Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

THE

XXIX

LATIN-AMERICAN NEIGHBORS

HE relations of the United States with the countries of Central and South America during the Civil War and the generation following were chiefly sporadic and incidental. Little effort was made to cultivate intimate political, social, or commercial intercourse, and the Monroe Doctrine, which was supposed to be the principal index and guide of our conduct toward them, was maintained as a formal letter instead of being developed into a vital spirit. Diplomatic negotiations with those Governments therefore consisted principally of the settlements of disputes arising from claims preferred by one country against another, though sometimes of benevolent mediation or arbitration by the United States in controversies between some of those States or between them and European powers.

In 1866 war occurred between Spain and a South American alliance composed of Peru and Chile, and appeal was made to the United States for an assertion of the Monroe Doctrine which would protect the latter countries from the attack of the former. Seward, then secretary of state, replied that the United States would maintain and insist with all possible decision and energy that the republican system of government in the South American States should not be wantonly assailed and should certainly not be subverted as a result of a war waged by any European power. Beyond that position the country could not go. The Monroe Doctrine was not a screen or shield behind which American States could avoid the discharge of their just obligations; nor did it forbid the waging of war against them by European powers, for cause. So long as there was no attempt to destroy their republicanism and their independence and to establish monarchical governments in them, the United States could not be expected to intervene. That was a perfectly sound

3

principle, and it was put forward by one of the most resolute upholders of the Monroe Doctrine. It may have been disappointing to some in South America, who regarded this country as the protector of its neighbors in any event. If so, their disillusionment was salutary, and tended to give them a more just appreciation of the Monroe Doctrine and a stronger inclination to do justly and to develop self-reliance.

At the close of this war a controversy arose between Peru and Chile concerning the accounts of their expenditures in maintaining their allied naval squadron, and a protocol was concluded between them under the terms of which the matter was to be referred for arbitration to C. A. Logan, the United States minister at Santiago de Chile. With the consent of the state department he accepted the charge, and on April 7, 1875, he gave his award. The whole case was purely technical, involving merely matters of fact and processes of bookkeeping and calling for the assertion of no general principle of policy. Similar appeals to United States ministers were made at other times. In 1862 E. O. Crosby, the minister to Guatemala, had acted as umpire between Great Britain and Honduras in a minor dispute over land titles. Again in 1869 the Earl of Dundonald preferred through the British minister at Rio de Janeiro a claim against the Brazilian government for services rendered by his illustrious father in the war of independence of that country; and the United States and Italian ministers at Rio de Janeiro were asked to serve as arbitrators; which they did, with satisfactory results.

An old claim of certain British subjects against the Government of Colombia was taken up for settlement under a convention made in December, 1872, and William E. Scruggs, the United States minister at Bogota, was requested to serve as an arbitral commissioner on behalf of Great Britain. He accepted the trust and then reported the fact to the state department, which gave its assent, but suggested to him that he should have asked for it before accepting. The case involved not merely technicalities but some important principles, similar to those of certain cases to which the United States was a party, and Scruggs was therefore urged by the secretary of state to give to it his most careful and discreet attention. After a prolonged and painstaking trial an award was made by Scruggs, in which

the Colombian commissioner, General Salgar, heartily concurred and which was highly satisfactory to both of the Governments. The Colombian government expressed its appreciation of the "intelligence, studious care, and known good faith" of the arbitrators, and the British government made a like acknowledgment and offered to each of the arbitrators a handsome silver inkstand suitably inscribed by the queen. General Salgar of course accepted his gift, but Scruggs under the United States Constitution was inhibited from doing so without the permission of Congress. The Senate gave its permission, but the House of Representatives, with the crass boorishness which occasionally characterizes the conduct of American politicians in foreign affairs, seemed to think it a fine display of "patriotism" to refuse to do so; and in consequence a particularly efficient and faithful public servant of the nation was denied the privilege of receiving that memento of an incident of distinguished service.

A territorial dispute between Argentina and Paraguay was submitted to arbitration in 1876, and the President of the United States was requested to act as umpire. The case involved title to the extensive region known as El Chaco, and rested upon historical, geographical, and other data. The President, Rutherford B. Hayes, gave careful attention to it, and on November 13, 1878, rendered his decision, which was in favor of Paraguay. The award was transmitted to the two Governments by the secretary of state, William M. Evarts, and was loyally accepted by both.

Costa Rica and Nicaragua also sought the arbitral services of the President of the United States for the settlement of a boundary dispute, in December, 1886; the question at issue being the validity of a boundary treaty of 1858. Both countries earnestly requested him to perform this service, or to delegate it to some suitable substitute if he was unable personally to give it attention. Accordingly the President, Cleveland, in January, 1888, designated George L. Rives, an assistant secretary of state, to hear and to examine the arguments on both sides and to report thereon to him. The resultant award simply confirmed the validity of the treaty of 1858 and directed the adjustment of the boundary in accordance with it. But it was

7

impossible to do this, because of the disappearance of some essential landmarks, and the case was afterward referred to the President of Salvador for a final settlement.

A long-standing dispute between Argentina and Brazil over title to the so-called Misiones territory was, in September, 1889, submitted to arbitration, and the President of the United States was named as arbitrator. The duty was accepted, but the case was so prolonged that an award was not made until February 5, 1895, and then it was made not by Benjamin Harrison, who had been President when the arbitration was agreed upon, but by his successor, Grover Cleveland. The award was in favor of the Brazilian claim, and was accepted without demur. The Brazilian government expressed its thanks for the President's "never to be forgotten services for the recognition of its rights." The Argentine government, while realizing that its claims had been denied, hailed the decision as a victory for peace, justice, and friendship, saying: "This high example given to the sister nations of South America will in the future bear its fruit as an honorable international precedent." There were on both sides the most cordial official and popular expressions of grateful appreciation to the President of the United States for having "so carefully and conscientiously exercised his functions as arbiter."

Still another appeal was made to the President for arbitration between Colombia and Italy, in the case of Ernesto Cerruti, an Italian domiciled in Colombia, against the Colombian government for arrest and imprisonment and sequestration of his property on account of his participation in a revolutionary movement. Cerruti was released from prison by the landing of an armed Italian force, whereupon diplomatic relations between Colombia and Italy were suspended. The mediation of Spain led to the making of a protocol, in May, 1886, under which Cerruti's real estate was to be restored to him and all other issues in the case were to be referred to Spanish arbitration. The questions were, whether Cerruti had lost his condition as a neutral alien, whether he had lost the rights and privileges of an alien in Colombia, and whether he was entitled to an indemnity. The decision of the Spanish government was in favor of Cerruti on all the points. Colombia accepted it, but a further dispute

arose over the question of indemnity, concerning the actual amount of his losses. At this, in 1890, the secretary of state, Blaine, instructed the minister of the United States at Rome to intimate to the Italian government the desire and willingness of the United States to aid in any proper way "toward a better understanding," but added: "Our position of perfect and impartial friendship toward both powers should not be weakened by any show of voluntary intervention, without a distinct intimation that an expression of the disinterested views of this Government on the matter now in dispute would be agreeable to both parties. . . . Your discreet and friendly offices, thus freely held at the disposal of both parties, will, it is thought, more effectively aid a practical determination of the impending controversy than would the formal tender of our mediation; and at the same time make unnecessary any emphatic insistence on the deep concern with which this Government would view the expansion of this simple matter of detail into a serious question between a friendly European power and a neighboring American State, to which we are allied by strong ties of tradition and common interest." In consequence of these representations it was finally decided to submit the case for settlement to the President of the United States. The award was made by President Cleveland on March 2, 1897, disallowing some of Cerruti's claims and confirming others. The indemnity was thereupon paid by Colombia, but protest was made by Colombia against the award as being invalid and beyond the defined powers of the arbitrator, on the grounds (1) that it did not. determine and declare any amount of indemnity which the claimant was entitled to receive from Colombia through diplomatic action, (2) that it did not put an end to any subject of disagreement between the two governments, (3) that it did not constitute a final disposition of any claim submitted, (4) that it imposed on the Government of Colombia an uncertain and undetermined liability, (5) that it provided for the continuance of disagreements which the protocol was designed to end, and (6) that it involved a delegation of the authority of the arbitrator to some persons and tribunals not named in the protocol nor designated in the award, at times and in modes undefined and unauthorized, to ascertain the amounts and conditions

« AnteriorContinuar »