lives and property of its own nationals and, in certain instances, those of other foreigners. The causes of Central American revolution have been clearly outlined by Dr. Dana G. Munro in his G. Munro in his work entitled The Five Republics of Central America: First: The attempt to impose political Second: What may be called 'the Third: Backwardness of the masses It has been the studied policy of the United States in recent years to coöperate with the Governments of Central America in preventing these causes of chronic disturbances. The very notable improvement in the feeling existing in the Central American republics toward the United States, which has taken place during the past few years, has been largely due to this spirit of helpful coöperation as distinguished from intervention or imposition evidenced by this Government in its offer to the Central American republics of the City of Washington as the meeting-place for the delegates to the Second Central American Conference held in 1922, as well as by participation by the United States in that Conference and by the entry of the United States into certain of the resultant treaties and conventions on a basis of entire equality with the other signatory powers. These treaties and conventions are essentially practical, not theoretical, and the recognition of their value is evidenced by the fact that certain of them formed the basis for the deliberations of the Pan American Conference held in Santiago, Chile, in 1923. It may be said, in general, that they provide for the obligatory settlement of international disputes by peaceful methods, for the limitation of armaments, for the progressive development of the economic resources of the Central American republics, and, above all, for the insurance of government by constitutional and orderly methods. Opinion in Central America regarding the value of these conventions is clearly evidenced by the following editorial published in the Reconciliacion of Tegucigalpa on June 13, last: THE PACTS OF WASHINGTON The conventions signed in Washington by the plenipotentiaries of Central America were extensively studied at the time and discussed by the press and the jurisconsults of our country. and from those discussions an opinion has been formed that the conventions represent a most firm base for the maintenance of internal peace and for more cordiality in the international relations of the five Republics of the Isthmus. The Assembly of Nicaragua was the first to approve the pacts in their entirety. Later the Congresses of Salvador and Guatemala ratified the most important of the conventions. And now we are informed by telegraph that the President of Costa Rica has submitted all the treaties to the Assembly of that country and, to judge by the sentiments which prevail in parliamentary circles there, it is certain that the legislative body of that State will ratify them. We can add nothing to that which has been spoken and written in favor of the conventions signed by the plenipotentiaries of Central America at the Washington Conference, and which provide so fully for the tranquillity of these countries. The pacts in a positive manner guarantee the peace of the five sections of the turbulent isthmus. They have been approved by three signatory Governments - Nicaragua, Salvador, and Guatemala; and another, Costa Rica, is submitting them to its Legislature where they will probably be ratified. The fondest hope of the people of Central America and the Governments which rule here is the establishment of national stability. Peace only will be able to make effective the prosperity and development of these countries. And for peace we all are obligated to struggle by all ways and means, as the integrity of the nation and the salvation of the honor of the Fatherland are at stake. The moral influence of the United States in Central America, as the result of the achievements of the Conference, is greater than it ever has been before. The distinction between the moral influence which now exists and the material influence which formerly existed should be emphasized. Imperialism is not furthered by the strengthening of the moral influence of this Government in Latin America. Once the conventions referred to have been ratified by all the signatory powers, and once their stipulations have been placed in effect, it is probable that Central America will progress so rapidly that the much desired union of the Central American republics can be undertaken. It has long been sus pected both here and in Latin America that it was the ambition of the United States to oppose the formation of a Central American union. That nothing could be further from the truth, is demonstrated by the recent policy of the United States. The United States has shown that it will assist in promoting Central American union, should the five Republics so desire and should the political and economic development of those countries and intercommunication between them make such union possible of realization. Were the policy of the United States truly imperialistic, its logical endeavor would be to prevent the formation of such a union and the consequent building-up of a strong progressive federation in in Central America, in order to exploit the five small nations. The patent contradiction of the charge made by Dr. Inman that the policy of the United States Government in Central America is imperialistic lies in that fact. The day of 'dollar diplomacy' in Central America is past, and no more agreeable proof of this assertion could be found than in the cordial coöperation between the United States and the Central American republics in the joint mediation offered when revolution and counter-revolution took place in Honduras a few months ago, as the result of which mediation a conference was held in Amapala, the Pacific port of Honduras, attended by delegates of all the governments mentioned. That conference brought about the cessation of civil war in Honduras and the selection by the political factions in Honduras of a provisional government of that Republic to maintain order, with the moral support of the mediating Powers, until such time as a constitutional government could be elected by the free vote of the Honduranean people. Criticism has been directed against the United States and undoubted resentment in Latin America has been engendered by the policy of this Government in Nicaragua since the Revolution of 1912 which resulted in the overthrow of the Dictator Zelaya. It has been charged that this Government has favored the interests of the American bankers who had undertaken to finance the Republic, in detriment to the interests of the Nicaraguan people. Whatever may be our view of the financial arrangement entered into between the Nicaraguan Government and their bankers, the fact remains that the financial plan, under which the Government has been operating for the past eleven years, has brought about a condition of financial stability for the Nicaraguan Government not exceeded by that of any other Latin-American Government. With slender resources, the Government has been enabled to meet all its obligations, to maintain, even during the European War, a stable rate of exchange, and to accumulate a sufficient surplus to enable it to obtain this year control of the railways of Nicaragua, which had been pledged to the bankers as a portion of the security for the loan made by them to the Republic. The criticism has likewise been made that the retention by the United States since 1912 of a small detachment of American Marines in Managua, as a Legation Guard, has been an undue intervention in Nicaragua and has resulted in the maintenance of the Conservative party in power, notwithstanding the alleged fact that the Liberal party represented the will of the majority of the people. The Government of the United States, however, has officially announced its intention to withdraw these Marines, who number only between seventy-five and one hundred men, after the installation on January 1 of the Govern ment which will be selected in the coming presidential elections. The Nicaraguan people this year will vote for the first time in accordance with the provisions of a modern electoral code, compiled for the Republic by Professor Harold W. Dodds, of Columbia University, employed for that purpose by the Nicaraguan Government. The registration for the elections has demonstrated that a greater number of Conservative than of Liberal voters is registered, and it is admitted by both parties that the registration was entirely fair. Whatever the result of the elections may be, it can no longer be alleged that the United States has assisted in the maintenance of one Party in power. It is difficult to understand how the charge can be made in good faith that the Republic of Panama is under the control of the United States. The relations between the Republic of Panama and the United States are defined and limited by the Treaty of 1903 between the two countries. As Secretary of State Root said in an instruction to the American Minister in Panama on December 4, 1905: The United States will exercise its rights under the treaty for the maintenance of order in Panama, Colon, and upon the Canal strip, and will not permit any interference with the peace and order of either of those cities or of that territory, which can be prevented by the exercise of its treaty rights, and it will not go beyond its treaty rights. That policy, as outlined by Secretary Root, has been consistently followed by every succeeding Administration. The United States exercises no financial or military control in the Republic of Panama, and has not done so in the past. The only possible basis which might be seen for the charge of Ameri can intervention in Panama is the employment by the Government of Panama of an American Financial Adviser, in accordance with legislation enacted by the Congress of Panama many years ago. However, the ultimate decision in all matters affecting the finances of the Republic is vested either in the Congress or in the President and Council of Ministers as provided in the Panamanian Constitution. The most difficult problem of all, perhaps, is that of Haiti. Yet, because of differences in race and language between the Haitian people and the other peoples of Latin America, the Haitian question is of less interest to the majority of the Latin-American republics than any other. The American Occupation of Haiti is one for which there is no strictly legal ground. As Chief Justice Marshall has stated, no nation can rightfully impose a rule upon another. Should the problem be viewed solely from the realm of theory, it is clear that the Occupation should terminate. If, however, the Occupation is viewed from the practical standpoint that the happiness and well-being of the Haitian people and the advance of education and economic prosperity are of higher importance, it must be admitted that the Occupation is and has been of the greatest benefit to the Haitian people and should continue until the Republic is governed by a Haitian administration, elected in accordance with the permanent provisions of the Haitian Constitution. A very clear and fair statement of the Haitian situation was contained in the following portion of an editorial published in the New York Times of July 2, 1924: Under the rule by revolution that prevailed before the American Occupation, the peasant was not encouraged to do more than supply his wants. If he attempted to accumulate prop erty, he was despoiled of it. The gendarmerie system set up by the supervisory Government protects him in all his rights. The fabric of native administration remains. The Haitian flag still flies. Agriculture has made substantial gains with the suppression of the cacos, who preyed upon the tillers of the soil. They can now bring their produce into the cities without fear of molestation, over good roads built with native labor under American engineers. Every few miles there is a gendarmerie station. Never before have the Haitian people enjoyed security in their homes and protection of their persons. Never before have they known the meaning of hygiene or had proper medical attention. In the view of the ruling class that formerly preyed upon the people, the supervisory Government flagrantly violates the rights of Haiti; but to the mass of the people it is a protector and a practical friend, who provides employment, pays good wages, and is developing the resources of the country for the general welfare. The Treaty of 1915 has been renewed for a term of years, because the Americans could not abandon the Haitians before the task of training them to govern themselves had been finished, and not because there ever had been a design to exploit them. The Americans are in Haiti to raise its people from a state of ignorance and savagery for which their rulers were responsible. The duty devolved upon our Government because European nations called upon the United States to bring order out of chaos and make Haiti solvent, or to waive the Monroe Doctrine and let them intervene to collect their debts and protect their nationals. The United States is pledged to evacuate Haiti when the work is done. The decision of the United States to adopt the policy upon which it has embarked has been severely condemned and creates possibly a dangerous precedent. It is probable that it is too early as yet to estimate whether the policy is justifiable or not; and yet, should it later be ascertained that the material assistance lent to the Haitian people by the United States had substituted the benefits of civilization (without the impairment of ultimate sovereignty) for a condition of anarchy and chaos, who could claim that our policy had not proved wise? When the Occupation was undertaken to prevent European intervention in an American republic, it resulted in the overthrow of the Haitian system of administration existing up to that time. Can the Occupation be terminated until a new system of administration is developed which our Government believes can successfully undertake the task which it has temporarily assumed? III Current criticism of our policy in regard to the great republics of South America appears to be limited to the employment by Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia, of American experts or financial advisers, and by the agreement on the part of Bolivia and Salvador that the deposit of the funds destined to the payment of interest and sinking-fund charges be made under the supervision of the representatives of the American interests holding their national obligations. Yet these advisers and experts were employed by the Governments concerned without the shadow of advice or intervention on the part of this Government. To state that the employment of such advisers constitutes undue interference on the part of the United States in the domestic affairs of the countries named, is as absurd as to charge that the employment by Brazil and Peru of French military missions constitutes intervention by France in the internal affairs of those two countries. The nature of the contracts entered into by Salvador and Bolivia with American bankers, is due solely to the fact that the national credit of those two republics was not such as to warrant better terms. It will easily be seen that, had it been possible for either Salvador or Bolivia to obtain a loan in the United States, or in Europe, upon better terms, less onerous contracts would have been entered into. With such questions, of course, the Government of the United States has had no direct concern. It is almost axiomatic that development of commercial relations between countries brings about a better understanding and a clearer perception of their mutual advantages and common needs. In Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Venezuela, citizens are hardly 'trembling in their boots' because Americans since the war have invested more largely than ever before in South American securities. South American countries are, of course, ambitious to increase their commerce with the United States and to obtain American capital, as well as European, in order to develop their stupendous natural resources. Another legitimate and helpful ambition is that of the American business man to develop trade relations with Latin America. These mutual desires our Government has fostered in every proper way. Commercial development, however, cannot be considered economic domination, nor could it logically be the policy of the United States to attempt to monopolize trade with Latin America to the exclusion of the legitimate growth of trade between Europe and Latin America. Even a most superficial study of world commerce makes it clear that in an era when the commercial and financial relations of all the nations of the world are closely interlocked, such an attempt on the part of the American Govern |