. Second. The German government agree that the
measures of coercion against Venezuela shall be undertaken
as soon as possible."
Then, however, it did occur to the German government
that the last communication between her and Venezuela had
been six months before, and that in that communication
there was no threat of war. They therefore leap over six
months in their eagerness to begin war, but they had the

85
grace to say: "It must, however, be taken into considera
tion that the last notes between the German and Venezuelan
governments were exchanged more than six months ago,
and were not couched in a tone which would justify an im
mediate resort to measures of coercion. The Imperial
government therefore considers that they should make
one last representation to the Venezuelan government,
and therefore propose that Germany and Great Britain
should each simultaneously present an ultimatum, in which
each power should represent its own collective demands, re
ferring at the same time to the demands of the other power.
The Imperial government does not consider that this course
would result in a postponement of active measures, as the com
munications might be presented at once, a period of twenty-four
hours being granted for compliance."
That is, the German government was in friendly corre
spondence with Venezuela in May, 1902, in which she de
mands the settlement of certain claims and suggests arbi
tration of them. Venezuela is engaged in combatting an
insurrection, and replies that her settled policy has been to
refer all such claims to her own judicial tribunals, and she
cannot admit that Germans should have a preference over
native Venezuelans in that respect. Eight months there
after Germany suddenly launches at Venezuela an ultima
tum, giving her twenty-four hours in which to comply with
the demands made upon her, and unless she does so war is
to be declared.
Of course, one can readily exaggerate one's cause, but that
again recalls to me the reason why the United States is so
profoundly interested in reaching a decision in this matter

86
by this Tribunal. As I have already said, no European na
tion strong enough and willful enough to go its own way
will be debarred by any national policy of the United States
from pursuing the course it thinks desirable for its own
interests, and if two great European powers or one great Eu
ropean power may, after six months' silence, deliver an ulti
matum to a South American republic distracted by an
insurrection, that within twenty-four hours she must comply
with what is demanded or war will be made upon her, there
is no telling what serious difficulties may arise; and it is in
the hope of avoiding such difficulties in the future that I feel
it is necessary to bring to your attention in such detail
the facts of this situation before the war actually began.
The interest of the United States in this Tribunal is shown
in the fact that we are today in receipt of a communication
from it expressing its very great pleasure in knowing that
this court was at last constituted and that the arguments in
this controversy would now proceed ; and you will readily
understand why their interest is so great. The United States
hopes that hereafter questions of this character will not
result in ultimatums requiring an answer in twenty-four
hours or a declaration of war. That government believes
that all such questions as were in dispute between the Allies
and Venezuela can find a peaceable solution here, not nec
essarily the very best solution, not necessarily an entirely
satisfactory solution, but a peaceable solution.
Take the question of the depredations of the " Ban Righ.'
Why should it not have been submitted to this Tribunal ?
Why require Venezuela always to cherish a sense of injury
and injustice because she was denied a hearing? Her de
mand was only the old demand: Strike, but hear. The

87
Allies struck, but they would not hear. We say, " Hear, and
then strike," if striking is justified by The Hague Tribunal.
If the United States was entitled to bring Great Britain to
the bar of international justice at Geneva for the depreda
tions of the "Alabama " and the " Shenandoah," why is not
Venezuela entitled to bring Great Britain to the bar of this
court to answer for the depredations committed by the " Ban
Righ " against her under very similar circumstances ? She
is a weak nation, but that is no longer an answer. This
court was constituted to abolish that answer, and there
fore we declare that she was entitled then and is now
entitled to demand the judgment of this court whether
the depredations of the" Ban Righ " were in accordance with
international law or contrary to it. After the principles to
which Great Britain gave her adherence in the treaty of
Washington, principles indispensable to the existence of the
Geneva arbitration, I confess it is difficult to understand
why she is not responsible for the depredations of this un
lawful vessel. But that is a question about which opinions
may well differ. The question about which, we think, there
can be no doubt is whether Venezuela is entitled to a hearing.
Decide against her and she will accept your decision ; but
it must be a decision after a hearing. It must be a decision
by an impartial tribunal, which Great Britain refused to
allow. This court has been constituted. Why should Venezuela
not be heard? Consider some of the other grave questions
about which the South American states feel the profoundest
and keenest interest. Whether an independent state is or is
not bound to accord diplomatic intervention and diplomatic
discussion of the claims of resident foreigners when she

88
has provided judicial tribunals for the investigation of
such claims, is a question upon which I do not now ex
press an opinion one way or the other. It may well be
that it would prove to be in the interest of the advance of
civilization that this Tribunal, hearing the question fully
presented and fully discussed, should decide that the right
of diplomatic intervention and of settlement by extra
neous authority does attach to any claim presented by a
person residing in one country who has retained his citi
zenship in another country ; or, after such hearing and
deliberation, it may well be decided that it is better to notify
all persons proposing to settle in a foreign country while
retaining their citizenship in another country, that if they
elect to avail themselves of the supposed advantages of such
residence they must accept the burden of having their
claims adjudicated by the same domestic tribunal which ad
judicates the claims of native citizens of the country. 1 do
not attempt to decide, I have no competence to decide, which
of these two contentions is correct. All that I say is that
this is the proper place to bring such controversies — not at
all because this court possesses supernatural wisdom, not
at all because its members are other than men and with the
ordinary limitations of men ; but because it is set apart in
order that all the nations of the earth which wish to bring
their controversies here are sure to secure an intelligent and
impartial hearing, consideration, and decision of such con
troversies. When the duty devolved upon the late lamented
President of the United States to name members of this Tri
bunal it is well known that he sought the highest type of
American jurists, and accredited here men who carried with
them the respect and the confidence of their countrymen in

89
the fullest degree. He named the only living ex-Presidents
of the United States — President Harrison, a distinguished
jurist before he was a Senator and after he was President, and
President Cleveland, whose state of health prevented him
from accepting it, and who regarded it as a great distinction
to be offered the position, and regretted that he was unable
to accept it. I repeat, it is not because the questions brought
here will always be decided wisely, but because they will be
heard by learned and distinguished jurists, and will be im
partially, even if mistakenly, decided.
It is a very interesting fact in the history of international
arbitration that, so far as I am aware, the first suggestion of
the creation of such a Tribunal as this emanated from Simon
Bolivar and in Venezuela. In 1825' that illustrious patriot,
who had devoted his life to securing the independence of
Central and South America, succeeded in having a con
gress meet on the isthmus of Panama, and he persuaded
that congress to adopt a resolution providing for a court of
international justice, to which all South American coun
tries who might be involved in controversies with each other
should come when such controversies could not otherwise be
settled ; and then, with a prescience which is most remark
able, he induced the members of the congress to extend an
invitation to every civilized nation on the globe to join in
the realization of his golden dream. Since then other meu
and other countries have pursued the same object, and at
last it is practically realized in this Tribunal.
Another question of great importance is: If claims by
foreign residents are to be heard by tribunals other than
domestic, then how is protection to be afforded against ex
orbitant and unjust awards? It is reported — I do not know

90
with what accuracy — that some of the mixed commissions
sitting at Caracas have held that the Venezuelan people are
responsible for all injuries by iusurrectionary parties which
were operating in districts outside of the control of the central
government. If so, Venezuela is probably aware that the
United States has asserted the opposite principle. She
knows that Great Britain has asserted it, and she will cer
tainly feel she is unjustly treated if she is made to pay out of
her impoverished resources claims which the more wealthy
and civilized countries decline to pay. Such a question is
one eminently fitting to be brought to this Tribunal : What
are the proper limitations of the responsibility of a govern
ment against which an insurrection is being waged for
injury suffered by foreign residents in consequence of such
insurrection ? It is not a question which ought to be sub
mitted to the final decision of any umpire on a mixed
commission, because one umpire upon such a commission
may decide one way and another a different way. If such
contradictory decisions have been rendered, how is Vene
zuela to know which should be respected ? If the question
was brought here it would be settled once for all and for
all countries. This is one of the beneficent ways in which,
as we understand it, this Tribunal can increase the chances
of peace among the nations. I have indicated only a few
questions which have already arisen, but others are likely to
arise of equal difficulty and equally needing a final and
authoritative decision.
For the reasons already given, Great Britain and Germany
were not, in our opinion, entitled to issue ultimatums to Vene
zuela and enforce them at the cannon's mouth, but they ought
to have urged her again and again, considering her weakness

91
and distraction, to submit the claims they presented to this
court. Suppose, in the case of the alleged depredations of
the " Ban Righ," Great Britain had said : " We cannot admit
your contentions. No doubt you have suffered grievously,
but we have not infringed our duty towards you. You
think we have. We think we have not. Very well, we will
go to The Hague Tribunal and see which of us is right." But
these two great nations only say : " Pay us what we demand.
There are our conditions. Unless you comply with them at
once we will sink your few small boats, blow up your few
defenseless forts, and close your few ports to the commerce
ofthe world."
When Venezuela insisted that she was entitled to ask
every foreign resident enjoying her hospitality to submit
himself to her domestic tribunals, and Great Britain and
Germany denied her right to demand it, did they say : " We
have assisted to institute a court at The Hague which will
render an impartial decision upon our respective conten
tions. Bring it there." Not at all. They grasp her by the
throat and say : " Pay us the money we demand ; " and as she
does not do so, they sink her ships, bombard her forts, and
close her ports. And now they come here and ask The
Hague Tribunal to give them an award of merit, and to say
to them, " Well done good and faithful servants " of The
Hague Conference. They acted as if she was not entitled to
diplomatic courtesy ; and because she was poor and weak,
that she had no right to demand that they bring their con
troversies before this Tribunal. They brought her instead
before the throats of their cannon, told her what to do within
twenty-four hours, and she was compelled to do it, bowing
to their " superior force," as she declared.

92
There is uo exaggeration in what I have said. Lord
Lansdowne distinctly stated that " the claims that rank first
are not subjects for arbitration, they are not suited for ex
amination." If honest and just claims, why are they not
suited for examination ? The claims of the merchantmen
whose ships were destroyed by the " Alabama " and the
" Shenandoah " were submitted to arbitration. Why should
not the allegations of injury to these small fishing boats be
submitted to arbitration ? Not suited for settlement by arbi
tration ! There is but one answer to an allegation of that
kind. Honest claims are suited for arbitration ; dishonest
claims are not suited for arbitration. The demands of the
German subjects in connection with the Venezuelan civil
wars of 1898 and 1899 were also required to be immediately
recognized by the Venezuelan government.
Mr. Cohen : You ought to have read the preceding words,
" The cabinet had decided at its last meeting to accept in
principle the idea of settling the Venezuelan dispute by
arbitration, and we had since ascertained that the view of
the German government was in accord with our own. We
considered, however, that some of our claims were of such a
kind that we could not include them in the reference."
Mr. MacVeagh : If they were honest claims, why not in
clude them in the reference ? I do not wonder the gentle
man feels desirous of modifying such language as much as
possible, but it is taken from their own Blue Book.
I have always understood that a fundamental principle
of law is that judgment must precede execution, for judg
ment involves inquiry and examination and there is no
country, so far as I know, whose jurisprudence will compel
the payment of a claim until it has been judicially exam-

93
ined and thus passed into judgment. No matter if it be said
that it is too just to be examined, all systems of jurisprudence
reply, if your claim cannot be examined it cannot be en
forced. These claims, however, were declared too sacred for
examination. An alleged injury — which is denied — to a
little fishing boat worth $200 — is that a claim too sacred to
be investigated ? The burning of another abandoned little
boat, said to be employed in the service of the insurrection
ists — is that a claim too sacred to be investigated ?
It is indeed impossible to speak of such a condition of
affairs with the patience one would desire. One could speak
with far more patience if Venezuela, in her weakness, was
making such demands of Great Britain and Germany in their
strength ; but we well know what answers to such demands
they would have made. With their fleets in the Caribbean
sea, they advance from one demand to another. Great
Britain arbitrarily demands $27,500. We know not how
it is to be distributed. We have never heard who received
it. We do not know anything about it. Italy came for
ward and demanded the like sum of $27,500. We do not
know upon what basis it was demanded. We do not know
to whom it was al lotted. We do not even know why she
demanded exactly the same sum as Great Britain. We
know nothing about it. Germany, it was supposed, was
willing to be as moderate as England and Italy, but, owing
to some misunderstanding between Berlin and Washington,
Germany demanded and received $325,000, for not one
dollar of which large sum were we given any account ; so
that Venezuela, yielding to a " superior force," paid $380,000 ;
and you are asked to declare that such proceedings merit
the approval of the high court of which you are members ;

94
so that hereafter any European nation alleging a claim
against a South American state may send a powerful fleet
into her waters and, by making war upon her, exact as
much money as is demanded.
I said that the Monroe doctrine, while not a part of the
law of nations, as nothing is which has not been accepted by
the great majority of the civilized states of the world, is a
settled policy of the government of the United States — a
doctrine it has cherished for eighty years and never cher
ished with such unanimity as today. It is therefore exceed
ingly undesirable that claims such as these now under consid
eration should be again collected, before they are impartially
examined, by war. Why should not all claims of this kind be
examined ? Why should not all questions in dispute, unless
they involve some national policy, or national sovereignty,
or national territory, or national honor, be brought here for
examination, for discussion, and for decision ? We think
they ought to be, and it is for that reason that we are here-
I will not detain you by referring to the voluminous cor
respondence printed in our Appendix, but it shows that the
disputes between Germany and Venezuela follow the same
general lines as those between Great Britain and Venezuela ;
and the same is true of Italy, which, at the last moment,
became associated with these two powers and sent a part of
her navy also into the Caribbean sea to assist in overaw
ing Venezuela.
As I have already said, it is due to Germany to declare
that seven or eight months before her fleet was sent there
she did propose arbitration — not of the question which the
South American states think vital, that is, whether they are
bound to accord separate preferential treatment to residents

95
who are not citizens over their own citizens in their own
country, but that it should be referred to a mixed commis
sion to ascertain what was due to the German residents in
Venezuela who prefer to maintain their German nationality.
That presents a most serious question, for in the modern
world it is found exceedingly undesirable that great num
bers of immigrants should reside in any country aud yet
refuse to accept the burdens of its citizenship. The United
States has successfully assimilated a great many men of a
great many nationalities, but it is because when coming to
us they become American citizens. They do not lose their
affection for the fatherland, but, having elected to reside all
their lives under the American flag, they accept the burden
of loyalty to it and cast in their lot for good or ill with their
fellow-citizens born upon the soil. Still, it might be that
after full aud careful deliberation special tribunals ought
to be organized to adjudicate the claims of resident for
eigners in one or more of the republics of Central and South
America. If so, you could indicate how such tribunals should
be organized, and I am sure the whole world would accept
your decision, but a decision enforced at the cannon's
mouth will always be a source of bitterness and hatred.
We must, however, never forget that we live in a rough,
work-a-day world ; not in a world of ideals, not in a world of
illusions, but in a hard, practical world of fact, and of course
in such a world questions will arise more or less difficult
-of peaceable settlement ; but I believe a change came over the
nations upon this subject from the day this court was insti
tuted. Theretofore many weak countries might have yielded
to superior force and not deeply resented it, but ever since
.this pact of peace was signed a great change has come. In-

96
ternational justice is now administered here to all peoples —
strong and weak, great and small — alike, and no nation will
ever again patiently submit to violence and injustice. Sub
mit she may, but not in patience or the spirit of submission,
because they believe such controversies should now be sub
mitted to arbitration. This is especially true of all American
countries. There has hardly been a year in the last century
in which some great body of influential American citizens has
not endeavored to advance the principle of international arbi
tration. No language is more instructive on this subject than
the language of Secretary Hay in his instructions to the
gentlemen we sent to The Hague Conference, and no country
welcomed the successful issue of those deliberations more
heartily than we did; and in speaking for the United States
and Venezuela I speak, I feel sure, the sentiments of all
the republics of Central and South America. All they
ask is : If we are wrong, give us a hearing before an im
partial tribunal, and we will accept its decision; but do
not, because we are weak, send the combined navies of
great powers to overawe us and compel compliance with de
mands the justice of which we have constantly denied ; and
all we ask is that this court, in the very beginning of its
career of usefulness, should not encourage the making of
war except upon grounds of indisputable justice and of in
disputable necessity. In the century which was closing
when The Hague Conference met the United States had been
a party to fifty arbitrations. One of them has a very strik
ing relation to the present controversy. American citizens
obtained from the government of Venezuela a concession to
navigate the waters of the Orinoco. In the disturbances
which followed an insurrection in that country, the vessels

97
of the company were seized and used alternately by the
insurrectionists and the government. They were greatly
damaged. The pacific traffic they had been authorized to
pursue was utterly destroyed and the company suffered very
serious pecuniary losses. The government of the United
States presented the claims for such losses to the govern
ment of Venezuela. Venezuela was still engaged in suppress
ing the insurrection, and, having regard to her embarrassed
condition, the United States pressed the claim, which was a
meritorious one, temperately but firmly, upon the attention
of the Venezuelan government. We had just emerged from
a successful war. We had just discharged a million men to
the walks of peace, but there was no word in all the cor
respondence of violence ; there was no threat of force, but
there was the moral pressure of a just claim, persistently
urged, in language not destructive of the self-respect. of the
weaker and resisting nation. It required time. Let us
always remember that whatever we may be, God is never in
a hurry. It required time. So do most things worth ac
complishing in this life. But at last, after twenty years of
steady pressure, the government of Venezuela agreed to refer
the claim to arbitration. It was arbitrated, and the award
made was paid by Venezuela as soon as she was able to do
so. Since the institution of this court no such delay would
be necessary.
May it please Your Honors : Either the war in question
was, in the judgment of this Tribunal, just and necessary or
it was not. We think it follows from the nature of this
Tribunal that you cannot award preferential treatment for
the conduct of these allied powers, because, as I have al
ready stated, we believe international law is now very dif-
7

98
ferent from what it was before The Hague Conventions
were signed by the leading nations of the earth. Every na
tion on the globe is now confronted with a wholly different
standard of action towards every other nation than it was
before that Conference assembled, aud it was a part of the
very purpose of the august sovereign who called it ; it was a
part of the very purpose of the good and wise men who
took part in its deliberations, that there should be a parting
of the ways. They had no competence and they had no de
sire to interfere with the political divisions of the world as
they exist. They were legislating only for the future.
And now we wish briefly, but as strongly as possible, to
restate in succinct form our objections to the granting to
the blockading powers the preferential treatment for which
they ask.
(a.) In the first place, we say such preferential treatment
ought not to be granted, because these three powers exacted
from Venezuela, at the cannon's mouth, such preferential
treatment as they wished. I wish to impress that fact as
clearly as possible upon your minds. They had Venezuela
by the throat — utterly helpless. They made their demands
for preferential treatment clear, distinct, and definite. They
said : Before we release you, you must pay Great Britain
$27,500 ; you must pay Italy the same sum, and you must
pay Germany $325,000. Those were the three preferential
payments they demanded and extorted. Those sums were
paid as the price of lifting the blockade. We say it is now
too late to ask for further preferential payments.
(b.) We also object to such further preferential treatment
because Great Britain, Germany, and Italy distinctly
agreed to the proposal of Venezuela, that all remaining

99
claims should be treated upon the basis of exact equality.
The proffer made by Venezuela and accepted by the Allies
was expressed in these clear and unequivocal words :
"Venezuela will pay thirty per cent, of the total income
of the ports of La Guyra and Puerto Cabello to the nations
that have claims against her, and it is distinctly understood
that the said thirty per cent, will be given exclusively to
meet the claims mentioned in the recent ultimatums of the
allied powers and the unsettled claims of other nations that
existed when the said ultimatums were presented."
They extorted $380,000 for themselves alone. They ex
torted a further agreement that Venezuela was to set apart
thirty per cent, of the gross revenues of those two ports to be
applied to their remaining claims ofthe Allies and the claims
of all other creditors. It is impossible to use language of
greater definiteness or more clearly placing all the claims of
all the creditor nations upon a basis of equal treatment after
the Allies had been allowed to extort $380,000 for alleged
claims of which they refused any examination, as has already
been stated. Having accepted preferential treatment to that
extent, they accepted equality of treatment for all their other
claims, and there is no reason whatever why they should
now be allowed to change their attitude respecting the
matter. (c.) Such further preferential treatment is also objected to
because equality is equity, and as all nations are equal in the
forum of international law, they should be accorded equal
treatment by this Tribunal, unless some valid and conclu
sive reason can be adduced for denying them such equality.
(d.) Such further preferential treatment is also objected to
because the only precedent, so far as we have been able

100
to discover, applicable to the present controversy is that
presented in the similar case of China. A number of the
militant and powerful nations of the earth joined in ex
torting from China payment of alleged claims for injuries
suffered by them and their respective subjects and citizens.
No pretense has ever been made in any quarter that, after
having captured Pekin and brought the government of
China to its knees, excessive leniency or moderation was dis
played by the victorious powers in fixing the sum upon pay
ment of which China would be restored to the possession of
her capital. Great Britain, Germany, and Italy, who are
now presenting to this Tribunal their claim for preferential
treatment, made no such claim in the case of China, and
they were all parties to the agreement in that case. We
have published in the Appendix the agreement for the di
vision of the sum demanded by all the Allies, showing that
the nations which did not join in the warlike demonstra
tions were treated on the basis of exact equality with the
nations which did join in it.
(e.) We also object to such further preferential treatment
because the vast disparity of armed forces at the command of
the Allies by land and sea ought to have prevented those
great powers from having recourse to war except in the
last extremity. If Venezuela had been courteously asked
to carry these disputed claims to this Tribunal, and if she
had refused, then they could have come here with some
grace and ask for an award of merit. But instead of doing
so, they ask not an impartial hearing by this Tribunal, but
an immediate compliance with their demands in the harshest
possible form in which those demands could be presented.
(f.) Finally, we say that such further preferential treatment

101
is objected to because this Tribunal was organized to ad
vance the cause of peace among the nations and not the
cause of war. Venezuela may have committed many mis
takes, she may have committed many wrongs, she may, in
her weakness, have exhibited an unwise opposition to de
mands she was not able to resist, but when confronted with
the necessity of submitting to those demands she declared
that in doing so she simply bowed to superior force, and
even then she preserved her national dignity by demand
ing that all her creditors should be placed upon the basis
of exact equality, and all claims ascertained to be just should
be paid one equally with another, and she insisted upon
bringing the question here, while her representative, in very
vigorous language, objected to allowing such preference as
these powers demanded. On January 30, 1903, Mr. Bowen,
representing Venezuela, declared :
" I object to paying first the claims of the Allies and the
claims of the other nations afterwards because, first, I think
it unjust and unfair and illegal to tie the hands of the said
other nations for the period of five or six years that it would
take to pay the claims of the Allies ; second, if I recognize
that brute force alone can be respected in the collection of
claims, I should encourage the said other nations to use
force also ; third, if the allied powers wanted preferential
treatment, they should have asked for it in the beginning,
and should not now propose it after I understood clearly
that all the conditions of the allied powers had been stated."
There could, therefore, have been no misunderstanding on
the part of the Allies about the attitude of Venezuela and
her representative upon this subject, and by a decision in
favor of such equality of payment you will help to keep the

102
nations of the earth in the paths of peace, to realize th©
noble aspirations which initiated The Hague Conference,
and ofthe distinguished statesmen, diplomatists, jurists, and
soldiers who gave to all its deliberations the full measure of
unselfish devotion.
May it please Your Honors :
I wish again to thank you and all the counsel for the
courtesy extended to me in allowing me at this time to pre
sent so elaborately my views of the controversy awaiting
your decision, and my closing words are : We invoke your
decision in our favor only because we believe it would be
in happy conformity with the most essential interests and
the legitimate views of all powers, by aiding " the establish
ment of the principles of justice and right upon which repose
the security of states and the welfare of peoples ; " for we
also know " the nations have a great need of peace ; " and
I believe with a faith which never can be shaken that it is
only by recognizing these truths that any nation can attain
to true dignity and to true glory.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

pf.