Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/409

 378

THE GREEN BAG

States the principle "that the public debt cannot occasion armed intervention nor, still less, the actual occupation of the territory of American nations by an European power." In closing he cited instances where the Ar gentine government had been obliged for a time to suspend the payment of its debts, but where eventually it had paid them in full to the great advantage of her credit, which advantage could never have been obtained had there been armed interference in the meantime. Sefior Heron left a copy of this note with Mr. Hay, and on February 17, 1903, Mr. Hay inclosed a memorandum to him in reply, in which he expressly avoided assenting to, or dissenting from the proposition advanced by the Argentine minister of foreign rela tions, but said that the general attitude of the United States government was indi cated in recent messages of the President, from one of which, President Roosevelt's message of December 2, 1902, he quoted the following : "No independent nation in America need have the slightest fear of aggression from the United States. It behooves each one to maintain order within its own borders and to discharge its just obligations to foreigners.1 When this is done they can rest assured that, be they strong or weak, they have nothing to dread from outside interference." The reference to the discharge of the "just obligations to foreigners" must have been cold comfort to the Argentine minister, despite the disclaimer of passing on the question which preceded it, and so the reply of Mr. Hay officially closed the inci dent, but it by no means put an end to the discussion to which the note had given rise. In the press quite generally the doctrine expressed in the note came to be known as the "Calvo Doctrine," and what ever Calvo's influence, writings, or counsel may have had on its formulation by Sefior 1 The italics are the writer's.

Drago, he was, at any rate, the means of eliciting some most interesting and valuable comments on it from his associates in the Institute of International Law and the Institute of France. Senor Carlos Calvo was at this time Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipo tentiary from the Argentine Republic to France and the Holy See, residing at Paris. A publicist of wide reputation, he had enjoyed the acquaintance of most of the men prominent in international law circles for the preceding generation, and accord ingly, on April 17, 1903, wrote a circular letter to a number of them in which he enclosed Sefior Drago 's note, expressed his own opinion that it was inspired by sound principles of international law, and said that it would be particularly agreeable to him to find them in accord with him in this view. Of the twelve of his correspondents whose replies are given in the Revue de Droit Inter national, three •— Bar, Asser, and Campos, were members of the International Court of Arbitration of The Hague, and the first two of these felt precluded by their position from discussing the question. Of the ten who did express an opinion on it, Passy, Moynier, Campos, Feraud-Giraud, Weiss, and Olivecrona, six in all, expressed them selves in agreement with the main argu ment of Sefior Drago 's note. The remain ing four, Westlake, Holland, Charmes, and Fiore, expressed themselves more guardedly. Westlake agreed that the funded debt of a nation should not be the occasion of inter vention, but considered that the floating debt, which is usually not entered into with the consideration of the credit of the coun try that the bonded debt is, may equally, with wrongs ordinarily so-called, be the occasion of armed intervention. Holland gave as his opinion that the question was one not yet settled by international law, but expressed the hope that it might soon be. Charmes considered the question rather one of practice than of general principle and