Skip to main content

Full text of "The Monroe doctrine, the Polk doctrine and the doctrine of anarchism"

See other formats


University of California. 









JUNE 23, 1903 








JUNE 23, 1903 














There is a thought to-day in the minds of all of us to which I 
shall not refrain from giving expression at the outset. It is one 
of gratitude for the services, regret for the departui'e, and hope for 
the unbroken rest and enjoyment of the retiring Dean of the Yale 
Law School. My own gratitude goes to Dr. Wayland as a sort of 
inheritance, for over forty years ago, in a remote Western college, 
my first lessons in Moral Science and Intellectual Philosophy were 
taught from his honored father's text-books ; yours is of that more 
intimate character that comes from seeing the son take the torch 
from the father's hands and bear it blazing forward over your 
own pathway. 

May I venture further on an expression of the pleasure given 
to a great body of college-bred men throughout the length and 
'breadth of the United States, and especially to almost every man 
who in the past quarter of a century has had to do, in however 
humble a way, with the foreign service of his country, by the 
continued duty here of the present acting Dean? To those who 
learned Morals and International Law from the tongue or pen of 
a former eminent President of Yale, no work of a Woolsey can 
fail to be weighty. 

In looking over some of the impressive addresses called out by The Profe 
your Commencement in later years, I have observed that the *'''"' ""^ 
learned speakers have generally had something to say more ^^^ 
directly to the graduating class, and that this has been reserved 
for the conclusion of their remarks. The little I have in this kind 
is so simple that we may as well have done with it at once. I 
merely wish to express the hope that as you go out with the train- 
ing and under the inspiration of Yale, it is to be the profession 
and not the trade of law that you are going to practice. 


What the legal profession has been to this country, what in 
spite of the bewildering and unprecedented changes of later years 
its friends still love to recognize in it, may be seen in the picture 
drawn by a most intelligent and acute foreign observer, over two- 
thirds of a century ago. I quote from M. de Tocqueville : 

"In America there are no nobles or literary men, and the people are 
apt to mistrust the wealthy. Lawyers consequently form the highest 
political class and the most cultivated portion of society. They have 
therefore nothing to gain by innovation, which adds a conservative inter- 
est to their natural taste for public honor. If I were asked where I place 
the American aristocracy I should reply, without hesitation, that it is not 
among the rich, who are united by no common tie, but that it occupies 
the judicial bench and bar. ... In that country we easily perceive how 
the legal profession is qualified by its attributes, and even by its faults, 
to neutralize the vices inherent in popular government." 

That, gentlemen, referred necessarily and exclusively to what I 
mentioned a moment ago as the legal profession, as distinguished 
from what under modern conditions, and in the intense life of our 
great cities, your critics are now apt to talk about as the legal 
trade. Of the latter no man has written such words and no man 
has thought of such praise. There is still cherished among our 
national glories the name of a great lawyer in New Haven, who 
flourished here a century ago. He is famous for his connection 
with the law, but he would have been famous without the law. 
He worked at a trade before he studied law. If he had then pur- 
sued the trade of law he might perhaps have retained the honor 
won in other fields, but we should have been prouder to speak of 
him solely as Roger Sherman, the shoemaker. 

Perhaps the contrast between the profession and the very high- 
est form of the trade of law was never more sharply and even 
exasperatingly drawn than in an old Boston oration, full of the 
fire and stern ethical exaction of our stormy anti-slavery days. 
Without approving its bitterness, and without accepting even its 
implications of principle in their extreme length, I am going to 
read a short extract from it that may serve you as a summons to 
the highest and best level of the great profession for which you 
have been fitting: 

"Suppose we stood in that lofty temple of jurisprudence — on either 
side of us the statues of the great lawyers of every age and clime — and 
let us see what part New England — Puritan, educated, free New Eng- 
land — would bear in the pageant. Rome points to a colossal figure and 
says, ^That is Papiuian, who, when the Emperor Caracalla murdered his 
own brother, and ordered the lawyer to defend the deed, went cheerfully 
to death rather than sully his lips with the atrocious plea.' And France 


stretches forth her grateful hauds, crying, ' That is D'Aguesseau, worthy, 
when he went to face an enraged King, of the farewell his wife addressed 
him — Go! forget that you have a wife and children to ruin, and remem- 
ber only that you have France to save.' England says, 'That is Coke, 
who flung the laurels of eighty years in the face of the first Stuart, in the 
defence of the people. This is Seldeu, on every book of whose library 
you saw written the motto of which he lived worthy. Before everything 
Liberty! That is Mansfield, silver-tongued, who proclaimed, Slaves can- 
not breathe in England. . . . This is Rorailly, who spent life trying to 
make law synonymous with justice, and succeeded in making life and 
property safer in every city of the empire. . . . That is Erskine, whose 
eloquence, in spite of Lord Eldon and George III, made it safe to speak 
and to print.' 

"Then New England shouts, 'This is Choate, who made it safe to mur- 
der; and of whose health thieves asked before they began to steal.'" 

Unjust to the lawyer no doubt it was, but as an estimate of 
what some walks of the law may be made, it is mordant and 

In that lofty Valhalla of which Mr. Phillips spoke, consecrated 
to the stern and awful figure of Justice herself, and peopled only 
by the sons of your profession whose conspicuous service ap- 
proved them worthy to worship at her shrine — in that noble 
company, I say, you will look in vain for the statue of the mod- 
ern " ambulance-chaser " or any species of the modern speculative 
damage-suit lawyer. Far less will you find the tradesman in 
litigation who has found ways to combine champerty and main- 
tenance with safe standing in the courts. Nay, you will not even 
find there that sort of brilliant corporation lawyer whose practice 
is confined to teaching corporate wealth how to evade the laws 
of the land ; or that other whose practice lies in teaching trades 
unions how to conduct campaigns against property without 
imperilling their own incomes, and campaigns against free labor 
by terrorism, by the bludgeon, by dynamite, without incurring 
responsibility for such deeds, while enjoying the victory they 
secure. Few, perhaps, in any Law School or in any age may hope 
to reach that lofty company, the nobles of your truly aristocratic 
profession, the laureates of the law ; but better far fall short on 
that upward and shining professional path than race to the front 
in the downward road of the trade. 

When Theophilus Parsons undertook the task of training John 
Quincy Adams to the Law, the first book he assigned his pupil 
was Robertson's "History of Charles V," and the second was 
Yattel's " Law of Nature and Nations," while Gibbon and Hume 
came shortly afterward. On the assumption that the range and 



dignity of law studies have not suffered at the hands of this great 
New England University since the days of that eminent New 
England lawyer, I make no apologies for now proceeding to 
invite the attention of the Yale Law School to certain recent 
aspects of public policy and international law, rather than to 
topics more directly related to current law practice. I wish to 
speak to you about the Monroe Doctrine, the Polk Doctrine, and 
the Doctrine of Anarchism. 

To the average American the Monroe Doctrine seems so 
natural and necessary that he is always surprised at the surprise 
with which the pretension is regarded by Europe. Not one of 
our citizens out of a thousand has any doubt of its propriety or 
of our duty to maintain it. The slightest show of foreign oppo- 
sition would call a practically unanimous country to its defence. 

At the same time there is no very intimate familiarity with the 
circumstances of its origin, or the varying scope we have given 
it, and little attention has been paid to the changed conditions 
that must now affect its application. Considered at present 
merely in the old light, as a barrier against the reactionary 
designs of the Holy Alliance upon the new republics we had just 
recognized in the American continents at the close of the French 
Revolutionary and Napoleonic period, its condition somewhat 
resembles that of a long-neglected barrel around which has accu- 
mulated the debris of years. The hoops, the thing that made 
it a barrel, have dropped away ; only the pressure of the debris 
outside holds the staves together. Remove that and the barrel 
would tumble to pieces , jj^e p up the outside pressure and it 
may last indefinitely, r^^^ 

I do not say that tlie^iUus^tion exactly fits the case, or that 
the Monroe Doctrine wof^PWsappear if Europe ceased to ojjpose 
it. I do say that under a «how of European opposition it would 
be likely to last indefinitely ; and that in a long absence of such 
opposition it may hold together less tenaciously. The things that 
made the Monroe Doctrine have disappeared : — the danger that 
the infant republics should be strangled by their cruel stepmother 
and her allies ; that the Holy Alliance should cheek the spread of 
Republican institutions or overturn them in any place where they 
deserve to exist ; or that Europeans should attempt now, under 
the shadow of the United States of the Twentieth Century, to 
colonize alleged unoccupied lands in America. Under such cir- 
cumstances it may be easy, after a while, for us to look over the 
Monroe Doctrine again in the light of the present situation of the 
American continents and of our present necessities. We will cer- 
tainly not abandon it ; but we may find, if nobody is opposing 


us, that perhaps its extension, quite so far beyond the original 
purpose of Mr. Monroe and Mr. Adams as the fervor of our pa- 
triots has carried it, may prove to be attended with wholly unne- 
cessary inconvenience to ourselves. 

For the sake of precision it may be well at the beginning to re- 
state a few facts about it, not always remembered. The Doctrine 
is not International Law. It is not American Law. It consists 
merely of declarations of policy by Presidents and Secretaries of 
State, and these are not uniform. There is a Monroe Doctrine, 
suggested in part by Mr. Canning, extended and formulated by 
Mr. John Quincy Adams, and adopted by Mr. Monroe, in his mes- 
sage to Congress of December 2, 1823. There is a Polk Doctrine, 
starting in disputes about our Northwestern frontier and in an 
intrigue of the slave power for the seizm'e and annexation of 
Yucatan, collaborated by Mr. James Buchanan and his chief, and 
adopted by Mr. Polk, in his messages to Congress of December 2, 
1845, and April 29, 1848. The Monroe Doctrine held that (1) " the 
American continents, by the free and independent condition which 
they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be con- 
sidered as subjects for future colonization by any European 
power"; and (2) that, as "the political system of the allied pow- 
ers is essentially different . . . from that of America . . . with 
the existing colonies or dei;)endencies of any European power (in 
America) we have not interfered and shall not interfere ; but with 
the Governments who have declared their independence and main- 
tained it . . . we could not view aa^n terposition for the pur- 
pose of oppressing them or controll^^k any other manner then* 
destiny by any Eui'opean power, in ati^ther light than as the 
manifestation of an unfriendly disfSfllffion toward the United 
States." The second of these propositions was the one suggested 
and cordially welcomed by Great Britain ; the first was met by 
instant dissent. Both, though resting wholly on the Presidential 
declaration, withoul^i ^tatute or resolution of Congres s to sustain 
them, have become incorporated iiito the general American faith. 
But neither of them declares against anylBut Repu blicanl^nititu- 
tions for the futureln this hemisphere ; — in fact, about the same 
time ^ve were recognizing two Emperoi's, Iturbide in Mexico and 
Dom Pedro in Brazil. Neither of them objects to transfer of do- 
minion to Eiu'opeans by cession, purchase or the voluntary act of 
the inhabitants; and neither of them gives any pledge to any 
South American State that we Avould interfere in its behalf against 
the use of force for the collection of debts or the redi*ess of inju- 
ries, or indeed against any European attack. 


* The Polk Doctrine, starting from Mr. Monroe's statement 
' about colonization, says (1) "it should be distinctly announced to 
the world as our settled policy that no future European colony 
or (lominion shall, with our consent, be planted or estahlislied on 
ai|^^ part of the North American continent " ; and again, quoting 
Mr. Monroe as opposing the extension of the European system 
to this hemisphere, Mr. Polk says (2) "while it is not my purpose 
to recommend . . . the acquisition of the dominion and sover- 
eignty over Yucatan, yet . . . we could not consent to a trans- 
fer of this dominion and sovereignty to either Spain, Great Brit- 
ain or any other European power." Thus, professing only to 
reaffirm the Monroe Doctrine, the Polk Doctrine extends it to 
forbid specifically the establishment or acquisition of dominion 
anywhere in North America, and inferentially anywhere in this 
hemisphere, by any European power. Not merely are they for- 
bidden to claim unsettled lands and colonize them, or to interfere 
with the liberties of the Spanish- American Republics we had just 
recognized; but they must never take dominion, by cession, by pur- 
chase, by voluntary appeal of inhabitants or otherwise. Under the 
Polk Doctrine no American nation could part with any of its 
territory to Europeans to secure any advantage for itself; nor 
could its people determine their own destiny at their own will. 
Under that doctrine Grermany could not buy a coaling station off 
the coast of Chili, or on the confines of Patagonia ; — not even if 
the recognized sovereigns agreed to sell it and the inhabitants 
earnestly desired the transfer ; nor could Venezuela pay its Euro- 
pean debts by ceding — possibly even by leasing — the little island 
of Marguerita off its coast. 

I suppose the logical J^is of our original assertion of the 

Monroe Doctrine to have Deen our own National interests ; and 

the only ground for any recognition or toleration of it by other 

nations to have been the national right, generally claimed, to 

hold our own interests paramount within the natural and legiti- 

I mate sphere of our influence. Such a claim is known in interna- 

jj tional practice. What other nations cannot so clearly understand 

I is why Patagonia, close to the Antarctic Circle and the Southern 

Frigid Zone, should be in our sphere of influence, any more than 

theirs ; or, if it is, why the Azores and Morocco, less than a third 

as far away from us, are not also within our sphere of influence. 


European It is always an advantage, in any effort to see all around a sub- 
Poik ject, to find the other man's point of view. Perhaps we may get 

* a clearer insight into the action of the European mind on this 

• subject if we should try to work out some European Monroe 
Doctrine, and especially some European Polk Doctrine. 


China, or at any rate China and Russia combined, hold a posi- 
tion in Asia far more commanding than that of the United States 
in the three Americas. In both cases the governments are as 
absolutely committed to the despotic as we are to the republican 
idea ; and there is no obvious proof that the overwhelming ma- 
jority of their people do not believe in their system as much as 
the corresponding majority of our people believe in ours. Sup- 
pose China, or China and Russia together, had taken ground that 
the Asiatic continent, being entii-ely occupied, by the existing 
governments which were mostly in form and principle like their 
own, was no longer a field for colonization or conquest by 
any American power; and on that ground at the outbreak of 
the Spanish-American War had warned us off Manila and the 
Philippines I 

Great Britain, entrenched at the North and at the South of 
Africa, and reaching thence in each direction yet farther and 
farther toward the point where her two lines of settlement must 
meet, holds a position on the continent of Africa comparable at 
least to that of the United States on the continents of America. 
In connection with the minor colonies by other Governments of 
like tendencies toward constitutional monarchy with England 
herself, Belgium, Portugal and Germany, she has the immensely 
preponderating influence. Suppose Great Britain, with the con- 
currence of the rest, had said to the United States, that Africa, 
ha\dng already had governments under their control and com- 
mitted mainly to the ideas of the constitutional monarchy, set up 
over her whole extent (so far as it is accessible excepting through 
their territory), is no longer a field for colonization by Republics, 
and so had warned us off, say, from Liberia ? 

Would the United States have cheerfully accepted that doctrine 
in Asia, or even in Africa? Suppose it had been announced 
when Dewey was compelled to leave Hong Kong, and had his 
choice between falling upon the national enemy at Manila or 
turning his back upon the Spaniard and steaming home across 
the Pacific ? Or suppose that after the war China and Russia had 
called upon us to give up what we had conquered and restore the 
Philippines to Spain I 

With our mental vision possibly a little clarified by this glimpse 
of how the boot might look on the other leg, it may be useful 
now to consider dispassionately the present advantage to us of 
the two doctrines, and particularly the doctrine of Mr, Polk ; and 
to count from the only point of view a representative govern- 
ment on its own initiative has any right to take, that of the 
interest of its citizens, whether it is now worth to them what it 
might cost. 



)ur Interests "vyhat would be our present precise motive for aggressively 
ponsibiiities assertiiig against the world the two Doctrines, as to countries 
farther away from us than half Europe and Africa are ? One ob- 
vious advantage, from the point of view of our naval and mer- 
cantile marine, must always be remembered, and never under- 
valued; — that of making naval and coaling stations scarce for 
our commercial rivals and possible enemies. And yet our posi- 
tion would seem a little curious, spending hundreds of millions 
on a Panama canal, so as to open to all the world on equal terms 
the trade on the Pacific, in which, until a canal is dug, we have 
such an enormous natural advantage ourselves, and then saying. 
Nevertheless, by our Polk Doctrine we can still delay you or 
hamper you a little about coaling stations! But as to the old 
grounds of the Monroe Doctrine, are we afraid now of peril to 
our own institutions ? Have we any interest in forcing the main- 
tenance of similar institutions elsewhere beyond the legitimate 
sphere of our influence, unless at least they give promise of 
bringing to others something akin to what they have brought to 
us ? If it be true that in considerable parts of the regions to the 
south of us they have resulted, through the three-quarters of a 
century since the doctrine was announced, in tumult, lack of 
development, disaster and chronic revolution, what is the precise 
real advantage for our citizens which the United States derives 
from meddling, and aggressively insisting that the world must 
continue to witness this result of so-called republican institutions 
on so colossal a scale ? 

Mexico is now a model for all Spanish America, but in the 
short period since her escape from her colonial government, in 
1821, a statistical historian has counted three hundred revolu- 
tions, successful or abortive. 

There is one particular South American State in which, for one 
reason or another, and in one way or another, we have of late 
greatly interested ourselves. I hold the table of its revolutions, 
forcible removals of Chief Magistrates, and civil wars in my 
hands, with dates and duration of each, but shall not delay you 
by reading the list. From 1811, when it proclaimed its indepen- 
dence, till 1903, it has had, under Dictators, Supreme Chiefs, self- 
proclaimed Presidents and otherwise, over thirty changes, has 
spent over twenty-five years under three Dictatorships, each 
violently overthrown, and has had civil war for twenty-nine 
years.* No doubt as to this government, too, which has sustained 
its independence, and, to use the stately language of Mr. Monroe, 
whose independence, on great consideration and on just prin- 
ciples, we acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for 

*See Appendix. 


the purpose of oppressing it or controlling in uny manner its 
destiny by any European power except as a manifestation of an 
unfriendly disposition toward the United States. It is directly 
within the sphere of our influence, as Cuba was, and if there 
should ever arise an imperative necessity for the restoration of 
order from the outside, the task would be ours rather than that 
of any Euroj^ean nation. But would that task be quite so impera- 
tive or exclusive if, instead of overhanging the Caribbean Sea 
and the Gulf of Mexico, this nation were double as far away from 
us as half Africa is ? 

Such turbulent and revolutionary governments commit offences 
against foreigners; sometimes injure foreign residents, sometimes 
affront or injure foreign vessels in their waters, sometimes run in 
debt and fail to pay. What then ? Is the Monroe Doctrine, or, 
still more, the Polk Doctrine, to be construed into an inter- 
national bankruptcy act, to be enforced by the United States for 
the benefit of any American Republic against all European 
creditors f Or, on the other hand, is it to degenerate into an in- 
ternational collection agency, maintained by the United States 
for the benefit of European powers which may have just claims 
against American Republics ? In a recent conspicuous case the 
President has very properly and wisely given a practical negative 
to both these questions; while under his guidance the Secretary 
of State, with consummate skill, has secured the precedent that 
European powers first procure our consent before attempting to 
collect debts by force on these continents, and then only on their 
promise not to take territory. Perhaps it is also a useful pre- 
cedent, secured at the same time, that under such conditions the 
game does not prove worth the candle. 

But what then? What alternative is left? Shall we simply 
say to any European creditor that, as to any debt of any Ameri- 
can Republic, the only rule is. Caveat emptor f Must the lender 
under any circumstances be merely told that he should have con- 
sidered the risks before he made the loan, and that now he has no 
remedy ? When the debtor country has no assets save its custom- 
houses and its lands, must the United States, a power aiming to 
stand at the head of the world's civilization, say for all time. You 
shall not touch the only assets of your debtor, because it is an 
American Republic? And, assuming that to be just, and our 
determination, are we ready to carry that doctrine, in case of 
need, as far afield as to Uruguay and Paraguay and Patagonia — 
and then to fight for it ? 

That is the vital point in the whole subject, as our First As- 
sistant Secretary of State, Mr. Loomis, pointed out in a recent 


sagacious address. It is better to consider the question before a 
case springs up and the patriotic temper of the people is aroused. 
Ob\'iously we shall either modify the present extreme extensions 
of the old doctrine, which carrj^ it far beyond any national interest 
it now serves, or some day or another we shall have to fight for 
it, — and ought to, unless we mean to play the part of a vulgar 
braggart, and loudly assert what we are not ready to maintain. 
How far would it really have concerned our interests in the case 
of the Argentine troubles, which prostrated the Barings and 
brought on a great financial crash in London, if Great Britain 
had found it necessary for the protection of the rights of her 
people to take steps in that remote country, twice as far from 
New York as London itself is, which would seem to infringe upon 
^, the extreme extensions of the Monroe Doctrine by Polk and 

[ Buchanan ! Happily the case did not arise. But some day and 

with some nation it is reasonably sure to. We may better now, 
in a time of profound calm, and when there is no threat to affect 
our dignity or disturb the serenity of our judgment, give serious 
consideration ourselves to this question: How far south do we 
mean now, in the twentieth century, to push the Monroe Doc- 
trine and the Polk Doctrine, and hold ourselves ready at any 
challenge to fight for them? 

I am not seeking to prejudge the question or even to influence 
the answer. I am only presenting the subject in a light in which 
it has never yet had from the American people at large that se- 
rious and solemn consideration which should always precede acts 
of war. 

In this day, in the light of the last hundred years and with the 
present unassailable strength of representative government on 
this continent, it is for us to say if there is any ground of justice 
or right on which we rest the Monroe Doctrine, save that of our 
proper predominance, in our own interest, and in the interest of 
republican institutions generally, within the legitimate sphere of 
our National influence. Unless we stop there, we cannot stop 
logically short of a similar care over republican institutions 
wherever they exist on the surface of the globe. For in an age 
of fast steamers and wireless telegraphy, the two American con- 
tinents can no longer be treated as shut up to themselves and 
measui-ably isolated from the rest of the world. Oceans do not 
now separate ; they unite. Buenos Ayi-es is actually nearer in 
miles to Cadiz and Madrid than to New York, and so is more than 
half of all South America. 

e Future of Under such considerations, if no foreign interference arises 
' Doctrine suddenly to affect the National judgment, it is at least among the 


possibilities that we may find two changes taking place in the 
National view of the ideas grouped under the popular term of 
the Monroe Doctrine. We may see a considerable increase in 
the stringency of their application, where our interest clearly 
calls for them, within the natural sphere of our influence. We 
may see them slowly moderated as to remote countries, which 
under changed modern conditions are no longer exclusively 
within that sphere. No one denies that the Gulf of Mexico, the 
Caribbean Sea and the waters of both oceans about the Isthmus 
are within that sphere. They must be forever dominated by the 
great Republic. It cannot tolerate a nuisance at its doors, and 
the races that people those shores must keep the peace and pre- 
serve order as to us, and conform to ordinary international obli- 
gations toward the world. To this the moral duty of our strength 
points and our material interest binds us. It was on this ground 
our action toward Cuba was justified; and reasons of ecjual 
strength would no doubt be found to conduct us again to similar 
action in any similar emergency throughout that whole region, 
on the continent, in the islands, or on the other ocean, at least 
from Los Angeles to Lima. 

Toward the rest of the American continents it may some day 
prove more convenient for us to assume less responsibility. We 
shall certainly never cease to manifest our friendly interest in 
those countries. We do have a relation toward them which the 
rest of the world can never have, and we shall hope that the 
progress of the century may make it closer. The general spread 
of such order and prosperity as have made brilliant the adminis- 
tration of that gi-eat statesman, Porfirio Diaz, will be warmly 
welcomed farther south. A railroad through the three Ameri- 
cas will draw us more closely together. The currents of trade 
will change. The legitimate sphere of our influence will thus 
widen throughout those nations with the years ; and it might be 
increased rather than diminished by a moderation of our extreme 
claim to interfere now with any exercise of their own sovereignty 
as to territory, government or otherwise, to which their calm 
judgment of their own best interests may bring them. 

If the hour is not already too far advanced, I should now like Political 
to ask the attention of these future lawyers and lawmakers of the ^"'^"J.'.^" 
Republic to another question of perhaps equal National and in- 
ternational concern. 

Two years ago a man without an enemy was assassinated in a 
neighboring State in the presence of a multitude of friends. There 
was absolutely no cause save a political one — he was at the head 
of the Government. It was either a political offence or the act 



of a lunatic. The assassin was promptly arrested, absence of lu- 
nacy was established, and, to the credit of the progress in the 
administration of American justice since previous Presidential 
assassinations, he was fairly but much more promptly tried and 
more promptly executed. 

The crime was committed within a few miles of the Canadian 
frontier. Suppose the assassin had been able to escape to Canada. 
Could any British authorities have hesitated under any circum- 
stances to give up a man who had sought on their soil after such 
an act the asylum their treaties have invariably granted for a po- 
litical offence ? 

Bear in mind that the latest and only provision in any treaty 
of extradition between Great Britain and the United States that 
could apply to the case at all, that of March 11, 1890, expressly 
stipulates that fugitives from justice shall neither be surrendered 
nor punished for crimes of a political character ; and further that 
on the question whether a crime is of a political character the 
decision of the government in whose jurisdiction the criminal is 
found must be final. It is pertinent also to recall that after the 
attempted assassination of the Third Napoleon in Paris by Orsini, 
by which a large number of victims were killed and many more 
maimed, the French Government suggested to Great Britain the 
surrender or further provision for the punishment of participants 
in this or kindred plots who had found asylum in London, and 
were in fact believed to have there originated and perfected their 
conspiracies ; that the British Government did not comply ; and 
that the Prime Minister who attempted to comply, Lord Pal- 
merston, was thereby driven from office. It is equally pertinent 
to remember that never, with the exceptions of Belgium, Russia 
and Luxemburg, until some time after this assassination at Buf- 
falo — never in fact until June 14, 1902, did the United States 
have a treaty for such surrender with any other nation, that its 
Ministers had more than once been cautioned against encourag- 
ing requests for such a clause in negotiations for any treaty, and 
that the only additional countries it has such treaties with to-day 
are Brazil and Denmark. At the time, therefore, although we 
had already suffered from two previous Presidential assassina- 
tions, we had not only made no agreement with Great Britain, 
but we had never made an agreement with any nation of the first 
rank (save one) to retmm such a prisoner ourselves, and were in 
no position to demand as a right more than we had stipulated to 
concede ; while Great Britain was in some sort committed against 
such return in the conspicuous case I have named. On the other 
hand, let us always gratefully remember that when there was 


thought to be some reason for imagining that the assassin of 
Abraham Lincohi might seek an asylum in England, our represen- 
tative then at the Court of St. James, Mr. Charles Francis Adams, 
was able to report promptness and good will at the Foreign Of- 
fice in facilitating any application that might be made for his sur- 
render. It is also most gratifying to remember, as that accom- 
plished student of International Law, Professor John Bassett 
Moore, of Columbia, reminded us in his " Case of the Salvadorean 
Refugees," that in June, 1894, a third of a century after the Or- 
sini case, the Court of Queen's Bench delivered up to France a 
fugitive charged with the explosion at the Cafe Very, holding 
that, " in order to constitute an offence of a political character, 
there must be two or more parties in the State, each seeking to 
impose the government of their own choice on the other," and 
that the offence must be " committed by one side or the other, in 
pursuance of that object." 

Of course this last decision makes the extreme case, as I have 
stated it, of a possible refusal to surrender the assassin of Mc- 
Kinley quite beyond all probabilities. Without a reasonable 
doubt he would have been surrendered at the earliest moment at 
which the requisite formalities could have been concluded. But 
it would have been an act of sympathy and international comity, 
due to the good will of the British Government of the day and its 
abhorrence of an atrocious crime, and not to the established law 
and practice of nations, or consistent with any uniform practice 
of its own. 

The state, then, of international law at the time of our last The Assas- 
Presidential assassination, the record of some foreign govern- 
ments, and the tenderfootedness of a part of our own treaty- 
making power on the subject of extradition are such that it may 
be useful to seize the occasion for reviewing our own actual atti- 
tude toward the most startling and, in view of certain tendencies 
of the age, the most dangerous of modern crimes. 

At the outset we may take it for gi-anted, I think, that it is not 
consistent with the dignity of the United States to be dependent 
on mere international comity or on isolated decisions, or on na- 
tional sympathies or political currents at the moment in the 
country from which it may seek to reclaim such a criminal. As 
little is it consistent with the justice of the United States that it 
should leave its own attitude toward a foreign call on it for the 
surrender of such a criminal, to depend on the effect similar cir- 
cumstances might produce upon the disposition of its Adminis- 
tration then in power. Lex scripta manet. This is too serious a 


business to be left to good understandings and prevailing political 
currents. It surely ought to be embedded, for any two lands 
between which such a case can arise, in a written and solemn en- 
gagement which shall be for both of them the supreme law, — 
in fair weather or in foul, in times of cordiality or in times of 

It is only twenty years ago that the Chief Secretary for Ire- 
land, the real ruler of tliat land under the British sovereign, was 
assassinated in Phoenix Park. Suppose one of the men implicated 
in the plot had sought asylum in the United States? — as one of 
those thought to be involved in a subsequent plot did, — the per- 
son known for a time as " No. 1 " and afterward as Tynan. Who 
does not know what would have been the temper, not merely of 
large classes of our population, but of many leaders in both 
political parties, in view of the feeling about Irish affairs then 
existing among us, toward any attempt at his extradition I Who 
does not see that the best intentions of the party in power here 
might have had a chance at least to end, in such a case, just 
as the best intentions of Lord Palmerston did, in nothing but 
political disaster? Can we afford to leave, or encourage other 
nations to leave, at the mercy of such fluctuating circumstances 
the punishment of a crime which strikes at the foundation of 
organized government itself? 

The exact state of our own treaty law on the subject is this : 

Practically every extradition treaty the United States now has 
in force contains a clause which stipulates that " the provisions 
of the present convention shall not be applied in any manner to 
any crime or offence of a political character." Trivial variations 
in phraseology occur in several of the treaties, but nothing ma- 
terially restricting the meaning till we come to those already 
alluded to with Belgium in 1882 and with Luxemburg in 1883. 
There, for the first time, appeared an agreement that " an attempt 
against the life of the head of a foreign government, or . . . any 
member of his family, . . . comprising . . . murder, assassina- 
tion or poisoning, shall not be considered a political offence." 

It took the second Presidential assassination to bring us to 
that. Even then we were disposed to draw back, and requests 
for a similar agreement were set aside in the case of larger and 
more important nations. It took the third Presidential assassi- 
nation to bring us, late and reluctant, to the present conventions 
with Brazil and Denmark. That with Denmark is of similar pur- 
port with the Belgian treaty. That with Brazil adds also to its 
exemption of heads of Government the Governors of States. 
With England, France, Germany, Austria, Spain, Italy, Mexico, 


Chili, the Argentine Republic — with most of the world, in fact, 
we have no such agreement, but stand where we were. And oui- 
Department from the outset has held that " as a general rule 
there can be no extradition to a foreign State without treaty." 

Statesmen have not hesitated to defend the old position, accord- 
ing to their lights. Thus Mv. Jefferson, as Secretary of State, 
wrote in 1792 to our Ministers : 

" Most codes extend their definition of treason to acts not reaUy against 
one's country. They do not distinguish between acts against the Govern- 
ment and acts against the oppressions of the Government. The latter are 
virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the 
former. . . . The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the 
chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries. . . . Treasons, then, taking 
the simulated with the real, are sufficiently punished by exile." 

Under that doctrine, strained to the limit, sustained by existing 
treaty protection for political offences and unrelieved by the gen- 
eral human abhorrence of monstrous crime, Czolgosz might have 
been sufficiently punished by exile. 

Mr. President Tyler, in construing the treaty with Great Britain, 
said, in a document no doubt from the pen of his Secretary of 
State, Daniel Webster : 

'^ In this . . . enumeration of crimes the object has been to exclude all 
political offences, or criminal charges, arising from wars or intestine com- 
motions. Treason, misprision of treason . . . and other offences of similar 
character are excluded." 

In quite recent years, men whoso views controlled treaties have 
been known to object successfully to an agreement that the 
murderer of a King or a Czar should be distinctly excluded from 
the protection accorded to " political criminals." 

Great Britain has at times eagerly sought what she has not 
always been willing to grant. She demanded from Denmark and 
the Low Countries the delivery of the regicides, and secured it. 
Again, in 1799, she secured from Hamburg the return of Napper 
Tandy and other Irish insurgents. On that occasion Napoleon 
Bonaparte addressed to the Senate of Hamburg this vehement 
reproach : 

" Your letter does not justify your conduct. Virtue and courage are 
the support of States ; servility and baseness their ruin. You have violated 
the laws of hospitality in a manner which would bring the blush of shame 
to the wandering tril)es of the desert." 

It was an irony of fate that his nephew, the Third Napoleon, 
should be found demanding in a graver case a like violation of 


the laws of hospitality, and should meet a refusal from the very- 
nation that had profited by the act of the Senate of Hamburg. 
"Ought English legislation," exclaimed Count Walewski, his 
Minister for Foreign Affairs, "to give hospitality to assassins, 
contribute to favor their designs and shelter persons who by their 
flagrant acts put themselves outside the pale of common rights 
and under the ban of humanity ?" But his eloquence was in vain, 
and the only remedy was the outburst from officers of the French 
army, formally and fervently declaring their eagerness for a settle- 
ment ""svith the foul land which contains the haunts of these 
monsters who are sheltered by its laws." Nor is the United States 
able to claim that it is clearly and beyond possibility of question 
above the like reproach. If the assassin of that spotless President 
of the French Republic, M. Sadi Carnot, had escaped to our shores, 
we should surely have returned him as a voluntary act, but we 
had not, and we have not to this day, a treaty with France that 
would have required our surrendering him to justice. 

The progress we have made since the assassination of McKinley 
starts us on the road to remove such reproaches. But for two ex- 
ceptions the treaty with Brazil might be taken as embodying what 
in these days must be held the obvious duty of any civilized 
nation in the premises. It fails, however, to include all those who 
in either country stand in the line of succession, audit unhappily 
limits its exclusion of these crimes from the category of political 
offences rigidly to the case when they are "unconnected with 
political movements." Through the meshes of that last clause 
half the assassins in question could claim a right to escape. But 
with the precedents already established and with the present 
temper of the Senate, there seems to be no reason now why we 
might not promptly conclude treaties with all nations on the basis 
of that with Russia, merely extending it so as to include those in 
either country in the direct line of succession to the headship of 
the G-overnment, and perhaps adding also in some form the pro- 
tection of the Brazilian treaty for Governors of States. 

The commonplaces of International Law and of our own practice 
on the subject are no doubt too familiar to require more than the 
briefest statement. Our government sprang from a revolution, 
and naturally cannot hold revolt against unjust rule a crime. No 
nation can be required to enforce within its own boundaries 
another nation's laws. The easiest and proper place to try for a 
crime is where it was committed. No nation can be expected to 
send back for such trial persons accused of acts which it does not 
hold criminal. It may even admit their criminality, and yet, be- 


fore returning them, stipulate against a punishment gi'eater than 
it thinks warranted by the nature of the crime. In proportion to 
the liberality of its own institutions, a nation will be predisposed 
to as lenient a view as possible of political offences arising out of 
efforts to liberalize to a similar point the institutions of other 
nations. The general exemption of political offences from the 
operation of extradition treaties among the more advanced nations 
thus has its origin in the nature of things. It cannot be pre- 
vented, and it ought not to be. 

But since we began this exemption, enormous changes in the 
conditions affecting many revolts against established authority 
have occurred, without leading to any corresponding change in 
our policy. The movement from which many recent political 
offences spring is one not against an oppressive authority in 
favor of a more just one, but against any authority. Sometimes 
its advocates dream of an entire change in the principles of gov- 
ernment, by which it shall cease to protect individual rights in 
property, and materially modify individual rights of the person. 
If they do not thus stop short at Communism, they go on to the 
overthrow of all existing government, the destruction of all 

These are principles that have nothing in common with the 
liberal institutions to which we are devoted, and struggles for 
which by others we have been unwilling to punish. They are 
principles as antagonistic to our welfare as to that of any mon- 
archy or any autocracy. There is no reason in our views or 
our interests why we should protect fugitives guilty of crimes in 
the promotion of such principles, and no reason in the nature of 
things why any organized government of any sort should. They 
are necessary outlaws in all nations. The most vital question 
which every successful effort of theirs raises for us, and for all 
the world, is not, What form of government shall we favor? but. 
Shall we have any form of government ? Their methods are 
those of the conspirator rather than the revolutionist, and their 
weapons the dynamite bomb, the revolver and the dagger. It is 
not to be tolerated that the fame of our Republic should be sul- 
lied by the slightest shade of sympathy in its international policy 
with these enemies of mankind who may seek shelter under our 
historic favor for political prisoners. 

If in this summary of what I have termed the commonplaces Anarchism 
of the subject I have not outrun your approval, you will then be 
ready to regard it as imperative on the United States, as a first 
step and at an early day, to free every extradition treaty it has 


with any other nation from their present quasi protection under 
the guise of mere political offenders for the assassins of heads of 
government. You will be apt, I think, to go farther, and ap- 
proach at least the views jointly expressed to us in the December 
following the assassination of President McKinley by the gov- 
ernments of Germany and Russia. They thought this, with pre- 
vious anarchistic crimes and attempts upon the lives of Chief 
Magistrates, rendered it terribly evident that a struggle against 
the menace of anarchy is an urgent necessity for all governments. 
They accordingly proposed concert of action in measures to check 
the anarchistic movement, the strengthening of the penal code 
against anarchists, and particularly the expulsion of anarchists 
from countries of which they are not subjects. 

The President had already recommended to Congress measm'es 
for keeping them out of the country, for deporting them if found 
here, or for their punishment; as well as an agreement by 
treaties making anarchy an offence against the law of nations. 
The response of Congress was a law merely forbidding the future 
admission of anarchists, or the naturalization of such as may be 
here. Meantime nothing is done to limit their present asylum 
here, and little to restrain their open propagandism. 

At the same time the bill for protecting the life of the Presi- 
dent failed, because certain Senators held that the head of the 
Government was entitled to no greater protection before the law 
than its humblest or most worthless and vicious citizen. Their 
motives are beyond reproach, but to me at least their logic and 
law seem to belong not to the America of which we are so proud, 
but to the sans-culotte period in France. 

The efforts to overturn established governments or to throw all 
governments into chaos by the assassination of Chief Magistrates 
seem to have grown steadily more frequent and monstrous 
through the past century. The resulting situation is as bad now 
as at any period in the world's history more recent than the 
Roman Empire in the days of its decadent Caesars. In forty 
years we have ourselves lost three noble Presidents by assassina- 
tion, besides having a distinguished Secretary of State and his 
son murderously assaulted and the former maimed for life. In 
an imperfect list of assassinations, successful or attempted, on 
sovereigns or other Chief Magistrates during the last century, I 
have counted up over forty, — more than one in three years, 
nearly one every other year ! And among them were the eman- 
cipating Czar of Russia, the emancipating President of the 
United States, the humane King of Italy, and the blameless and 
progressive President of France. To these might be fairly added 


that most pitiful figure of all, the sad aud suffering Empress of 
Austria. The men who committed some of these crimes are said 
to have enjoyed our hospitality and to have been chosen by lot for 
their infamous work at meetings under our protection. In at 
least one case a public meeting has been held to rejoice over the 
assassination of one of the most liberal and liberty-loving of 
modern Kings, if not to claim a share of the credit. 

Gentlemen of the Yale Law School, is this your loftiest con- 
ception of law and of human rights ? I present that foreign sug- 
gestion for surveillance of the anarchists and for their expulsion 
from all countries of which they are not subjects or citizens ; and 
I put it to you whether the representatives of the Emperor and 
the Czar in that crisis came nearer than the American Congress 
to the demands of the highest Christian civilization. 


Memorandum of political changes in Venezuela and the Central 

Ajierican States, prepared by Richard Lee Fearn, from 

documents in the Library of Congress. 


1811 July 1-i, Independeuce proclaimed; bloody fighting until Spaniards 

were driven from Venezuela and Peru. 
1822 Bolivar chosen dictator by Peru, Paez being his military chief of 

Venezuela, the seven years succeeding. 

1829 November, Caracas declared for Paez as Supreme Chief, disavowing 
Bolivai*'s authority, the latter being then in Colombia. 

1830 Paez elected first President. 

1835 " Revolucion de las Reformas " deposed and expelled second Presi- 
dent Vargas. Paez took the field against " Reformistas"; civil war 

1836 "Reformistas" subjugated. 

1839 Paez became "legitimate" head of Republic and ruled until 

1847 General JoseTadeo Monagas elected sixth President; Paez revolted 

against Monagas, who finally drove him from the country. 
1854 J. T. Monagas forced to abdicate by fusion of the two parties (Oli- 
garquia and Liberal). Succeeded by his brother Jose Gregorio 
Monagas, who had alternated with him in the Presidency since 1847. 

1858 Monagas overthrown by General Tovar Castro, who became Presi- 
dent ; quickly succeeded by Gual and Paez in tm*n. 

1859 General Falcon (Liberal) took Caracas and proclaimed himself; 
civil war until 

1863 Falcon pacified the country, only to be quickly overthrown by a 

pronunciamento in favor of J. T. Monagas. 
1870 Guzman Blanco (Liberal) took possession of Caracas, announcing 

himself dictator. 
1873 Blanco elected President and acknowledged by whole country. 

Was autocrat with various figureheads in Presidency for 18 years. 
1890 Raimundo Andueza Palacio elected by acclamation in Congress; 

inaugurated February 20 for two years. 

1892 Palacio set himself up as Dictator, was denounced as usurper, and 
Joaquin Crespo, assisted by Rojas Paul, led revolt to enforce the 
Constitution. In five months Palacio fled the country, being suc- 
ceeded in rapid succession by Urdaneta, Mendota, and Pulido. Crespo 
triumphed in October, was proclaimed provisional President and 
immediately ordered election for National Assembly, which met in 

1893 October, and elected Crespo for a four-year term commencing 
February 20, 1894. 

1894 Many small and brief revolts in various parts of the country. 

1895 A larger revolt in favor of Rojas Paul, but soon smoothed over at 
instance of United States minister on account of need of national 
unity because of boundary dispute reaching acute phase. 


1897 Andrade (Liberal) elected over Rojas Paul by overwlielmiug ma- 

1898 General Hernandez started rebellion in which Crespo was killed in 
April; collapsed in June — caused by Andrade's dictatorial acts. 

1899 Cipriano Castro (Liberal), Governor of Los Andes, took up last year's 
revolt; forces grew as he proceeded until Andrade fled the country 
in October. Castro became provisional President. 

1900 Disaffection and fighting in many parts of the country until July, 
when peace and amnesty were proclaimed. 

1901 Exiles invaded from Colombia; martial law all the year; half a 
dozen bodies in as many parts of the country in interest of various 
exiles including Hernandez and Matos. Castro formally elected 
President in October for two years. 

1902 General Manuel A. Matos (formerly minister of the treasury under 
Crespo), ''richest of Venezuelans," had as many as 15,000 men at 
one time, and controlled many interior sections, including Orinoco, 
but fled to Curagoa in October, his numerous generals keeping up 
the revolt out of the reach of government troops. 

1903 April, Matos in control of Eastern part of country. 


1825 April, Arce elected fii-st President Central American Republic, fol- 
lowed by two years' fighting. 

1828 February, ''Arce retired without resigning." 

1829 April, General Francisco Morazan, of Honduras, overthrew Central 
government, establishing Barrundia as President, subsequently tak- 
ing the office himself. 

1838 February, Rafael Carrera, mob leader, seized Guatemala, destroyed 
Morazan's power, leading in 1840 to destniction of Central American 

1844 Rafael Carrera caused Guatemala to elect him President, had his 
term extended in 1854 "for life," and ruled till his death in 1865. 

1870 Justo Rufino Barrios after several years' fighting secui'ed absolute 
control of government and had himself elected President. 

1887 June, President Manuel L. Barillas established temporary dictator- 
ship on account of revolutionary bands menacing government. 

1S90 State of anarchy throughout country : son of Barrios, late dictator, 
and numerous other discontents, encouraged by Ezeta, President 
of Salvador, opposed Barillas, who continued dictator. General 
Alfonso Irungaray issued pronuneiamento, and, joined by 1500 de- 
serters, seized the capital, but failed to hold it. Dr. Rafael Ayala, 
"actual" Vice-President, set up a rival government, which lasted 
only a few months, until Barillas obtained peace with Salvador 
through mediation of American Minister. 

1891 Barillas kept busy suppressing small risings. 

1897 June to October, futile revolt, led by Vice-President Morales, with 
much fighting, because national assembly had prolonged term of 
President Barrios four years. 

1898 Barrios mui'dered by British subject. Cabrera, friend of late dicta- 
tor, was proclaimed acting President, in the absence of Vice-Presi- 
dent Morales, who returned to take his place b}^ force, but (Septem- 
ber) Cabrera was elected President. 


1828 to 1840 H. H. Bancroft gives list of 19 rulers in this period. 
1865 Jose Maria Medina made President at dictation of Guatemala, after 


1872 March 25, Celeo Arias made Presideut by Salvador and Guatemala, 
revolutions following. 

1S74 January 13, Ponciano Leiva overthrew Arias and established him- 
self as dictator. 

1876 June 8, Marco Aurelio Soto, Guatemalan ex-minister of foreign af- 
fairs, made President b}^ Guatemalan troops. 

1890 General Sanchez compelled President Bogran to become a fugitive 
from the capital, which Bogran recaptured in a few weeks. 

1891 General Leiva again elected President; General Policarpo Bouilla, 
the rival candidate who received only one-third as many votes, 
raised 1400 men in revolt, but they were soon dispersed. 

1892 Bonilla was proclaimed President by Liberals, General Leiva hav- 
ing resigned in favor of General Vasquez, his Minister of "War, who 
finally in 

1893 June, compelled revolutionists to disband, with Bouilla a fugitive. 
December, Bouilla returned from Nicaragua, overthrew Vasquez, 
and in 

1894 Autumn, had himself overwhelmingly elected President and his 
brother, Vice-President. 


No peace at all until 1865. 
1872 Liberals, assisted by Honduras, overthrew President Duenas, who 

had been installed by Guatemala in 1865. 
1876 Valle ousted from Presidency by Guatemalans. 

1890 June 22, President Mendenez killed at anniversary banquet. Gen- 
eral Carlos Ezeta arrived with 600 men and was proclaimed pro- 
visional President. 

Zaldivar, who had been living in Paris, and Alvarez, in Guatemala, 
raised forces in their own behalf, and General Rivas raised force in 
behalf of Vice-President Ayala. 

Congress in September " unanimously elected '' Carlos Ezeta provi- 
sional President until March, 1891. 

1891 Numerous plots against Ezeta, who had himself elected for four 
years' term. Ayala, his principal rival, and several others were 

1894 General Rafael Antonio Gutierrez and army ofiicers started revolu- 
tion against Ezeta, April (Carlos, President, and Antonio, Vice- 
President), who fled (June). 

Gutierrez proclaimed himself President, June 24. 

1895 Ezeta brothers made a weak attempt to reassert themselves. 

1896 Several small outbreaks. 

1898 General Tomas Regolado headed an insurrection just before election 
of successor to Gutierrez and established provisional government 
without bloodshed. 


1824 to 1840 continuous fighting; numerous successful revolts; all rulers 
chosen by force. 

1855 William Walker (filibuster) captured government and elected him- 
self President in 1856. 

1891 Roberto Sacasa "had himself elected''; small risings, because he 
expelled prominent men, quickly quelled. 

1893 Joaquin Zavala and others united to overthrow Sacasa; organized 
provisional government, with Morales nominal President; Ameri- 
can minister mediated, Sacasa resigning to Machado until election 
could be held. Zavala's army was admitted to Managua to disband, 
but seized the town (July), Zavala proclaiming himself President, 


but gave way (August) to Zelaya, chosen as a compromise between 
opposing political parties. Colonel Ortiz with 10,000 armed men 
had in the meantime captured Corinto and proclaimed himself pro- 
visional President, but finally recognized the election of Zelaya. 

1894 Marked by small disaffections in favor of Ortiz. 

1896 Determined attempt to overthrow Zelaya, who promptly declared 
himself dictator. 

(February) Vice-President Baca proclaimed himself provisional 
President, was assisted by Ortiz. Zelaya, helped by Hondui-as, tri- 
umphed (May). 

1898 February, small revolts suppressed. 

1899 Revolt in Mosquito territory very brief. 


1838 May, Braulio Carillo overthrew Jefe, of Costa Rica. 

1841 General Morazan, of Honduras, seized government in April, to be 

driven out in September. 
1855 July, General Juan Lopez drove out President Cabanas and caused 

new election to be held. 

1859 August 14, Juan Rafael Mora, who had been elected by the masses 
three months before, was deposed by the property owners, mer- 
chants, and army and a successor duly elected. 

1860 Mora landed with four hundred men but was captured and shot 

1869 Lorenzo Salazar, Maximo Blanco, and others headed a pronuncia- 
mento, deposed President Castro, and installed in his place Jesus 
Jiminez, who was First Designado. 

1870 Jiminez similarly deposed and Bruno Carranza proclaimed in his 

1877 Revolutionary movement forced President Herrara to surrender 
office to Tomas Guardia, who was President in 1872, and who the 
year before was First Designado, Herrara being Second. 

1892 President Rodriguez dissolved Congress and suspended constitu- 
tional rights because of differences in policy ; no fighting. 

1893 Conspiracy to overthrow Rodriguez nipped in the bud. 


" Between 1821 and 1868 the form of government was changed ten 
times ; over fifty persons succeeded each other as presidents, dicta- 
tors, or emperors; both emperors were shot, — Iturbide in 1824, Maxi- 
milian in 1867, — and, according to some calculations, there occurred 
at least three hundred pronunciamentos." — Encyclopedia Briiannica, 
9th Edition. 

Text of the Law against Anarchists passed on the last night 
OF THE last Session of Congress: 

From Chapter 1012, Session II, LVIIth Congress. Statutes at Large. 

§ 2. That the following classes of aliens shall be excluded from admis- 
sion into the United States : All . . . anarchists, or persons who believe 
in or advocate the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of 
the United States or of all government or of all forms of law, or the 
assassination of public officials ; . • . 


§ 38. That no person who disbelieves in or who is opposed to all organ- 
ized governmeut, or who is a member or affiliated with any organization 
entertaining and teaching such disbelief in or opposition to all organized 
government, or who advocates or teaches the duty, necessity or propriety 
of the unlawful assaulting or killing of specific individuals or of officers 
generally, of the Government of the United States or of any other organ- 
ized government, because of his or their official character, shall be per- 
mitted to enter the United States or any Territor)' or place subject to the 
jurisdiction thereof. This section shall be enforced by the Secretary of 
the Treasury under such rules and regulations as he shall prescribe. 

That any person who knowingly aids or assists any such person to 
enter the United States or any Territory or place subject to the jurisdic- 
tion thereof, or who connives or conspires with any person or persons to 
allow, procure, or permit any such person to enter therein, except pur- 
suant to such I'ules and regulations made by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned for not 
less than one nor more than five years, or both. 

§ 39. That no person who disbelieves in or who is opposed to all organ- 
ized government, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization 
entertaining and teaching such disbelief in or opposition to all organized 
government, or who advocates or teaches the duty, necessity, or propriety 
of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers, either of 
specific individuals or of officers generally, of the Government of the 
United States or of any other organized government, because of his or 
their official character, or who has violated any of the provisions of this 
Act, shall be naturalized or be made a citizen of the United States. All 
courts and tribunals and all judges and officers thereof ha\ang jurisdiction 
of naturalization proceedings or duties to perform in regard thereto shall, 
on the final application for naturalization, make careful inquiry into such 
matters, and before issuing the final order or certificate of naturalization 
cause to be entered on record the affida\'it of the applicant and of his 
witnesses so far as applicable, reciting and affirming the truth of every 
material fact requisite for naturalization. All final orders and certificates 
of naturalization hereafter made shall show on their face specifically that 
said affidavits were duly made and recorded, and all orders and certificates 
that fail to show such facts shall be null and void. 

That any person who purposely procures naturalization in violation of 
the provisions of this section shall be fined not more than five thousand 
dollars, or shall be imprisoned not less than one nor more than ten years, 
or both, and the court in which such conviction is had shall thereupon 
adjudge and declare the order or decree and all certificates admitting such 
person to citizenship null and void. Jurisdiction is hereby conferred on 
the courts having jurisdiction of the trial of such offense to make such 

That any person who knowingly aids, advises or encourages any such 
person to apply for or to secui'e naturalization or to file the preliminary 
papers declaring an intent to become a citizen of the United States, or who 
in any naturalization proceedings knowingly procures or gives false testi- 
mony as to any material fact, or who knowingly makes an affida\-it false 
as to any material fact required to be proved in such proceedings, shall be 
fined not more than five thousand dollars, and imprisoned not less than 
one nor more than ten years, or both. 

The foregoing provisions concerning naturalization shall not be en- 
forced until ninety days after the approval hereof^ 

Approved March 3, 1903. 



RETURN TO the circulation desk of any 
University of California Library 
or to tt^e 
BIdg. 400, Richmond Field Station 
University of California 
Richmond, CA 94804-4698 


• 2-month loans may be renewed by calling 

• 1-year loans may be recharged by bringing 
books to NRLF 

• Renewals and recharges may be made 4 
days prior to due date. 


DEC 1 8 1999