Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/91

 Rh

the literal terms of the treaty would give us authority to use force if necessary in order to prevent the people of the Isthmus from establishing their sovereignty over it, such a construction would undoubtedly do violence to the spirit of the treaty. . . . The recognition of a new State created by revolution against the parent State is always more or less of a delicate nature and very likely to excite opposition unless it follows« a formal recognition by said parent State. But the recognition of the New Republic of Panama by the United States has contra vened no principle of international law, and the conduct of our government, for which Secretary Hay is largely responsible, has throughout the proceedings been character ized by frankness, tact, and a statesmanlike grasp of the situation.

The upshot of it all in this instance is that, under the old theory of the law and under the precedents, and under the treaty of 1846, Colombia had the right to expect this country to refrain from interference until the Panama rebels had established some form of govern ment and it had had an opportunity to put down the insurrection. Mr. Roosevelt, how ever, has taken the ground that the interest of this country—he would probably call it the interest of humanity—demands the building of the canal at Panama; that this interest is of greater moment than any obligation which this nation owes, not primarily to Colombia, but to the cause of civilization and to the ad vancement of peace. It is further contended, therefore, that it is a greater, i. c., a higher, national duty to secure tihe building of the canal at Panama than to observe those obli gations of good neighborhood which have been established among nations for the pur PROFESSOR HENRY LOOMIS NELSON attacks pose of mitigating, or eventually extinguish vigorously the course of the Administration ing, the evils of war and of promoting the in the Panama matter. He says: cause of peace. In a word, the President is The new element which Mr. Roosevelt upheld for a hostile, war-provoking act has introduced is into international conduct rather than in international law. According | against Colombia in order to secure a canal at Panama. to the defenders of his policy, the law re This is the restoration of the pirate code mains about as it was—that is, that if a to the conduct of nations. It is not so new nation wishes to do the fair thing by another •nation it will give the latter a chance to put as the President's friends suppose; it is, in fact, a reaction to fifteenth and sixteenth cen down any rebellion against it, but they hold tury immorality. The restored doctrine is that each nation may violate this law, at the that a nation may do anything it will for the peril of war, if it is for its interest to do so. sake of the material advantage of its citizens; It has been supposed' that international law, it may invite war, and the reprisals of war, unenforceable, of course, is a body of certain for the sake of promoting trade. The ten moral obligations resting upon nations, to dency of international law, a tendency greatly some of which all nations have agreed, some promoted by this republic, has been in the by special treaties. The Roosevelt doctrine, other direction. The Roosevelt doctrine ex however, giving to the extent that there exist cuses war if it is invited, or waged, in the no international moral obligations, upsets interest of trade; the world has supposed this theory. Under the Roosevelt doctrine, that the law was discouraging war in the international law no longer points out same interest. The Roosevelt doctrine is friendly courses to be followed, or unfriendly based on the theory that a nation owes no acts to be avoided, by nations, for the pur pose of maintaining peace, or of preventing moral obligation to its neighbor; the older doctrine, which by degrees led up to The war; on the contrary, it simply describes con duct, perfectly proper in itself, which may Hague conference, was based on the opposite theory, which is that a nation does owe moral justly be made the cause of war by an offend obligations to its neighbors. Indeed, if it ed State.