such claims for a private citizen is improper. England has usually adhered to the like policy. But other powerful nations have commonly shown a readiness to collect such private debts for their citizens by force or threats of force. In 1902 ten European countries had claims, aggregating some $38,000,000, against Venezuela. Castro, President of the Republic, defied the claimants. Finally Germany and England began a blockade of Venezuelan ports. Through the efforts of Roosevelt and Hay, the blockade was soon raised, and the claims submitted to arbitration. This process revealed gross padding and unreasonableness in the claim; and the commission cut the amounts down to less than eight millions. Then, under pressure from this country, Venezuela made provision to pay this amount. 773. This last event has been said to create a "New Monroe Doctrine." Europeans had long expressed the opinion that if the Monroe Doctrine made us the protector of semi-anarchic communities against just claims, then we must ourselves see that such debts were paid. Roosevelt seemed to assent to this doctrine. He took the ground, in this dispute, that if "chronic wrong-doing" or "impotence" in any American country called for intervention, then it would become necessary for the United States to "exercise an international police power." In 1904 he went even further, when he stepped in to obviate European intervention in bankrupt San Domingo, by virtually making the United States the "receiver" for that country in behalf of its creditors.2 This policy has been severely criticized on the ground that it encourages foreign capitalists to engage in the wildest financial schemes in South America, guaranteeing them their claim through United States intervention. Another solution of the whole matter, much in favor among 1 Thayer's Life of John Hay reveals the startling fact that Roosevelt kept Germany from seizing Venezuelan territory by threat of instant war (II, 284-288). Roosevelt himself afterward confirmed this statement. 2 A recent application of this policy is the occupation of Hayti in 1915 by United States marines - which, with its complicated and unhappy results, is a fit topic for a special report. 8 774] THE PANAMA CANAL 643 the weaker nations themselves, would be to leave all such claims against a government to arbitration by the Hague Tribunal, and to let any capitalist take the risk, if he seeks investments in countries which would not regard such arbitration. 774. More important still was the movement for the Panama Canal. In 1881 a French Panama Canal Company began work at the Isthmus, but eight years later the project came to an ignoble end in financial scandal, with little to show for the $260,000,000 expenditure. Secretary Blaine (§ 758) was then earnestly desirous of making the canal the concern of the A GUN FOR THE PANAMA FORTIFICATIONS, in the course of transportation from the factory. One of the world's biggest 16-inch guns. From a photograph. United States government; but the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty (§ 705) prevented. The Spanish War brought the matter forcibly to public attention again, especially when the battleship Oregon, much needed to reinforce the American Atlantic squadron, had to circle the Horn to get to Cuban waters. The American people began to demand an interoceanic canal under American control; and the extremely cordial attitude of England during the struggle made it easy now to secure from her a waiver of her rights under the ancient treaty. In 1902 the United States bought up the rights of the Panama Company. The government was unwilling, however, to undertake so vast a work unless it could secure sovereignty over a considerable strip of territory, so as to police the route effectively. Colombia refused the treaty urged upon it by President Roosevelt. The American government felt that it was being held up for unreasonable booty. Two weeks later an opportune revolution in the little republic separated Panama from Colombia. American naval forces were so disposed as to assist the revolution materially; and ex-President Roosevelt has acknowledged that the revolt was directly manipulated from Washington. (Said he frankly some years later, "I took Panama.") The new Panama Republic immediately made the necessary cession to the United States. The canal was now undertaken as a National project. Astounding problems of labor, sanitation, supplies, and engineering were solved effectively, and in 1915 the Canal was formally opened. In 1919 a treaty was negotiated by the Wilson administration to pay Colombia $25,000,000 in satisfaction of her claims, but the Senate failed to ratify. One other contention mars the glory of the Canal achievement. The compact by which England waived her old rights (above) contained a pledge from the United States that there should be no discriminating tolls for the use of the future canal. Before the Canal was opened, however, a law was enacted placing tolls on all foreign ships. Early in his term, President Wilson induced Congress to repeal the exemption for American ships as derogatory to the pledged faith of the nation; but agitation is now (1920) under way to secure its renewal. 775. The United States took a creditable part at the Hague Conference in 18991 and at the second meeting in 1907. During the years 1903-1905 thirty-three separate treaties between various 1 Modern Progress, 572. § 775] ARBITRATION 645 European powers provided for arbitration of international differences by the Hague Tribunal or some other standing commission. In 1904 ten such treaties negotiated by Secretary Hay with important countries were submitted to our Senate for ratification, with the strong indorsement of President Roosevelt. The Senate, influenced by general factiousness and by dislike of the strenous President, rendered the treaties useless by unacceptable amendments, as it had rejected the earlier proposal of like character between England and the United States (§ 758). Some like treaties were afterward ratified, but during the sessions of 1911 and 1912, the Senate showed marked hostility to another extension of the principle of arbitration strongly urged by President Taft. The absence of Germany's name from all these lists of arbitration treaties, and her defeat of England's proposals for disarmament at the Hague Congresses (Modern Progress) were ominous of peril to the peace movement. All these treaties, too, leave loopholes for passion and war by exempting from arbitration questions "affecting the national honor." True, in 1913-1914, Mr. Bryan, as Secretary of State for President Wilson, secured the ratification of treaties "further to promote peace" with England and France, and with many smaller states, providing in each case that the two parties shall submit all disputes to an impartial tribunal for investigation and report, with a year's interval for negotiation and reflection, before making war. But hardly was the ink dry upon these "cooling off" treaties before it was demonstrated that there was no assurance of peace for the world without an efficient organization to secure international disarmament (ch. lxvii). FOR FURTHER READING. Either Paxson's New Nation or Bassett's Short History of the United States gives a good treatment of the topics of this chapter. More detail on some of them may be found in Fish's American Diplomacy or in Thayer's Life of John Hay. CHAPTER LXV THE PEOPLE VS. PRIVILEGE The fundamental division of powers in the Constitution of the United States is between voters on the one hand and property owners on the other. The forces of democracy, on one side, divided between the executive and the legislature, are set over against the forces of property on the other side, with the judiciary as arbiter between them. ARTHUR T. HADLEY, of Yale, in The Independent, April 16, 1908. 776. ABOUT 1890, social unrest was becoming the most marked feature of American life. The "business age" since the Civil War had seen wealth multiply enormously; but that wealth had become more and more concentrated in a few hands, and those hands more and more dominated politics and the daily life of every citizen. In nearly every State of the Union, in the late sixties and the seventies, groups of keen, forceful men, more farsighted than their neighbors, grasped for themselves the main resources and opportunities, mines, forests, water power, lines of easy rail communication, and so on. These rising capitalists then reached out for special privileges. To obtain these, they set themselves deliberately to fill legislatures, courts, and governors' chairs with their creatures, and to intrench themselves behind laws framed for their advantage. The old forms of popular government were untouched; but the people had let real mastery in city, State, and Nation slip to a narrow plutocracy, which fed fat at the general expense and made the "representatives" of the public its private errand boys. The modern industrial organization of labor produces wealth with gratifying rapidity, but fails to distribute it well.1 Amer 1 Between 1860 and 1900 the ratio of wealth to population (per capita wealth) was magnified by four, but the average workman was not four times better |