Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2017 with funding from
Princeton Theological Seminary Library
https://archive.org/details/pamphletseries07worl
Pforlit Peace Jfomrhaitmt
pamphlet Jiertes
PUBLICATIONS
OF
WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION
VOLUME VII
1917
WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION
40 MT. VERNON STREET, BOSTON
A change in postal regulations has made it impossi-
ble to continue the Pamphlet Series as a free publica-
tion with the benefit of the second-class postal rate.
To retain this privilege, without which the cost of cir-
culation would be prohibitive, it is necessary to place
the publication on a subscription basis. As the
Pamphlet Series has been known for seven years as a
free publication, it was decided to discontinue the
series and to replace it with a new publication. The
first issue will appear under date of August, 1917. The
general title will be “A League of Nations.”
Contents;
SERIES NUMBER
The New Pan Americanism. Part III. February, No. 1
io. The Central American League of Nations
Corinto Peace System, 1902
Peace of the Marblehead and San Jose
Conflict of the Peace Systems
Events Preceding Washington Conference
Central American Peace Conference
Results of the Conference
Inauguration of the Central American Court
Hague and Central American Courts Compared
Work of the Court of Justice
Significance and History of Other Organs
Central American International Bureau
Progress toward Educational Unity
Future of Central America
Appendices:
I. a. General Treaty of Peace and Amity
b. Additional Treaty
II. a. Convention for the Establishment of a
Central American Court of Justice
b. Matters before the Central American
Court of Justice
III. Projects of Union, 1838 to 1902
IV. The Nicaraguan Canal Route Controversies
Annual Report: 1916
April, No. 2
|$orlb Peace JJmmhaium
Pampfykt Series
THE NEW
PAN AMERICANISM
PART III
CENTRAL AMERICAN LEAGUE
OF NATIONS
Published Bimonthly by the
WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION
40 MT. VERNON STREET, BOSTON
February, 1917
Vol. VII. No. 1.
Entered as second-class matter January 15, 1913, at the post-office at Boston, Mass.,
under the Act of August 24, 1912
CONTENTS.
PAGE
io. The Central American League of Nations iio
Corinto Peace System, 1902 114
Peace of the Marblehead and San Jose 115
Conflict of the Peace Systems 119
Events Preceding Washington Conference 123
Central American Peace Conference 125
Results of the Conference 129
Inauguration of the Central American Court 13 1
Hague and Central American Courts Compared .... 133
Work of the Court of Justice 136
Significance and History of Other Organs 144
Central American International Bureau 146
Progress toward Educational Unity 148
Future of Central America 151
Appendices:
I. a. General Treaty of Peace and Amity i
b. Additional Treaty v
II. a. Convention for the Establishment of a Central
American Court of Justice vii
b. Matters before the Central American Court of
Justice xiii
III. Projects of Union, 1838 to 1902 xvi
IV. The Nicaraguan Canal Route Controversies . . . xxi
no
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
io. The Central American League of Nations.
Central America is not unlike the world at large. It has had its
Washingtons and Lincolns, its Caesars and Napoleons, its Louis XIV’s
and George Ill’s, its Richelieus and Metternichs. Whereas states-
men generally put their utopias and strike their moral attitudes in
public addresses, the Central Americans wrote theirs in the form of
constitutions and treaties; and consequently their failures have
attracted more attention and criticism.
In reality they have shown rare virtue in not defending the vicious
system they produced. Central America has never defended mili-
tarism or revolution; it knew it was a miserable sinner, and that is
more than the world at large knows concerning itself.
The machinery of international organization was set up in Central
America less than ten years ago, and from that time on statesmen
have cherished a hope of peace and have actually seen it realized more
completely than ever before in a century of aspiration. In a word, a
complete system providing for the settlement of all disputes without
war and for annual diplomatic conferences was established — the
precise remedies which practical students of the world’s present pre-
dicament are prescribing as the preventive of future wars. Before
that time Central America was the scene of war almost constantly;
since then there has been no international war in Central America.
The common birthday of the five countries at the waist of the
Western Hemisphere was September 25, 1821, and the anniversary is
celebrated each year. The last anniversary number of Centro- America,
the official organ of the five republics, contains the following signifi-
cant statement:
Examples destroy the now discredited legend that these peoples of Indo-
Spanish origin are incapable of self-government and that they are condemned
on account of fatal educational and racial reasons to live a life of revolutions,
to submit themselves to a superior guardianship or to disappear completely
through inability to control themselves.
Nothing is more unjust or false. People have fallen into the confusion
of believing that the convulsions of youth, although they denote some lack
CENTRAL AMERICA
III
of experience and are gauges of excess energy, are the last spasms of de-
cadence. That is only to take for dead those who have just commenced
to live. The sad lesson of the immense European catastrophe in which
civilization perishes by steel and fire makes us see that bloody troubles are
not our patrimony alone, but that they obey complex causes from which
even peoples in the maturity of evolutional development do not escape.
Central America has had its falls, which none denies; but from them, like
the fabled Antaeus, it has known how to recover new forces, and more beauti-
ful and desired is the goal as the ascent is more difficult. From this way of
Golgotha, this way of the cross, is not to be deduced that we should always
have to be the incorrigible heroes of unpremeditated adventures.
That slanderous legend must now cease in which we are estimated with-
out any knowledge of what we have been, of what we are and of what we
may be. The time has come when it should be known that we are not solely
a people of picturesque soldiers, of ignorant pundits, of tropical tyrannies,
of continuous billeting; when it should not be forgotten that we possess
something more than palm-lined bays, full-watered rivers, high mountains,
beautiful lakes and forests full of mosquitoes and morasses.
Certainly much remains to be done; but much has been done, in spite of
unfavorable conditions of money, scanty population and vices peculiar to
the climate and the race. Railroads and schools multiply in a flattering
degree. Distances are shortened, though not in the desired ratio, and
illiteracy is disappearing slowly but surely. Thanks to the strict fulfilment
of obligations, credit is firmly maintained. Commerce, except in the
present circumstances of a world holocaust, has always shown favorable
increases. A multitude of public works reward the enterprise of cities, for
which they are both useful and ornamental. Moreover, industries are be-
ginning to arise, because now our conditions and raw materials call for them.
Agriculture flourishes abundantly, and some products, like the coffee of
Guatemala, are declared in international competition to be the best in the
world. Laws could not be finer, more liberal or more complete: Central
America is a true home for as many as may come to make an honest effort
on a fertile soil.1
Here, then, is the story of Central America’s experiment in the art
of living together. It is more than her experiment, because, as will
appear, Central America did not begin or continue the thing alone.
And it is hardly an experiment, because Central America has always
considered itself a unit, and its separate states as sisters in the same
mother country.
The experiment properly began in the year 1906, when the sister-
hood was striking a discord on all its instruments of revolution.
But before entering the confused hurly-burly of that revolutionary
year it may be well to sketch the strength of Central America’s
1 Translation from Centro-America, VIII, 211-212.
1 1 2
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
aspirations toward good neighborliness, and the weakness of her
accomplishments .
The five countries of Central America were included in the Spanish
viceroyalty of Guatemala1 when they sounded the tocsin of inde-
pendence in 1811. In 1821 they had all made good their claim, but
they did not then contemplate separate existence, in spite of separate
acquisition of liberty. On October 21, Nicaragua announced her
annexation to Mexico, an act imitated by the others,2 with the
exception of Costa Rica. Mexico in the first flush of successful
revolution was an empire under General Agustin de Iturbide, and
this form of government was so distasteful to the Central Americans
that they lost no time in changing their minds when Iturbide fell and
the force of “Mexican intervention” decreased.
On March 29, 1823, they reasserted their independence and, with
Guatemala taking the lead, the “United Provinces of the Center of
America” made its bow to the world as a state on July 1. In the
constitution promulgated on November 22, 1824, 3 the name became
permanently fixed as the Federation of Central America. The
prediction of Bolivar that “the states of the Isthmus from Panama to
Guatemala will perhaps form a union” was apparently realized.
Bolivar the next year issued the invitation to the General Assembly of
1 The viceroyalty, or kingdom, as it was also called, had at Guatemala a single
audiencia with its captaincy-general. There were 15 provinces as follows: (1)
eight greater alcaldias, or alcalde jurisdictions, Totonicapam, Solola, Chimaltenango,
Sacatepequez, Sonsonate, Verapaz, Escuintla and Suchitepequez; (2) two cor-
regimientos, or magistracies, Quezaltenango and Chiquimula; (3) the government
of Costa Rica; (4) four provincial intendencies, Leon de Nicaragua, Ciudad Real
de Chiapa, Comayagua de Honduras and San Salvador. Of the fifteen, five were
on the Atlantic, five on the Pacific and five were internal. In 1821 the Cortes of
Cadiz divided the former viceroyalty into eight provinces for the administrative
purposes of the federation. These were Cartago, Leon de Nicaragua, Comayagua
de Honduras, San Salvador, Villa de Santa Ana, Guatemala, Quezaltenango and
Ciudad Real de Chiapa. Cf. Centro- America, V, 393-400.
2 Guatemala itself seems not to have accepted the connection with Mexico. A
plebiscite by ayuntamientos (town councils), 240 in number, resulted as follows: 104
for annexation; 67 not voting; 23 for a general congress; 23 deferring to the wish
of the government; 1 1 for annexation, conditionally; 2 against annexation. ( Centro -
America, III, 339-340.)
3 This constitution of the federation of Central America is easily accessible in
Centro-America, I, 500-515. For this period see also the documents of 1821-1823,
ibid., Ill, 332-350.
CENTRAL AMERICA
1 13
the American Republics which was held at the city of Panama in
1826. 1 There the idea of unification was still further developed
through the negotiation of a Treaty of Perpetual Union, League and
Confederation among the republics of Colombia and those of Central
America, Peru and Mexico, which was signed on July 15, 1826, but
was ratified only by Bolivar himself for Colombia.2 The Central
American federation proved not to be permanent. Its internal career
was checkered by revolts and disorders, and on May 30, 1838, its
dissolution occurred by an act of its own congress.
The Central Americans tried to live separately for a while,3 but
yet could not escape either their revolutionary or their federating
1 The conception of unifying the republics of Spanish America seems to have
come first to Jose Cecilio del Valle, who is recorded in connection with the idea as
early as February 22, 1822. ( Centro-America , III, 400, note.)
2 The text of the treaty and ratification are printed in Centro-America, II, 152-
158; an English translation is to be found in International American Conference,
Vol. IV, 184-191.
Under the influence of Bolivar this idea had a previous history. On March 15,
1825, Colombia and the United Provinces of the Center of America had signed
a treaty of perpetual union, league and confederation which was really a com-
bination to maintain independence from Spain and an alliance against attack
or invasion, that is, a reply to the Holy Alliance of Europe and sort of an echo
of the original Monroe doctrine. By Art. 15 of this treaty an assembly of pleni-
potentiaries was provided and by Art. 17 the assembly was to be the “arbitral
judge and conciliator” of disputes and differences. Colombia ratified the treaty on
April 12, 1825, and Central America on September 12, 1825, with a declaration that
the assembly, respecting its differences with states not recognizing its equal power,
should have only a conciliatory effect. The ratifications, thus diverse, were ex-
changed at Guatemala City June 17, 1826. The treaty was considered by Co-
lombia as ineffective in 1884 (Cadena, Coleccion de tratados ptiblicos, II, 15), but
was promulgated as law as late as September 1, 1855, by Salvador (Reyes, Coleccion
de tratados del Salvador, 45).
s A provisional convention of the states of Central America was formed in con-
sequence of the dissolution of the federal government. In order to fix relations
between the states a series of treaties of friendship and alliance were signed as
follows: Honduras and Nicaragua, signed at Comayagua, Honduras, January 18,
1839; Honduras and Guatemala, signed at Guatemala, May 12, 1839; Honduras
and Salvador, signed at San Vicente, Salvador, July 5, 1839; Honduras and Costa
Rica, signed at San Jose, Costa Rica, July 1, 1839; Guatemala and Salvador, signed
at San Vicente, July 4, 1839; Guatemala and Nicaragua, signed at Le6n, Nicaragua,
July 24, 1839; Costa Rica and Guatemala, signed at San Jose, August 1, 1839;
Salvador and the Sovereign States of Los Altos, signed at Quezaltenango, Guate-
mala, August 10, 1839; additional treaty, Guatemala and Honduras, signed at
Comayagua, Honduras, August 14, 1839; Honduras and Nicaragua, signed at
Le6n, Nicaragua, September 12, 1839. All these treaties are printed in Centro-
Amirica, V, 290-292.
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
114
tendencies. Followed then two generations of frequent and always
unsuccessful efforts to set the humpty-dumpty of federation back
in its place. In that time it was sought to coax, cajole and force
five states into one, and occasionally partial success was temporarily
realized by one or another method. The historical student who has
patience to review these seventy years of futile or ambitious seeking
after a more perfect union will discover revolutions and attempts at
unification following each other in bewildering succession. In
several of the countries changes in the presidency customarily meant
successful revolutions, while many unsuccessful ones were plotted or
attempted. Wars between the states were so frequent as to be yet
uncounted, and they were for causes politically so frivolous that
none of them ever resulted in a rod of territory changing flags, while
few needed the formality of a treaty of peace at the end. In addition,
sixteen well-defined efforts to federate were recorded between 1839
and 1906, an average of one every four years.1
CORINTO PEACE SYSTEM, 1902.
The foundations for the contemporary history of Central America
were laid at a meeting of the presidents of Costa Rica, Honduras,
Nicaragua and Salvador at Corinto, Nicaragua, in 1902. A treaty
was drawn up that was reminiscent of the Hague convention of 1899
for the pacific settlement of international disputes. The Corinto
treaty went farther than the Hague convention and wrote what be-
came the first chapter of the new Central American order in these
words:
Art. 2. The contracting Governments establish the principles of ob-
ligatory arbitration, in order to adjust every difficulty or question that
might present itself between the contracting parties, binding themselves in
consequence to submit them to a tribunal of Central American arbitrators.
Art. 3. Each one of the contracting parties shall name an arbitrator and
a substitute to constitute the tribunal. The terms of the arbitrators shall
be for one year, counting from their acceptance, and then they may be
re-elected.
Art. 4. The arbitrators of those states among whom exists the disagree-
ment shall not form part of the tribunal for the consideration of the con-
1 A summary of these efforts is printed in Appendix III.
PEACE OF THE MARBLEHEAD AND SAN JOSE 115
crete case, this remaining entirely with the arbitrator or arbitrators of the
remaining states.
Art. 7. The contracting Governments establish and recognize the right
of each one of them to offer without delay, singly or conjointly, their good
offices to the Governments of the states that are in disagreement, even
wthout previous acceptance by them, and though they should not have
notified them of the difficulty or question pending.
Art. 13. The arbitration tribunal shall dictate all those rational disposi-
tions that it considers necessary fully to carry out the high mission which
is conferred upon it by this treaty.1
This treaty had more effect on Central American conditions than
most of its predecessors. It was followed by a “Central American
treaty of peace” signed at San Salvador on November 2, 1903, be-
tween Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Salvador in which they
took “upon themselves the obligation to maintain peace between”
themselves and established, “as an inviolable principle of conduct,
. . . the nonintervention of any one of them in the domestic affairs
of the other sister republics.”2 Costa Rica was invited to join, but
seems not to have done so.
Next the presidents of Honduras, Nicaragua and Salvador and a
representative of the president of Guatemala signed on August 20,
1904, a proclamation “guaranteeing the peace of Central America.”
Its salient idea was that the four governments “will aid each other
by military force, if necessary, in maintaining the status quo, and that
the peace of Central America is thus reasonably assured by making
revolutionary efforts more difficult and less liable to achieve success.”3
PEACE OF THE MARBLEHEAD AND SAN JOSE.
In May, 1906, several rivals of President Manuel Estrada Cabrera
of Guatemala organized military expeditions to oust him. One rival
faction invaded the country from across the Salvadorean border.
On June 1, Leslie Combs, American minister to Guatemala, reported
to Washington that Guatemala and Salvador each had twelve
1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1902, 882.
2 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1904, 351.
3 United States Minister Merry, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1904, 541.
The text of the proclamation is in British and Foreign State Papers, 97, 694-695.
n6
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
thousand troops massed on the frontier and that war was threatened
any day. Mr. Combs, supported by Washington, urged self-restraint
on both parties in strong terms and an actual clash was then avoided.
The situation continued threatening, but it was apparent that Guate-
mala would agree to withdraw and disband her troops if Salvador
would do likewise during negotiations. The Department of State
immediately sounded the American minister at San Salvador, William
Lawrence Merry, on this possibility. A few days later Mr. Merry
reported a fight forced by Salvador and taking place on Guatemalan
territory, due, according to other accounts, to the aggressive attitude
of a Guatemalan general.
Meanwhile the Department of State had been seeking the co-
operation of the Mexican government, and a message had been sent
to Mexico saying that the President would rely largely upon the ad-
vice of President Dfaz. On July 12 Dfaz sent word that he would
personally address the presidents of Guatemala and Salvador. The
next day President Roosevelt addressed this telegram to the heads of
both countries:
I earnestly appeal to Salvador [Guatemala] to take immediate steps
toward settling questions pending with Guatemala [Salvador], either by
agreement to arbitrate or by direct negotiation for a definitive agreement
between the two countries. Disturbance of the peace of Central America
inflicts grievous injury upon the affected states and causes the gravest con-
cern to the United States, whose sole desire is to see its neighbors at peace.
The recent deplorable renewal of hostilities should not be allowed to be the
precursor of a protracted and disastrous struggle, perhaps involving other
states and leading to results of which the scope can not be foreseen. In
the interest of humanity and the indispensable peace of Central America
it becomes my duty to urge a settlement before it may be too late. I offer
the deck of the American ship of war Marblehead , now on the way to the
coast of Salvador, as a neutral place where representatives of Guatemala
and Salvador may meet to consider terms of agreement, an armistice be-
tween the contestants being meanwhile effected. I am telegraphing in the
same sense to the President of Guatemala [Salvador]. My action has the
full concurrence of the President of Mexico.1
On that day fighting occurred between Guatemala and Honduras
and Salvador, Honduras entering the lists under a treaty of defensive
J Foreign Relations of the United States, 1906, 837.
PEACE OF THE MARBLEHEAD AND SAN JOSfi 117
alliance signed at Corinto six months before.1 On the following day
the presidents of both Guatemala and Salvador substantially accepted
President Roosevelt’s proposal.
“I accept with pleasure your Excellency’s proposition of direct
negotiation as the most expeditious means of accomplishing the de-
sired end,” telegraphed President Pedro Jose Escalon of Salvador.
“Better success would attend the negotiations if the minister of the
United States to Guatemala and Salvador and the Mexican minister
to Central America would take part in the conference in neutral
waters, and if the President of Mexico lends it his co-operation. I
further accept the suspension of hostilities, and, as a measure of
greater effectiveness, the concentration and disbandment of troops
during the course of negotiations.”
President Manuel Estrada Cabrera of Guatemala accepted in con-
ditional terms. He wrote: “I accept without hesitation in the most
cordial manner the proposition of peace between Guatemala and
Salvador that your Excellency is pleased to address to me. The
outcome of the war is already in favor of Guatemala, but in deference
to a good friend of ours, as in your Excellency, I see no objection to
an armistice being agreed to and terms of peace being negotiated on
board the Marblehead. I only take the liberty of saying to your
Excellency that ... we hope, with the interposition of the in-
valuable action of the American government, that this time, through
your Excellency, the arrangements that will be made will fulfill the
lofty purpose of your Excellency, which always finds with my govern-
ment the most friendly and cordial reception.”
The next day Costa Rica announced a desire to be a party to the
mediation, and her good will undoubtedly facilitated the success of
the proceedings, which were now directed toward getting the dis-
putants together. Honduras, though allied with Salvador, agreed
to keep out of hostilities with Guatemala, and at dawn of July 18
both Guatemala and Salvador declared an armistice. The negotia-
tions lasted two days after the armistice, a fact showing only too
clearly how narrow a space used then to divide peace and war in
Central America, though if the ocean had been calmer the diplomats
1 The statement is based on newspaper accounts of the period.
n8
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
might have parleyed longer. The peace of the Marblehead1 was
negotiated on the high seas with representatives of the United States
and Mexico as honorary presidents and the Costa Rican representa-
tive as a member of the negotiating conference. By the treaty,
Guatemala, Salvador and Honduras agreed on the following points:
i, Peace established, withdrawal of armies within three days,
disarmament in eight days; 2, The exchange of prisoners, the release
of political prisoners, general amnesty recommended; 3, Vigilance
over emigrados (political refugees) in order to prevent abuse of asylum;
4, To negotiate a treaty of peace, friendship and commerce within
two months. The convention proceeds:
Fifth, If, contrary to expectations, any one of the high contracting parties
shall fail in the future in any of the points agreed upon in this treaty, or
should give cause for new differences, these shall be submitted to arbitration,
their Excellencies the Presidents of the United States of America and of the
United States of Mexico being hereby designated as arbitrators, to which
arbitration shall also be submitted the recent actual difficulties between
Guatemala, Salvador and Honduras.
The present convention remains under the guarantee of the loyalty of
the Governments interested and of the moral sanction of the Governments
of the mediating [Costa Rican, United States and Mexican] and partici-
pating [Guatemalan, Honduran and Salvadorean] nations.
The treaty of peace contemplated by the Marblehead pact produced
more results than were called for in the terms of the bond. Costa
Rica invited the conference to meet at San Jose on September 15,
the anniversary of Central American independence. It will be noted
that the mediating and participating nations in the peace of the
Marblehead included four of the Central American republics, Nica-
ragua being out. The four were consequently invited to the San
Jose conference, which lasted only ten days. Its agreements became
the basis of future arrangements and are therefore significant. They
consisted of a general treaty of peace and amity, arbitration, com-
merce, extradition, etc.; of a convention for the establishment of a
1 The Marblehead, had been in touch with Central America for some time. ( Report
of Bureau of Navigation, U. S. N., Cong. Docs. No. 5x15, 467, and No. 5291, 422.)
Similar incidents occurred aboard the U. S. S.S. Ranger, at Amapala on March 6,
1894, the occasion being negotiations between President Vasquez of Honduras and
the victorious revolution of Policarpo Bonilla ( Foreign Relations, 1894, 300), and
aboard the Alert in 1898.
CONFLICT OF PEACE SYSTEMS
119
Central American international bureau, and of one for the establish-
ment of a Central American pedagogical institute. The only-
provisions which here concern us are two articles from the general
treaty of peace and amity:
Art. 3. The Governments of Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, in
conformity with the stipulations of the treaty executed on board the Marble-
head, hereby appoint as umpires, their Excellencies the Presidents of the
United States of America and of the United Mexican States, to whom all
! particular difficulties arising among said Governments shall be submitted
for arbitration.
For the purpose of agreeing on the manner to effect such arbitration, the
above-mentioned Republics shall accredit, at the latest within three months
(from this date, their respective legations near the Governments of the
United States of America and Mexico, and in the meanwhile arbitration
shall be ruled according to the stipulations of the treaty of compulsory
arbitration concluded in Mexico on the 29th of January, 1902. 1
I Art. 4. Guatemala not having subscribed to the Corinto convention of
January 20, 1902, Costa Rica, Salvador and Honduras do hereby respec-
tively declare, that said Corinto convention is to continue in force, and
that any particular difference which may arise among them shall be settled
in conformity with the aforesaid convention and with the regulations
established by the Central American court of arbitration on the 9th of
October of that year.2
CONFLICT OF THE PEACE SYSTEMS.
Aside from any desires of Central American presidents to es-
tablish a federation with themselves at its head, — a desire then at-
tributed to some of them, — the peace machinery of Central America
when the year 1907 began consisted of the treaty of Corinto of 1902
and the treaties of San Jose of 1906. By the former, Costa Rica,
Honduras, Nicaragua and Salvador were bound to submit all their
differences to Central American arbitration; by the latter, Costa
Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and Salvador were bound to submit
all their differences to American-Mexican arbitration. Should
Central American disputes be settled by the family or by outsiders?
•The treaty referred to is printed in Second International Conference of Ameri-
can States, 40-47 (57th Cong., 1st Sess., Sen. Doc. No. 330).
“The regulations, drawn up at San Jose, Costa Rica, are printed at pages
53-57 in the Nicaraguan publication, Documentos oficiales referentes & la guerra
entre Nicaragua y Honduras de 1907. 2* edicidn (Managua, 1907).
120
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
That was the immediate question. The answer lay either with
Guatemala, which might join the Corinto arrangement, or with
Nicaragua, which might join the San Jose treaty.
Costa Rica interested herself in the San Jose system, and Nicara-
gua was urged to join. In January, 1907, Nicaragua declined to be
bound by the peace of the Marblehead. Nicaragua’s spokesman
offered as an immediate reason a telegram just received from the
president of Honduras stating that his militia had been ordered to
proceed near the boundary to suppress revolutionary movements
which, Honduras believed, were aided by President Zelaya of Nicara-
gua. Nicaragua further justified her decimation by stating that
the peace of the Marblehead and the pact of Corinto were opposed
to each other.
Honduras at the moment had a revolution brewing and through
her generals was conducting an argument with Nicaragua on the
extent to which Honduran exiles in Nicaragua were capable of join-
ing in.1 The Nicaraguan troops in mid-January chased some revo-
lutionists back across the border, whereupon Nicaragua claimed an
indemnity for invasion, demanding an arbitration under the terms
of the pact of Corinto.
The problem now was whether Central America should arbitrate
the case in accordance with the Corinto agreement or whether the
United States and Mexico should handle it in accordance with the
treaty of San Jose and the peace of the Marblehead. Central
American arbitrators got immediately to work under the Corinto
plan, and first insisted that the armies of both disputants be dis-
banded. Nicaragua refused, the proceedings collapsing on that rock.
Honduras thereupon denounced the Corinto treaty, so that events
were in a thoroughly parlous state.2 Could Nicaragua be induced
to accept the San Jose scheme?
1 “The principal group occupy Zapotillo Hill, which is divided by ‘the boundary,’
so that on attacking them they will immediately fall back on Nicaraguan territory,
and the attack would then be useless.” — Gen. Salomon Ordonez, of Honduras, to
President Zelaya, of Nicaragua, January 9, 1907, Foreign Relations of the United
States, 1907, 610.
“Nicaragua issued a volume of documents on the controversy under the title
of Documentos 0 jiciales referentes A la guerra entre Nicaragua y Honduras de 1907,
y & la participacidn de El Salvador. The court met at San Salvador and consisted
CONFLICT OF PEACE SYSTEMS
1 21
The Secretary of State of the United States was in touch with the
event and, in consequence of the failure of Central America, Mr.
Root entered the proceedings with the suggestion that Guatemala,
Salvador and Honduras, which had signed the treaty of San Jose,
should agree with the United States and Mexico as to the method
of the arbitration. The presidents of both countries again jumped
into the breach and sent telegrams to the presidents of Nicaragua
and Honduras expressing the strong hope that the misunderstanding
was one that could easily be removed, and “that the tribunal may
be reconstituted or a new tribunal provided which shall sit under
rules fully understood and complied with by both parties of the con-
troversy.”
President F. Manuel Bonilla of Honduras replied that the tribunal
established on his motion “unfortunately had to separate by reason
of the repeated refusals of the Managua government to observe the
dispositions which the tribunal deemed expedient to order as a pre-
vious condition to the rendering of its award.” He accepted the
newly offered arbitration, suggesting that Salvador and Costa Rica
might constitute a court, but insisted that the old tribunal could
not be reconstituted, “the treaty of Corinto having been declared
nonexistent.”
President Jose Santos Zelaya of Nicaragua charged that the tri-
bunal “insisted that the army be first disbanded and fresh offenses
from Honduras, worse than the preceding ones, occurring in the
meantime, Nicaragua refused, it being impossible to let the situation
remain defenseless and exposed to other attacks.” He cited the
of judges from Costa Rica, Honduras and Salvador. The court’s decree of Febru-
ary i caused the difficulty. It reads in part: “The court . . . considers that its
principal duty is to see that the judgment it is going to deliver should become
effective, removing therefore any circumstance which in any manner should dis-
tract the competitors from the faithful execution and fulfilment of all and each
of the clauses of the Corinto pact of 1902.” Wherefore and in accordance with
Art. XI of the pact, the court “believes it indispensable to direct to the Govern-
ment of Salvador, under whose auspices it is meeting, to the end that, as a signa-
tory of the pact of Corinto, it should secure by requesting in the most friendly
manner from the Governments of Honduras and Nicaragua the immediate dis-
armament and disbandment ( licenciamiento ) of forces, so that affairs may return
to the peaceable status which the arbitral compromis contemplates.” The Hon-
duran denunciation of the pact and the Nicaraguan protest both occurred on
February 8 {Op. cit., 140, 159).
122
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
fact that the tribunal was only to determine reparation for violation
of territory by Honduras, without discussing the existence of offen-
sive acts. He accepted American-Mexican good offices.
The same day, February 13, the Mexican minister for foreign
affairs, Ignacio Mariscal, proposed that the United States and Mex-
ico suggest the withdrawal of the troops of both disputants to a dis-
tance of 20 leagues from the frontier, after which a tribunal could
be installed.
Honduras terminated the negotiations late in February. Further
incidents led to blows. President Bonilla of Honduras met the
Nicaraguans and a body of Honduran malcontents at Choluteca
about mid-March and was put to flight. He re-organized his forces
and in the next phase of the campaign lost Tegucigalpa, his capital,
to the enemy on March 26.
Salvador was also concerned in the affair because of Central Amer-
ican political considerations. On March 12 Nicaragua was handed
a note in which, “regretting again the inability of arriving at a friendly
agreement, the more pained by the fact that enemies of Salvador
appear in that revolutionary committee (of Honduras, which Nic-
aragua supported),” Salvador declared that she was “obliged to
take an attitude corresponding with her interests.” Salvadorean
and Nicaraguan troops clashed at Namasigue on March 17, as a
consequence of which encounter Nicaragua declared war on Salvador
on March 20. As grievances, Nicaragua alleged Salvadorean aid
to an expedition headed by Nicaraguan political exiles and embarked
on the S.S. Empire for Amapala, assistance to the Honduran cause
by Salvadorean officials sent to that country, and the operation of
Honduran recruiting offices in Salvador.1
A revolution broke out in Honduras simultaneously with the tak-
ing of the capital2 by Nicaraguans.
Salvador avoided declaring war, thus keeping in an attitude re-
ceptive of peace overtures. Costa Rica, Guatemala and Salvador
1 Documenlos oficialcs, etc., 200-201.
2 Bonilla later surrendered to the Nicaraguans at the port of Amapala, where he
was besieged. The surrender was arranged through the American charge d’affaires,
Philip M. Brown, largely in his personal capacity.
EVENTS BEFORE CONFERENCE
123
now entered the proceedings and through the American charge
d’affaires, Philip M. Brown, got things again headed toward peace.
The actual negotiations took place at Amapala, the presence of the
cruiser Chicago 1 acting as a steadying influence. Again the pro-
ceedings were short, lasting only about a week and resulting in a
treaty signed on April 23, 1907, between Nicaragua and Salvador
through the direct mediation of Charge Brown. The original of
this treaty was filed in the American legation. It completed the
preliminaries for a Central American conference, inasmuch as it
brought Nicaragua into agreement with the rest of Central America
that all differences between the countries should be settled by the
obligatory arbitration of the presidents of the United States and
Mexico.2
EVENTS PRECEDING WASHINGTON CONFERENCE.
Honduras had been the first of the Central American fraternity to
bring the engagements of 1906 to a test. Revolutionary unrest had
begun that very winter, engineered, it was asserted, from Nicaragua.
Nicaragua, however, in January practically interned all the dis-
affected who came across the border, and one chapter of disorder was
thus closed. But that was not the end of the affair, which progressed
as an internal revolution. On April 23, 1907, Miguel R. Davila
telegraphed to President Roosevelt, “I have taken the office of pro-
visional president of this country with the support of the great ma-
jority of the citizens.” On July 4 his representative in Washington,
Angel Ugarte, gave the Department of State assurances concerning
the new government. “As to foreign affairs — that is, the difficulties
which may arise in Central America — my government has adopted a
policy of strict neutrality toward the probable contestants,” he wrote.
Five weeks later the United States and Mexico had agreed on recog-
nizing Davila, his minister at Washington being invited to present
his credentials on August 23. The recognition was timed to
‘The Chicago’s movements were: Acajutla, Salvador, February 15 to March 21
and March 30 to April 1; Amapala, Honduras, April 2 to 15; Acajutla, April 16;
Amapala, April 17 to 23; San Jos6, Costa Rica, April 25 to 26.
3 English text in Foreign Relations of the United States , 1907, 633-634. Salva-
dor's National Assembly ratified the treaty on May 8.
124
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
synchronize with other events, and constituted an essential prelimi-
nary to the important Central American reform that was about to
be enacted.
Still another bit of trouble was destined to furnish the immediate
cause for establishing the arrangements which promise to give
Central America the stability she deserves. On August 21, just
before the American recognition of the Davila government in
Honduras, Mexico learned that hostilities were about to break out
through the invasion of Nicaragua by Guatemalan and Salvadorean
forces. Mexico inquired whether the United States was disposed to
mediate with her. The American government accordingly hastened
the recognition of the Honduran government, and on August 25
President Roosevelt replied to President Dfaz that he would join the
latter in an earnest appeal to the Central Americans. An exchange
of telegrams followed and both presidents sent to the heads of each
of the five Central American governments a telegram, the salient
part of which, mutatis mutandis, was as follows:
A conference having been suggested between representatives of the
Republics of the Central American states, I cordially tender the good offices
of the United States toward bringing about so beneficial a result, and I beg
to assure your Excellency of my desire and willingness to contribute toward
the attainment of peace, in full concurrence with the President of Mexico.
Costa Rica and Honduras naturally responded favorably. Presi-
dent Fernando Figueroa of Salvador was in accord with the suggestion
and promised to abstain “from any steps which might enhance the
gravity of the situation;” Zelaya of Nicaragua gladly accepted a
proposal “most favorably received and most earnestly and frankly
supported by me;” Cabrera of Guatemala not only accepted but on
his own account sent telegrams expressing to the four other heads of
state “the hope that they will accept the conference and thus reward
your Excellency’s generous initiative.”
All Central America was ready in a few days for the next step, which
it was decided to have taken by their ministers at Washington. This
resulted in a peace protocol signed on September 17, in which the
delegates of the five states agreed upon holding a conference to meet
at Washington during the first half of the next November. It pro-
WASHINGTON PEACE CONFERENCE
125
vided further that the United States and Mexico should be invited to
appoint mediating representatives to the conference, and the five
republics agreed to “maintain peace and good relations among one
another” until the conference met and accomplished its mission.1
They promised to refrain from any armed demonstration on their
frontiers and to leave any unforeseen differences to the American and
Mexican presidents for settlement.
The next two months were taken up with preparations. Honduras,
followed by the other states, formally invited the United States and
Mexico to send representatives to the coming conference, and both
mediators willingly accepted the suggestion. On November 6 the
presidents of Honduras, Nicaragua and Salvador still further paved
the way for the conference. Meeting at Amapala, Honduras, they
“came to the most cordial understanding, in consequence whereof
all pending questions are settled and the most frank and true friend-
ship is restored.” The nature of the disputes can best be appre-
ciated by the fact that it was provided in the agreement that “all
past differences, no matter what their nature may have been, shall be
forgotten.”
CENTRAL AMERICAN PEACE CONFERENCE.
The Central American Peace Conference convened at Washington
in the Bureau of American Republics, then housed at 2 Jackson
Place, diagonally opposite from the White House, on November 13,
1907. Its session of five weeks accomplished labors that are among
the most remarkable ever realized on paper by sovereign states.
Americans should feel gratified that it was William Insco Buchanan,
their representative in the conference, “to whose exquisite tact and
untiring perseverance is owed in so great a measure the success of the
delicate and difficult labors of the conference,” as Minister Calvo of
Costa Rica took pleasure in assuring the Department of State.
The American representative and the Mexican ambassador to
Washington were considered throughout not only as members but as
leading advisers of the Central American delegates, who elected
'The English text of the protocol is in Foreign Relations of the United States,
1907, 644-645.
126
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
Secretary of State Elihu Root and Ignacio Mariscal, minister for
foreign affairs of Mexico, as honorary presidents. Secretary Root
occupied the chair during most of the inaugural session and after the
opening addresses conducted its proceedings, which included exami-
nation of credentials and election of permanent officers. The opening
addresses were eloquent and full of good advice, perhaps the most
needed of which was in these words of Secretary Root:
The all-important thing for you to accomplish is that while you enter
into agreements which will, I am sure, be framed in consonance with the
most peaceful aspirations and the most rigid sense of justice, you shall
devise also some practical methods under which it will be possible to secure
the performance of those agreements. The mere declaration of general
principles, the mere agreement upon lines of policy and of conduct are of
little value, unless there be practical and definite methods provided by which
the responsibility for failing to keep the agreement may be fixed upon some
definite person, and the public sentiment of Central America brought to
bear to prevent the violation. . . .
To find practical definite methods by which you shall make it somebody’s
duty to see that the great principles you declare are not violated, by which
if an attempt be made to violate them the responsibility may be fixed upon
the guilty individual — those, in my judgment, are the problems to which
you should specifically and most earnestly address yourselves.
The spirit of self-criticism of the Central Americans themselves in
their task, which the rest of the world could profitably emulate, was
admirably illustrated by the inaugural address of the permanent
president, Luis Anderson, minister for foreign affairs of Costa Rica.
In the course of his address he said:
The solemn inauguration of this Central American Peace Conference
marks in the history of our people the epoch that separates the past from
the future, the time when war and revolution will sink, never to rise, to give
way to peace, progress and tranquility. It is the beginning of an era to
which the spirit of the century urgently calls us.
Civilization can not allow that in the family of nations there be one which
does not work for or contribute to the common benefit the full extent of its
energies and of the wealth with which nature has endowed it, because all
nations are united in human progress.
Admirably situated between two continents, with extensive coast lines
on both oceans, with an exceedingly rich soil, suitable for all kinds of
products, with mountains full of gold and silver — in fine, with such wealth
that it would seem nature took pride in scattering over these lands all its
wealth with a prodigal hand — Central America is in duty bound to render
to civilization, through universal interchange, all the benefits that its
WASHINGTON PEACE CONFERENCE
127
privileged situation demands; and, nevertheless, I lament to say this — we
are backward in fulfilling this duty, because the futile strifes in which some
of the Republics have consumed their energies have separated us from the
ideals our forefathers contemplated when they, regardless of sacrifice, gave
us our country and liberty.
Certain features of the conference proceedings are worthy of remark.
Much of the success of any diplomatic conference depends upon the
rules of procedure adopted. This conference followed the customary
practice and required a unanimous vote for the passage of any resolu-
tion, but, at the suggestion of Mr. Buchanan, it was provided that
“those resolutions upon which three or more delegations are in
accord shall be considered as obligatory upon them and as a recom-
mendation for the others.” The rule has been adopted for all succeed-
ing Central American conferences.
The first article of the protocol of September 17 was the program
of the conference. This specified that the conference should discuss
“the steps to be taken and the measures to be adopted in order to
adjust any differences which may exist among said Republics, or
any of them.” The reading of the article in the conference brought
a pause in the proceedings. The delegation from Salvador broke
the silence by declaring that Salvador had no claim of any kind to
present against any of the other four republics. Amid applause, the
chairmen of the other delegations made the same declaration. The
past was both dead and buried.
The protocol of September 17 provided also for the “concluding of
a treaty which shall define their general relations.” Under this
head of the program Honduras presented a project for a union of the
five republics. Nicaragua favored the Honduran plan and for
several days it held the center of the stage. Guatemala submitted
a less ambitious memorandum, and the two plans were referred to a
committee. Even the committee was unable to agree, Honduras
and Nicaragua reporting in favor of a scheme of union, and Costa
Rica, Guatemala and Salvador favoring the Guatemalan project of
basing action upon the treaties signed at San Jose on September 25,
1906. “Considerable tension was manifested in the conference as
these two reports were read,” wrote Mr. Buchanan in his report, “and
a growing purpose on the part of some of the delegations to insist that
128
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
no discussion of the subject matter of the [Guatemalan] report should
take place. . . . Noting in all this the appearance of an element
of discord, the suggestion was made [by Mr. Buchanan], supported
by the Mexican representative, that the consideration of both re-
ports be postponed, and that the conference proceed to prepare
projects for several important conventions — outside the scope of
either report — notably one covering an international court. This
course was adopted.”
Later in the conference, on the motion of Honduras, the Central
American presidents were asked “to crown our work with a measure
that will be a token of reconciliation and fraternity and a worthy
beginning of an era of concord for our Central American family” by
conceding full amnesty for all political offenses. This resolution was
honored by all the republics, and removed many obvious sources of
irritation and embarrassment.
Before considering the accomplishments of the conference, the
keynotes of the closing session may be recorded. “I found,” said
President Anderson, “that all the Central American delegations
came inspired with an earnest and sincere brotherly feeling to accom-
plish something lasting and of mutual benefit. It can not be said,
now, as it was said before, that all our treaties had been written in
water, as we intend to show the world, and particularly the govern-
ments of the United States of America and the United Mexican
States, for whom our gratitude and that of our people for their timely
and humane mediation at a difficult moment in our lives shall be
everlasting, that our purpose is steadfast, that our good faith has
been pledged, and that our names have been written on documents
which are the foundation of a new era of peace, happiness and plenty
for the Central American republics. All differences, all obstacles,
all barriers to our happiness and prosperity have been wiped out
and the new Central American brotherhood established upon a sound
foundation.”1
'The foregoing account of the conference is based on Mr. Buchanan’s report
as published in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1907, 665-727. The pas-
sages quoted are to be found, ibid., 688, 691, 673, and 719 respectively.
RESULTS OF THE CONFERENCE
129
RESULTS OF THE CONFERENCE.
The documents prepared by the conference have since become the
virtual constitution of a new Central America. They were seven
in number.1 Their contents must be indicated in order that sub-
sequent events may be understood.
The general treaty of peace and amity was negotiated for ten
years. It declares that every difference or difficulty that may arise
among them, of whatsoever nature it may be, shall be decided by
a court, and that any attempt to alter by violence the constitutional
organization of any state is to be deemed a menace to the peace of
all. The territory of Honduras, — which lies between Guatemala
to the north, Nicaragua to the south and Honduras to the west and
which frequently was Central America’s battle ground, — was neu-
tralized, and the other states agreed to respect Honduran territory.
Each state obligated itself to accredit permanent diplomatic lega-
tions to the others, and all Central Americans were again mutually
recognized as citizens. They promised to prevent political refugees
from living near their borders, to refuse to recognize any govern-
ment resulting from a coup d'etat or to intervene in any republic on
account of internal disorder. They agreed that each country
should try for a constitutional reform by which the re-election of a
president should be prohibited.
The second convention created the Central American Court of
Justice, the most remarkable judicial organ in the world, to be situ-
ated at Cartago, Costa Rica. The five sovereign states gave this
court authority to determine all questions arising between them
which diplomacy should fail to settle; to determine cases involving
alleged violation of treaties where denial of justice should be charged
by a citizen of one country against the government of another; and
to determine any question submitted by two governments, or by a
government and a citizen of any of the five states. What these
provisions imply can be appreciated from the fact that the “United
1 An additional convention and an additional protocol brought the number up
to nine, but these supplemented other documents.
I3°
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
States can not be sued in their courts without their consent” and
that the United States government “may withdraw its consent
whenever it may suppose that justice to the public requires” this.1
Further, the court by Art. XXII determines its own competency
respecting cases brought before it and decides all questions of fact
according to its own judgment, questions of law being subject to
the principles of international law. Its decision is final, but must
be rendered by a majority. It has power to fix the status quo in any
controversy pending before it, and may appoint special commis-
sioners to carry out its orders anywhere in Central America, though
these orders must be transmitted through the ministry for foreign
affairs of the state concerned. An optional article makes it possible
for the court to take jurisdiction “over the conflicts which may
arise between the legislative, executive and judicial power, and when
as a matter of fact the judicial decisions and resolutions of the na-
tional congress are not respected” in any state, a provision which
was not fully ratified.
The third convention provided tor mutual extradition of criminals
and defined extraditable crimes.
The fourth convention aimed “to develop the interests common
to Central America.” To this end an international Central Amer-
ican bureau was established “to combine every effort toward the
peaceful reorganization of their mother country, Central America.”
The bureau, with duties specified in some detail, was placed at Guate-
mala and its membership consists of one person from each of the
five states.
The fifth convention, based on that of San Jose of September 25,
1906, created a Central American pedagogical institute, establishing
a normal school and aiming to bring about a common system of edu-
cation in the five states.
The sixth convention provided for annual conferences for five
years, specified numerous subjects for their consideration and had
for its recognized ulterior purpose the idea that such conferences
were “one of the most efficacious means to prepare for the fusion
of the Central American peoples into one single nationality.”
1 Schillinger v. U. S., 155 U. S. 166, and U. S. v. Lee, 106 U. S. 207.
INAUGURATION OF THE COURT
13 1
The seventh convention contemplated measures looking toward
the proper connection of the several republics by railroad.
INAUGURATION OF THE CENTRAL AMERICAN COURT.
The Central American Court of Justice was hailed from the first as
the most important creation of the 1907 conference; and that its
inauguration should take place with somewhat conspicuous formality
was natural. This was wise. For Central America in 60 years had a
dozen times promised itself to leave its disputes out to men instead
of bullets, — and any inaugural exercises that would write the new
promise indelibly on memories was much to be desired.
The court had an auspicious beginning. Its installation was set
for May 25, 1908, and Costa Rica as the host of the occasion invited
delegations from the United States and Mexico, the godparents of the
whole scheme. William I. Buchanan of the United States and
Enrique C. Creel, Mexican ambassador to Washington, were desig-
nated to represent their governments, and Mr. Buchanan immedi-
ately started for Mexico. On May 14 Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Creel and
their parties went on board the United States cruiser Albany at
Salina Cruz, Mexico, whence they headed for San Jose, Guatemala.
There, at Acajutla, Salvador, and Amapala, Honduras, the Albany
exchanged numerous salutes and took on board all the judges of the
court except the Costa Rican. She then proceeded to Panama, and
the delegates crossed the Isthmus by railroad, being met at Colon
by the United States cruiser Des Moines, on which they went to
Limon, Costa Rica, whence the trip was made by train to Cartago,
the old capital of Costa Rica and the seat of the court.
After such an official odyssey, it is not surprising that the inaugural
exercises on May 25 were “begun amid profound silence, in the pres-
ence of one of the most distinguished and representative assemblages
that had ever convened in Costa Rica, and witnessed outside the
building by a mass of people who packed every inch of available
space in the adjoining streets.” The exercises began with the declara-
tion by its president that the court was open. Luis Anderson, Costa
Rican minister for foreign affairs and in the previous year president
132
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
of the Washington conference, followed with words of more than
Central American application, saying in part:
Arbitration has been contemplated as a sure means of arriving at pacific
solutions, and those peoples who have been favored thus have accumulated
strong proofs of its efficiency in their national life and have escaped in their
history pages of sorrow.
In the history of the countries of Spanish America the noble idea has a
glorious origin. It was born with their independence as though inseparable
from liberty, and as a necessary element in their existence, since liberty
surges from truthful force, which resides in justice. It was thus compre-
hended by the genius of Bolivar at the very beginning of American emanci-
pation, and, notwithstanding frequent and lamentable vicissitudes, is today,
germinated by the deep desire of Central American patriotism developing
itself, and will soon begin to give abundant and beneficent fruit. . . .
Civilization does not halt in its march while there is a step in advance to
be taken, but day by day transforms ideas into doctrines and doctrines
into institutions. All realized progress is crystallized into practical and
fundamental form after the natural period of evolution of idealistic theory.
For this reason great thinkers believe that the idea of international arbitra-
tion, a simple humanitarian doctrine contemplated by philanthropists as
the base of a superior aspiration, must be carried farther and be converted
into an institution which shall form an integral part of the organism of
nations. . . .
The glory of making the first attempt at such an institution, worthily
represented by this court of justice for Central America, belongs to us, and
our prayers, which will be accompanied without doubt by those of all
thinkers in the world, are that the results of this tribunal will reach the
ideal and the legitimate hopes placed in it by our patriotism and humanity.
The governor of the province in which Cartago is situated then
welcomed the company, and was succeeded by Mr. Creel for Mexico
and Mr. Buchanan for the United States. Mr. Creel in an eloquent
address extolled the court as “the triumph of justice over passion
and of principles over force,” but did not fail to advise:
The conventions of Washington constitute a program of civilization of the
greatest importance and of the highest order to the five Republics. The
happiness of these people depends upon their faithful execution and exact
compliance with their terms.
Mr. Buchanan gave good advice even more pointedly:
While applauding this new movement toward the quiet, orderly, and
judicial adjustment of international questions, the world will confidently
expect that success will follow, and will not be satisfied with less than that.
To reach this splendid ideal it is necessary, however, that the conclusions
COMPARISON WITH HAGUE COURT
133
of this court shall be of so high and of so impartial a character, and the
acquiescence therein on the part of the Governments of Central America
so full and prompt, that together they shall be morally recognized as an
expression of the national conscience of Central America, as stated in Art.
XIII of the convention creating this court.
To accomplish this there must be behind this court and its decisions an
elevated, patriotic public conscience in each of the Republics that will lift
and maintain the court in every way above the plane of political purposes or
necessities.
He concluded in Spanish with an announcement of great interest
to the court:
I have received a telegram from his Excellency the Secretary of State of
the United States, Hon. Elihu Root, instructing me to advise your Ex-
cellencies that he has been authorized by Mr. Andrew Carnegie to offer the
sum of $100,000 for the construction in the city of Cartago of a temple of
peace to be destined for the exclusive use of the court of justice for Central
America, as a mark of his good wishes for the peace and progress of Central
America and of his confidence in the success of the great work of humanity
and justice which is to spring from this court, which is to constitute a new
and splendid example of civilization, of peace, of justice, and of confra-
ternity in the relations of the countries represented here.
The proceedings closed with enthusiastic formal addresses by the
president of Costa Rica and the president of the court, but the day
was completed with a multitude of telegrams and cablegrams that
showed very clearly how hopefully Central America welcomed its
new creation.1
HAGUE AND CENTRAL AMERICAN COURTS COMPARED.
The Central American Court of Justice is worthy of consideration
from the fact that its jurisdiction is the broadest ever instituted in a
permanent system between nations. More than that, in some
respects it is even broader than any temporary international tribunal
has ever had, and compares very favorably with that of national
courts. Therefore it marked an advance in a world where enlightened
opinion was rapidly crystallizing around the idea that an international
legal system, definite in character and operating with certainty,
1 For complete account of the inaugural ceremonies see Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1908, 215-247, and Republica de Costa Rica. . . . Memoria de
Relaciones exteriores . . . , 1908, xiii-xiv, 55-68.
134
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
was a necessity if progress toward peace was to be made. How great
an advance it marked can be seen by comparing the jurisdiction of the
proposed Court of Arbitral Justice at The Hague — the highest point
■of international aspiration before the European war — with the juris-
diction of the Central American court.
The Court of Arbitral Justice in a way would have been without
jurisdiction, being “competent to deal with all cases submitted to
it, ” at the pleasure of the parties. Three members of the court were,
however, to have formed a delegation which could:
1. Decide arbitrations under summary procedure, “if the parties con-
cerned are agreed;”
2. Hold a commission of inquiry, “in so far as the delegation is intrusted
by the parties acting in common agreement;”
3. Settle the terms of an arbitration agreement ( compromis ), “if the
parties are agreed to leave it to the court;”
4. Settle the terms of a compromis when requested by one party only,
after diplomacy has failed, (a) if a dispute falls within the terms of a general
arbitration treaty in force, or ( b ) if a dispute concerns contract debts on
which arbitration has been accepted.
Thus it is evident that the Powers at The Hague only two months
before the Central American conference at Washington were unwill-
ing to leave any discretion to their proposed court, while all problems
likely to be serious menaces to good order were carefully reserved
to themselves under the terms of general arbitration treaties except-
ing questions of “vital interest or national honor,” phrases whose
elastic limitations are very deliberately left uncertain. In other
words, the jurisdiction of the proposed Court of Arbitral Justice was
about as negative and indefinite as it could be. Yet it was the best
agreement that the Powers could reach, and even more than was
hoped for.
Look now at the jurisdiction of the Central American Court of
Justice as given in the Regulations of December 2, 1911:
Art. 16. The Central American Court of Justice does not, in the cases
falling within its ordinary jurisdiction, have any more authority or attribu-
tions than those which are given to it by its own constitutive law; and
from the time when a suit is filed, it possesses the power to fix its jurisdiction
upon the main point at issue as upon all side issues which shall arise during
the substantiation of the case, and to construe the treaties and conventions
COMPARISON WITH HAGUE COURT 135
and apply the principles of international law relative to the point or points
in controversy.
Art. 17. The ordinary jurisdiction of the court includes:
1. All questions or controversies between the Central American states,
whatever may be their source or nature, if the foreign offices concerned
have failed to reach a settlement, whether this be shown by record of pro-
ceedings or by other effective documents, or by the fact of the parties being
in a state of war;
2. Suits filed by a Central American against any of the contracting
states, not his own, when such suits shall refer to a violation of the obliga-
tions of a treaty or convention, or to other questions of an international
character, on condition that he shall have exhausted all the resources
afforded by the laws which the respective country may have provided in
his behalf against the acts giving rise to the judicial action, or if a denial of
justice is shown.
3. The power to fix, in accordance with Art. XVIII of the convention,
the position in which the contending parties shall remain during the pendency
of the suit initiated between them, and, in consequence, that of issuing
such precautionary orders which it may deem necessary, as well as the
power to modify, suspend or revoke them, according to the circumstances.
4. Cases of internal public law, embraced in the article annexed to the
said convention, in respect to the states which included this clause in the
legislative ratification of the pact.
Art. 18. The extraordinary or compromisory jurisdiction embraces:
1. Questions not included in Sect. 2 of Art. 17, which may arise between
one of the Central American governments and private persons, when sub-
mitted to the court by common consent;
2. Controversies of an international nature, between any of the Central
American governments and that of a foreign nation, which, by a convention
concluded for that purpose, the parties may decide to examine and adjust
before the court.
The Ordinance of Procedure adds :
Art. 6. In order that in questions between states an action may be ad-
missible, corresponding to the ordinary jurisdiction, according to Art. 17
of the Regulations, it must be sufficiently shown in the judgment of the
court that diplomatic efforts have been made without success to obtain a
settlement; or the impossibility of attempting any such efforts on account
of the existence between the parties of a state of war declared or actually
in progress.
In the cases set forth under Art. II of the convention, the private plain-
tiff must show that, to obtain redress for the violation charged, he has made
use of all means conducive thereto in conformity with the laws of the state,
or that there has been a denial of justice.
Art. 12. After an action has been passed upon and decided by the court,
no new claim referring thereto shall be admissible which is founded on the
same facts and circumstances and directed toward the same purpose.
136
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
That is very positive jurisdiction, from which reserves of “vital
interest and national honor” have substantially disappeared. An
appellate character of the jurisdiction is indicated by insistence that
other methods of securing justice shall first be exhausted.
In turning to the work of this judicial organization, it is well to
keep in mind the sage remark of Mr. Buchanan that “an entire
absence of business for the court would be the highest justification
for its creation;”1 for a court, to continue quoting from Mr.
Buchanan’s words, enjoins “the greatest prudence, tact and states-
manship ... in everything even remotely likely to reach” it. The
mere existence of a court has a powerful tendency to cause either
individuals or states to cut their action according to the rules of law.
This effect is the most far-reaching reaction of legal machinery, and
no true estimate of the operation of an international court can be
made unless this effect is considered. The presence of stable internal
conditions, the absence of international political crises, the general
lack of exciting news are healthier signs than litigation.
WORK OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE.
The first case came before the court as a result of events occurring
within a month of its installation. In July, 1908, a revolutionary
movement broke out in Honduras. On July 10, 1908, Rodolfo
Espinosa, minister for foreign affairs of Nicaragua, telegraphed to
Alfredo Volio, minister for foreign affairs of Costa Rica, that, “deplor-
ing the events taking place in the sister republic of Honduras and
having proof, emanating from that government, that the governments
of Guatemala and Salvador are participating in those events, being
very desirous of first giving exact fulfilment to the provisions of the
treaties of Washington, and with the object of preventing events from
becoming more aggravated, his [the Nicaraguan] government, through
[the Costa Rican] chancellery, has laid the complaint caused by such
proceedings before the high tribunal of Cartago.” Forthwith, Cleto
Gonzalez-Vfquez, president of Costa Rica, addressed a letter to the
other four Central American presidents announcing that his govern-
1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1908, 247.
WORK OF THE COURT
137
ment had brought the matter before the court. He proposed a joint
mediation to obtain a “fraternal and friendly solution or subjecting
it to the decision of the tribunal.” And he added: “Our honor, our
dignity, our name will depend in the eyes of the world on preserving
and respecting this tribunal.” Notwithstanding this formal media-
tion, the incident is significant because it was probably the first
instance of states not parties to a difficulty haling the actual parties
before a court for the trial of their case.1
Honduras immediately filed its case by telegraph, the court issued
interlocutory decrees against Honduras on the one side and Guatemala
and Salvador on the other, and for a time the telegraph wires were
loaded with legal documents. The court eventually rendered a
decision on December 19, making it somewhat of a compromise
verdict. Three members determined that the court properly had
jurisdiction, but absolved Guatemala and Salvador of responsibility
for the Honduran disorder. Neither side was condemned to pay the
costs.2 Nevertheless, there has not since been a revolt in Central
America clearly precipitated from beyond a state’s border.3
In two instances the extraordinary international jurisdiction of the
court has been exceeded; and, though the efforts were unsuccessful
in their immediate purpose, the effect encouraged the hope for peace
in Central America. Both are noteworthy, because they represent
a judicial activity that is not customary even within a nation. Imag-
ine a judge coming in unsolicited and trying his conciliatory abilities
on a domestic quarrel and we have a counterpart of the Central
1 The affair is not reported in Anales de Corte de Justicia Centro-americana ,
which began publication in 19 n. The account is transcribed from Republica de
Costa Rica. . . . Memoria de Relaciones exteriores . . ., 1909, vii-xi, and 9-10.
See also Boletxn oficial de la Secretana de Relaciones Exteriores, Mexico, XXVI,
223-227.
2 The interlocutory decrees of July 8, 1908, are printed in English translation in
American Journal of International Law, 2, 835-841. The vote on questions pre-
liminary to the decision of December 19, 1908, is printed ibid., 3, 434-436, the
Spanish text of the complete decision being in Nouveau general recueil de tr axles,
III serie, 5, 325/.
3 An incident of invasion of Costa Rica by the Nicaraguan army, while fighting
offensively, occurred about November 11, 1909, and elicited an apology from
President Zelaya of Nicaragua. ( Foreign Relations of the United States, 1909,
453-454-)
I3»
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
American court’s effort to calm the whirlwind of two Nicaraguan
revolutions.
“Since the Washington conventions of 1907,” wrote Secretary
of State Knox 1 in handing the Nicaraguan minister his passports
on December 1, 1909, “it is notorious that President Zelaya has
almost continuously kept Central America in tension or turmoil;
that he has repeatedly and flagrantly violated the provisions of the
conventions, and, by a baleful influence upon Honduras, whose neu-
trality the conventions were to assure, has sought to discredit those
sacred international obligations, to the great detriment of Costa Rica,
Salvador, and Guatemala, whose governments meanwhile appear
to have been able patiently to strive for the loyal support of the
engagements so solemnly undertaken at Washington under the aus-
pices of the United States and of Mexico. It is equally a matter
of common knowledge that under the regime of President Zelaya
republican institutions have ceased in Nicaragua to exist except in
name, that public opinion and the press have been throttled, and
that prison has been the reward of any tendency to real patriotism.”
On October 11, 1909, a revolution had started against Zelaya, who
had held power in Nicaragua continuously for 18 years without even
the form of an election, “unless an exception may be made of the
occasion when three candidates, Jose, Santos and Zelaya, were put
up and were voted for” 2 — President Jose Santos Zelaya being rather
necessarily declared the victor at the polls. Zelaya resigned power
in the face of the revolution on December 16, 1909, and under the
constitution Jose Madriz, Nicaraguan member of the Court of Jus-
tice, was designated to succeed him. Francisco Paniagua-Prado was
appointed to succeed Dr. Madriz as member of the court. Dr. Madriz
continued to be opposed by the revolutionaries, who, however, about
March 3 proposed mediation by the United States, which refused to
act because the proposal came from one side only.3 The Nicaraguan
member of the Court of Justice made the next move. In a letter
of April 11 he proposed to the court that “it direct to the Madriz
1 Foreign Relations of the United Stales, 1909, 455.
2 George T. Weitzel, American Policy in Nicaragua, 20. (Sen. Doc. No. 334,
64th Cong., 1st Sess.)
3 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1910, 743.
WORK OF THE COURT
139
government and to the revolution a request urging them to reach
I a mutual agreement on peace as soon as possible, the tribunal offer-
ing itself to accomplish this purpose either as a mediator or arbi-
trator and its decision to be respected.”
The court acted on the suggestion in its session of April 27, and
a telegram was sent to both parties asking them to “agree to an
armistice of eight days wherein to propose terms to this tribunal,
which offers itself as a friendly mediator.” President Madriz found
it impossible to accept the armistice because he was unable to com-
municate with his armies; General Juan J. Estrada of the revolution
thought acceptance of the court’s good offices inconsistent with the
requested mediation of the United States, concerning which his op-
ponent had not expressed himself. On May 10 the court resolved
itself into permanent commission with only the judges of Guatemala,
Honduras and Nicaragua sitting. No provision for such an arrange-
ment for the continuity of the court occurs in the treaty of Wash-
ington, and the Regulations, which do provide for it, were not issued
until December 2, 1911.1 Therefore, on May 12, 1910, President
Madriz was able to reply to a reiteration of the tender of good offices
that “the disintegration, although temporary, suspends the conven-
tion of Washington. ” Denying the conclusion, the permanent com-
mission continued its efforts.
A month later, Dr. Madriz addressed to President Taft a letter
complaining of what he considered unneutral interference with his
military operations by American war vessels at Bluefields. The reply
of the Secretary of State on June 19 and other documents point to
the legal correctness of the American position.2 The permanent
1 In Art. 4 of the Regulations of the court this is described as follows :
“Whenever for any reason the court shall disintegrate, the judges present shall be
constituted into a permanent commission for the purpose of directing to whomever
it may be proper the petitions tending to complete the legal quorum, and for the
further purpose of attending to the official correspondence and to the administra-
tion of the office concerning everything which may be urgent and indispensable.”
1 President of Nicaragua to President Taft, June 13, 1910, Foreign Relations of
the United States , mro, 751-752; Secretary of State to Consul Moffat, June 19, 1910,
ibid., 753; Consul Moffat to Secretary of State, July 10, 1910, ibid., 756; Acting
Secretary of State to Minister Peirce at Kristiania, July 22, 1910, ibid., 756-757.
The Madriz letter to President Taft is also in Anales de la Corte de Justicia Qentro-
(irnericana, I, 157-159,
140
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
commission of the court was informed of the correspondence, but
wisely refrained from action. On June 23 it was therefore in posi-
tion formally to repeat to both sides its offer of mediation. To the
tender were appended “Bases for the Settlement of the Nicaraguan
Question,” n in number.1 In reply, President Madriz asked for
General Estrada’s response to the previous offer and held that “the
court must be reintegrated according to the Washington convention”
before its mediation would be acceptable. General Estrada’s faction
could not accept on account of the failure of Dr. Madriz to respond
to earlier offers and “because it would thereby commit a grave offense
to the American government,” which it had asked to mediate.2
The effort failed for a casual reason. If the court as such could
be convened, the Madriz objection would be avoided; and the Estrada
objection would be nullified by the United States itself. The pres-
ence of President Bocanegra of the court, judge for Guatemala, was
required to make the court complete, and he was summoned by tele-
graph. He replied in substance: “The grave condition of my
daughter makes it impossible for me to come at once, while she
hovers between life and death. Be good enough to inform me
whether the proposed bases have been accepted by both contestants,
since without that requisite I do not see the urgency of a journey
during my leave of absence and in my anxious state of mind.”
That was on July 3. On August 18 the Madriz troops were de-
feated, and the next day were routed and their general killed. On
August 20 President Madriz deposited the “presidency” with Jose
D. Estrada, brother of the general, and the need for mediation was
temporarily over.3
1 Anales de la Corte, I, 160-161.
2 The Madriz objection had perhaps a legal basis, but the difficulty was corrected
by the Regulations of the court.
The Estrada objection was invalid in fact, though the fact was probably unknown
to General Estrada. The secretary of the court on June 23, cabled its intention to
Secretary of State Knox, who on June 25 clearly indicated in his response that he
approved of the court’s course. (See Foreign Relations of the United States, 1910,
754, 755-)
J The relations of the United States to Nicaragua during all the period from
November, 1909, to the retirement of Madriz were not normal. Two adventurous
Americans, Lee Roy Cannon and Leonard Groce, were participants in the revolu-
tion against Zelaya, and were captured while laying mines in the San Juan River
WORK OF THE COURT
141
In July, 1912, another conflict broke out in Nicaragua. Undaunted
by its former experience, the court made itself a party to the matter
by deciding on August 5 “to name a commission made up of two
judges and the secretary of the court to offer, if it seems proper,
its friendly mediation on behalf of peace, with all necessary powers
in the premises.” This action was taken on the suggestion of the
judge for Nicaragua, but five days later the court met again to de-
cide that a third judge should be added to the commission.
About a month was spent in Nicaragua by the commission in a
labor clearly beyond the jurisdiction of the court and frankly
“inspired by the sentiment of patriotism and of family community.”
Arrived in Nicaraguan territory, a telegram was addressed to Presi-
dent Adolfo Diaz requesting passports and to General Luis Mena,
leader of the insurrection, asking for safe-conducts. The president,
after a delay, welcomed the commission to Nicaragua but did not
send passports, though his civil and military chief at Rivas was
substantially able to give them something just as good, his aid. Sec-
retary Ernesto Martin of the court was sent to Mena’s headquarters
at Granada for safe-conducts and the commissioners attempted to
follow, being defeated in their purpose because the military demand
for horses had left none for transporting officers of justice. After a
delay of three days, the problem was solved by securing a private
to blow up transports. A Frenchman named Couture was engaged with them
and also captured. The three were tried in rapid proceedings, the two Americans
being sentenced to death and the Frenchman to a year in jail. As soon as a firing
squad could be found, the Americans were executed. That occurred on November
16 and caused much condemnation in the United States and Central America.
On December 1 Secretary of State Knox, charging that the Zelaya regime was
“a blot upon the history of Nicaragua and a discouragement to a group of republics
whose aspirations need only the opportunity of free and honest government” and
finding “no definite responsible source to which the government of the United
States could look for reparation for the killing of Messrs. Cannon and Groce,”
severed diplomatic relations with the Zelaya government. Zelaya resigned on
December 16, Dr. Madriz succeeding him by inauguration on December 21.
Though Dr. Madriz expressly condemned the execution of Cannon and Groce as
illegal, the continuance of the revolution made it inadvisable from the point of
view of the United States to recognize his position as president. Dr. Madriz
“deposited the presidency” with Jose Dolores Estrada on August 20, 1910, who
passed it along to his brother on the 23rd. The United States entered into de
facto relations with Provisional President Juan Jose Estrada in October, an election
was held and he was chosen to the presidency. ( Foreign Relations of the United
States, 1909, 446-459; 1910, 738-767.)
142
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
vehicle, and on August 21 the commissioners had the satisfaction
of being cordially received at Granada by General Mena. “Peace
was desired in Granada by all social classes,” and even by members
of the so-called constituent assembly of the revolution. General
Mena consented to negotiations without hesitation, and on his behalf
his representatives made only one condition, that the decrees of the
constituent assembly established by them should be respected and
fulfilled.
The commissioners went next to Masaya where General Benjamin
Zeledon headed another section of disaffected citizens in a city where
“we were hailed with delirious acclamations.” The Liberal general
would agree to an armistice, insisting that, with peace re-established,
Nicaraguans should have “all rights and guaranties” and that the
autonomy of the country should be assured.
The commission reached Managua, the capital, on the 24th after
a difficult journey, part of which was made in a cart pulled by three
soldiers. The following day articles of mediation were drawn up for
presentation to President Diaz that evening. An interview in the
presence of his minister for foreign relations ended the peace pil-
grimage with a peremptory decisiveness. The reply was by Diego
Manuel Chamorro, the minister, who said:
The government has always been very well disposed toward peace. With
General Mena already in arms, it hoped that the conflict might be settled
peacefully, and did not fire a shot so long as it was not attacked. It gladly
welcomed the acts in favor of conciliation by the ministers of the United
States of America and Salvador and the charge d’affaires of Costa Rica,
which bore no fruit because they were not accepted by the revolution. On
the other hand the very lenity with which the government has treated the
rebels is the reason why events have assumed the gravity they now have,
since the revolution has taken advantage of armistices de facto conceded
by the government for the active prosecution of their operations. For
these reasons it is not possible for the president to enter into arrangements
for an armistice, which assuredly would not be respected by the revolution;
but he is not indisposed to hear the peace propositions which his opponents
may present. He has always been ready to do this. In view of what I
have said, it is not possible for the government to lend itself to the proposi-
tions of the peace commission, whose efforts nevertheless I applaud and
welcome.
WORK OF THE COURT
143
The commission tarried in Managua, though preparing for the
return journey to Costa Rica. As they were ready to leave, the
minister of Salvador urged them to remain, on the ground that there
was reason to believe that the Nicaraguan government would change
its mind and solicit their good offices within a few days. He spoke
in the name of the diplomatic corps, with the exception of the Amer-
ican minister. The latter visited the commissioners to express the
opinion that it was very doubtful that the government would re-
consider; “but that if the commission would send him a request
which would give him sufficient authority to intervene in the affair,
he would use all suitable means (todas las diligencias conducentes)
in behalf of the idea. The commission, for obvious reasons, abstained
from assuming such an attitude.”1
These two affairs have been chosen for relation in some detail
because they exhibit clearly the beneficial effect of an existing court
even when it is exerting influence beyond its jurisdiction, and even
when it fails to get results. Fate, acting on a hint from Washington,
decreed that republicanism was more important than mere cessa-
tion of hostilities in one instance and in the other that the time-
honored and ill-reputed plan of making the generalissimo chief of
state by force should perish without parley. But with all political
considerations aside, the action of the court remains notable and
useful. Notable, because these extra-jurisdictional activities were
conducted without the slightest difficulty, and therefore with an
accession of prestige to the court.2 Useful, because a court prying
1 Andes de la Carle de Justicia Centro-americana, II, 149.
2 In these events the interest of the United States was considerable and its partici-
pation not wholly diplomatic. Not long after entering into de facto relations with
Provisional President Juan Jose Estrada, an agreement was effected by which a
constitutional convention was to meet on December 15, 1910, elect Estrada presi-
dent for two years and Minister for Foreign Affairs Adolfo Diaz vice president.
Estrada was not to be a candidate to succeed himself. Minister of Finance Luis
Mena, “who controls arms and ammunitions,” was a party to the plan, which
involved arrangements with the United States concerning finances. Under this
head, a loan was to be negotiated on the security of the customs, an American
financial expert was to complete arrangements and a loan contract to be
obtained in the United States. Liquidated claims were to be paid immediately
and unliquidated claims handled according to a plan to be agreed upon by the
United States and Nicaragua. These plans were signed on November 6, 1910.
( Foreign Relations of the United States, 1910, 763-764.) By decree of March 29,
144
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
around among revolutionists and calling attention to standards of
conduct at the moment disregarded is a decided discouragement
to making revolution a profession.
SIGNIFICANCE AND HISTORY OF OTHER ORGANS.
Important as is court apparatus, it lacks a complete connection
with the developing life of a people. Courts necessarily must ad-
minister only that part of human standards which has proved to
be a set of safe rules for the guidance and control of affairs. The
newer aspirations of a people inevitably forge farther ahead. More-
over, courts cannot stand alone. They must be buttressed with a
sound public life and adequate institutions.
Central America knew when its delegates gathered at Washington
1911, the Nicaraguan Mixed Claims Commission was constituted and January 31,
1915, it ceased to exist, having examined 7,911 claims, of which three were by the
government. The 7,908 claims against the government called for a total of
$13,808,161, but the commission awarded only $1,840,432.31 to the claimants.
The commission consisted of two Americans and one Nicaraguan, Judge Otto
Schoenrich being president. (See Otto Schoerrich, “The Nicaraguan Mixed
Claims Commission,” American Journal of International Law , 9, 858-869.) The
loan convention was signed at Washington on June 6, 1911, but the Senate by a tie
vote failed to report it out of committee in May, 1912. A temporary loan was
then negotiated with American bankers, a collector general of customs, nominated
by the bankers and approved by the American secretary of state, being in control
of the ports.
President Estrada soon resigned and Adolfo Dfaz became president long before
the two years of the Estrada-Dfaz-Mena agreement of November 6, 1910, were up.
General Mena had shifted from minister of finance to minister of war, in control
of the military forces. On July 29, 1912, he started the revolution in which the
court attempted to intervene. On August 4, on the recommendation of President
Dfaz, about 100 bluejackets were sent from the U. S. S. Annapolis to Managua to
protect American citizens and act as a legation guard. On August 6 Bluefields on
the east coast was the scene of the landing of 50 men from the Tacoma, and on
August 15 a force of 350 marines reached Managua, the capital, from the Canal
Zone. Ships of the Pacific fleet were ordered to Nicaragua, and by September 14
there were 2,350 men ashore. The purpose was to protect American lives and
property, especially railroads, to protect other foreigners, to open the railroad
between Corinto and Granada, to maintain a legation guard, and to relieve priva-
tion and hunger where the battle lines had passed. “With the surrender of General
Mena to Admiral Southerland and his deportation from the country, followed by
the death of General Zeledon, the revolutionary movement quickly subsided, and
by the later part of October practically normal conditions obtained throughout
the country, although it was deemed prudent by our government to keep a con-
siderable force ashore at various important centers until after the presidential
elections in Nicaragua in November.” ( Report of ,he Secretary of the Navy, 1912,
8-9; Cong. Docs. No. 6405, 12-13.) Marines are still maintained at Managua.
HISTORY OF OTHER ORGANS
145
in 1907 that the cure for the old regime could not stop with a court.
There must be a fusing of interests, if peace was to persist. They
knew it because the effort was an old story, for they were practiced
hands at drafting constitutions for federations of fitful existence.
What they needed was not knowledge of how to draft constitutions,
but how to maintain institutions. Several of the treaties designed
to make a federation of the five states had provided elaborately
for unified codes on many subjects, but the failure of the federa-
tion schemes dragged down the lesser parts of the edifice.
It is interesting to observe that the conventions of the Washing-
ton conference of 1907 were largely built out of earlier efforts.1 A
first Central American Juridical Congress, held in June, 1897, at
Guatemala City, had produced the pact of union, and laid the basis
for unifying various important activities. The treaties that were
then signed dealt with mercantile law, penal law, extradition, lit-
erary, artistic and industrial property, civil law and legal procedure;
and four years later with political and international law.2 A second
Juridical Congress was held at San Salvador in February, 1901, when
additional treaties providing for ratification of the preceding arrange-
ments were signed.
This project was not realized, but it did create a precedent and
some national decrees strongly reflected its purposes. The meeting
of the presidents in 1902 paid some attention to unifying the five
states socially, and that of 1904 was similarly cognizant of things
desirable. But it was in 1906 at the conference of San Jose, from
which Nicaragua was absent, that the plans of the previous decade
took on precise form. The general treaty of peace and amity of
1 An early instance was in Art. 5 of the treaty of alliance of Managua of August
26, 1873, signed between Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Salvador: “When
the circumstances which cause this alliance shall no longer exist, they will earnestly
labor for the formation of a common good for the republics of Central America,
and in case they shall meet with any serious unexpected difficulties, they will
take active steps to secure uniform legislation, weights, measures and foreign
representation, and will do all in their power to strengthen the bonds which unite
the peoples of Central America.” ( Foreign Relations of the United States, 1874,
112.)
aThe treaties of the two juridical congresses are printed in Centro- America,
II, 105-126.
146
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
September 25, 1906, dealt with arbitration, citizenship, professional,
artistic and trade practice, copyright, commerce, a single merchant
marine, railroads, telegraphic communication, exchange of official
publications, validation of public papers, execution of judgments,
extradition and with controlling the movements of political leaders
outside their own countries. Two other conventions provided for
establishing an international bureau and a pedagogical institute.
The disturbing events which followed the conference in which these
agreements were reached have been related, and it will be recalled
that the conflict resulting between the Corinto and San Jose peace
plans ended with the triumph of the latter.
CENTRAL AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL BUREAU.
Central America’s peace conference of 1907 therefore had before
it the well-defined problem of rendering effective the whole system
that had been set down on paper. Advantage was taken of psy-
chology in working out the plan. An international organ, once
established, is more stable than a series of national ones for the
reason that it takes an adverse vote of several independent parties
to interfere with it. In Central America, also, international organs
would be beyond the effect of revolutionary tendencies. The new
reforms were consequently built around the Central American Inter-
national Bureau. Time has centered them more definitely around it,1
1 The work and development of the bureau are recorded in semi-annual reports,
which are published as follows:
1. September 15, 1908-March 14, 1909, Centro-America, I, 161-184.
2. March 15-September 14, 1909, Memoria de la Sccretaria de Relaciones ex-
terior es . . . de Costa Rica, 1910, 40-44; Centro-America, I, 463-471.
3. September 15, 1909-March 14, 1910, Memoria de . . . Costa Rica, 1910,
44-48; Centro-America, II, 1-15.
4. March 15-September 14, 1910, Centro-America, II, 321-331.
5. September 15, 1910-March 14, 1911, Memoria de . . . Costa Rica, 1912, 53-8;
Centro-America, III, 1-10.
6. March 15-September 14, 1911, Memoria de . . . Costa Rica, 1912, 63-76;
Centro-America, III, 321-331.
7. September 15, 1911-March 14, 1912, Centro-America, IV, 1-13.
8. March 15-September 14, 1912, Memoria de . . . Costa Rica, 1913, 91; Centro-
America, IV, 481-5.
9. September 15, 1912-March 14, 191 3, Memoria de . . . Costa Rica, 1914,53-55;
Centro-Amtrica, V, 161-163.
INTERNATIONAL BUREAU
147
and therefore some account of its operations and duties as they have
developed will indicate what Central America now has in the way
of peaceful mechanism outside of its court.
The treaty of 1906 for the establishment of a Central American
International Bureau failed to specify duties. Its successor of 1907
left little to chance, and the duties of the bureau now are as follows:
Art. I. The following Central American interests are recognized as being
those to which special attention should be paid :
1. To combine every effort toward the peaceful re-organization of their
mother country, Central America.
2. To impress upon public education an essentially Central American
character, in a uniform sense, making it as broad, practical, and complete
as possible, in accordance with the modern pedagogical tendency.
3. The development of Central American commerce and of all that may
tend to make it more active and profitable, and its expansion with other
nations.
4. The advancement of agriculture and industries that can be developed
to advantage in its different sections.
5. The uniformity of civil, commercial, and criminal legislation, recog-
nizing as a fundamental principle the inviolability of life, respect for prop-
erty, and the most absolute sacredness of the personal rights of man; uni-
formity in the system of custom-houses; in the monetary system, in such
manner as to secure a fixed rate of exchange; general sanitation, and es-
pecially that of the Central American ports; confidence in the Central
American credit; uniformity in the system of weights and measures; the
definition of what constitutes real property, in such a firm and unquestion-
able manner as will serve as a solid foundation for credit and permit the
establishment of mortgage banks.
It will be recalled that the sixth of the seven conventions of 1907
provided for a series of Central American conferences to convene
annually on New Year’s day. The convention had a duration of
five years and six conferences were held to work up into treaties
10. March 15-September 14, 1913, Memoria de . . . Costa Rica, 1914, 55-60;
Centro-America, V, 481-484.
11. September 15, 1913-March 14, 1914, Centro-A.merica, VI, 161-165.
12. March 15-September 14, 1914, Memoria de . . . Costa Rica, 1915 (1914),
113-118; Centro-America, VI, 481-485.
13. September 15, 1914-March 14, 1915, Centro-America, VII, 161-169.
14. March 15-September 14, 1915, Memoria de . . . Costa Rica, 1915, 157-166;
Centro-America, VII, 481-490.
15. September 15, 1915-March 14, 1916, Memoria de . . . Costa Rica, 1915,
170-173; Centro-America, VIII, 161-164.
16. March 15, 1916-September 14, 1916, Centro-America, VIII, 481-.
148
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
material on which agreement seemed to be ripe or worth trying for.1
The Central American International Bureau prepared the programs
for the conferences, and acts as their central and ratifying office. The
conference of 1914 refrained from naming the place for the next meet-
ing, thus suspending the series until the bureau should be able to
report the execution of those conventions already signed and not
yet executed. This was a sensible step because many of the pro-
visions already made on paper offered great administrative and legis-
lative problems before they could be put into effect. If depreciation
of paper promises was to be avoided, some must be redeemed before
more were issued. Central America is confidently looking forward
to a full redemption of promises.
The conferences naturally discuss vital problems of Central America.
Their activities, therefore, furnish the best account of the system
that aims to make a new Central America.
PROGRESS TOWARD EDUCATIONAL UNITY.
Education is the great need of the Central American people. To
be sure, Costa Rica spends more on public instruction than on prep-
aration for war and has a percentage of literacy that compares fa-
vorably with that of Europe, but the other four states are deficient
1 The following list indicates where the documents relating to recent Central
American Conferences may be found:
Preliminary Central American Peace Conference, September 16-17, 1907,
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1907, 643-652, 665, 681-684.
Central American Peace Conference (preliminary sessions), November r2-i3,
1907, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1907, 685-686.
Central American Peace Conference, November 15-December 20, 1907, “Report
of United States delegate,” Foreign Relations of the United States, 1907, 665-727.
First Central American Conference, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, January 1-20, 1909,
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1909, 379-382; protocols of sessions, Memoria
de . . . Costa Rica, 1908, 5-36.
Second Central American Conference, San Salvador, February 1-5, 1910, pro-
tocols of sessions, Memoria de . . . Costa Rica, 1910, 11-23.
Third Central American Conference, Guatemala, January 1-20, 191T.
Fourth Central American Conference, Managua, January 1, 1912, program,
Cenlro-America, III, 482-487.
Fifth Central American Conference, San Jos6, January 1-16, 1913, program,
Centro- America, IV, 497-9; protocols of sessions, Memoria de . . . Costa Rica, 1913,
XV-XVII, 27-39.
Sixth Central American Conference, Tegucigalpa, January 1-8, 1914, program,
Centro-Amtrica, V, 485-488; protocols of sessions, Centro-America, VI, 1-10.
EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS
149
in educational results.1 To correct this deficiency the San Jose
conference of 1906 provided for a pedagogical institute to train
teachers, and the convention was re-enacted at Washington the next
year. Its purpose is “to model public instruction on a spirit of
Central Americanism and to direct it uniformly along the lines which
modern pedagogy establishes.” Each state was to send at least
40 students 2 to the institute, and the scheme was conceived as estab-
lishing a pedagogical league, “the first step toward the unification
of the systems of education,” for a period of 15 years. This be-
ginning was designed to carry on the work recommended by a Central
American Pedagogical Congress which met at Guatemala City in
1897 on the initiative of the Central Academy of Masters. That con-
gress had recommended a scheme of study for the first six grades, to
which the prescribed work in the schools substantially conformed in
1909.3 Such conformity was necessary if grade teachers of the five
republics were to be given the same normal instruction.
Actual provision for the normal institute was made at the Second
Central American Conference on February 2, 1910, when a conven-
tion approving building plans, presented by Costa Rica, was signed.
The edifice and equipment were to cost $300,000, each state paying
$60,000. The first payment was to be $5,000 and monthly payments
of $1,000 were to be made thereafter, the last being due in November,
1 The following details of primary education were prepared in 1914 by the Central
American Bureau:
Costa Rica. — Population, 410,981; primary schools, 383; teachers, 11,911; pupils,
3L4°7-
Guatemala. — Population, 2,092,824; primary schools, 1,837; teachers, (no
data); pupils, 61,163.
Honduras.-— Population, 650,000; primary schools, 890; teachers, 956; pupils,
93,253-
Nicaragua. — Population, 689,891; primary schools, 414; teachers, 208; pupils,
35,°°°-
Salvador. — Population, 1,200,000; primary schools, 722; teachers, 1,196; pupils,
43,282.
This gives the following totals for Central America: Population, 5,043,696;
primary schools, 4,246; pupils, 264,105; percentage of pupils to total population,
.052.
Similar figures for the United States are: Population, 101,151,900; teachers,
580,058; pupils, 19,153,796; percentage of pupils to population, .189.
1 The maximum is- 100 students each.
3 See table in Centro-America, I, 605.
I5°
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
1914. These plans were delayed, and at the fifth conference, on
January 8, 1913, a motion for realizing them was passed.
At the Sixth Central American Conference in 1914 further action
respecting education was taken. Calling attention to the fact that
the general treaty of 1907 validated all professional and secondary
school titles of the five republics in each of them, a resolution
instructed the bureau to prepare a scheme of primary, secondary
and professional instruction for Central America for the considera-
tion of the governments.1 This scheme was submitted to the govern-
ments on November 27, 191s,2 and awaits final action.
At the Third Central American Conference the unification of
both primary and secondary education was provided in a convention
signed at Guatemala City on January 12, 1911. A scientific study
of the subject was to be made in each country and a pedagogical
congress designated to meet at San Jose the next December to adopt
a unified system of education and formulate programs on each subject
according to the best modern standards.3
In 1914 the conference recommended that the bureau try to get
the governments to agree upon an exchange of industrial and pro-
fessional school fellowships in order that youths might “acquire an
impartial, larger and fraternal judgment and develop mutual
interests.”4
The sixth conference suggested to the governments “the advantage
of sending two students from each republic on a tour of instruction
to the principal cities of the United States under the direction of
a qualified professor. ”s
Outside the field of formal instruction the newspaper is the most
important vehicle of education. Central America not being populous,
its periodical press has been neither extensive nor of great circulation.
The papers that circulated among the literate had an important effect
because the literate led those who were strangers to the alphabet.
In the old days unrestrained violence was a distinguishing charac-
teristic of the Central American editor. Artists with invective in
an idiom of marvelous elasticity in its epithets, the editors used to
1 Centro- America VI, 7-8. 2 Ibid., VIII, 1-12.
^ Ibid,., Ill, 136-137. 4 Ibid., VI, 8-9.
s Ibid., VI, 6.
FUTURE OF CENTRAL AMERICA
ISI
inveigh against their political opponents or the other countries with
picturesque abandon. However, the editors caught the spirit of
Central Americanism. They gathered on October 29-31, 1911, at
Guatemala City for a Central American Congress of Periodical
Editors; and they buried the past. Sixteen publications agreed to
put themselves at the service of the cause of Central American union
and to make all their date lines read: “Republic of Central America,
State of ,” a caption now also carried on all official publi-
cations of the five countries. They agreed to abstain from a besetting
sin by omitting from political discussions all personal references of
an irritating character,1 and they set a lofty example to the metro-
politan editors of the world in the following declaration:
On behalf of the moral regeneration of Central America, the associates
in a pact of honor agree;
a. To abstain from publishing pornographic and erotic matter which
may corrupt manners;
b. To give no publicity to the details of criminal acts which may en-
courage imitation of the crimes.2
A Central American Press Association was formed, and strong
arguments presented in favor of a newspaper campaign to effect the
union of Central America before the centenary of independence from
Spain, September 15, 1921. 3
FUTURE OF CENTRAL AMERICA.
Commerce, communication, agriculture, all the activities that go
to make up civilized existence might be similarly reviewed, and in
each field the impression would be gained that Central America is
finding herself. Accomplishments in the various fields of reform,
of course, vary, and in truth the net result throughout the five re-
publics is still small. Nevertheless, the questions are complex, and
"“The Congress recognizes the advisability of unifying opinion on the senti-
ment for abolishing the custom of periodicals of making insulting attacks and
personal discussions in which principles and doctrines are lost to sight.” ( Centro -
America , III, 560, note.)
2 Centro- America, III, 558.
3 Ibid., IV, 191-206.
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
IS2
the effect of the efforts is visibly seen in each one of them. Central
American conventions have not failed of their purpose just because
they have not always been made operative. For they have imposed
national changes in the republics, have bred reform singly where
they apparently seemed sterile collectively. National decrees and
laws, treaties between contiguous states, have led to improvement
and tended to harmonize systems. That is necessary preparation
for the eventual culmination.
Most promising of all, a change is taking place in the people.
Central America has lacked diversified leaders. Not long ago, a
career meant politics, and success and honor came only to the gov-
ernment official. An over-supply of officials and the lack of other
recognized careers were the twin causes of revolutionary conditions.
Now young men of parts find other paths of honor opened to them
in mining, industry, commerce and agriculture. Central America’s
civilization is becoming diversified.
Every one who has examined the subject has come to the belief
that Central America is destined to federate. The foreigner who
studies the matter is only less positive than the native. Nevertheless,
as we have seen, Central America has failed half a dozen times to
attain that result. Perhaps the distinctive cause is that nature gave
Central America a canal route. That natural dowry has been Central
America’s Nemesis and her hope of fortune. The five states, which
have a total area of about three-fourths that of Texas, are still quite
poor, and for the most part heavily in debt. All through the 19th
century canal plans were being made. Central America had a golden
egg and the states themselves were well aware of it. The efforts
to build a canal were many, and few of them failed to be reflected
in Central American politics. States without a route wanted to
federate so that members of the federation would share the price
of the canal. States with a route insisted on retaining the price
of the canal, in or out of a federation. Ambitious dictators had an
eye on the possibility of forcing a federation and then cashing in
the canal privilege. In the end, no one got the plum, for the canal
was built at Panama. But a possible route remained and Nicaragua
9.t one time tried to realize on it. Nicaragua has now given an option
FUTURE OF CENTRAL AMERICA 1 53
to the United States on her part of the route by way of the San Juan
River and the lake, Costa Rica and the United States are bound
by a protocol of December 1, 1900, to “enter into negotiations with
each other to settle the plan and the agreements, in detail, found
necessary to accomplish the construction and to provide for the
ownership and control” of a canal, “when the President of the United
States is authorized by law to acquire control of such portion of the
territory now belonging to Costa Rica as may be desirable and nec-
essary.” Costa Rica therefore cannot dispose elsewhere of such
territory, and it may be assumed that the canal route no longer has
an open market.
This has a direct bearing on Central American federation, for there
is now no permanent cause for dissension in Central American politics.
With this difficulty removed, with the many rudimentary develop-
ments and stable reforms of the 1907 conventions in existence, Central
America is in truth seeing the dawn of a new day in the beginning
of a unified civilization made possible by the acts of the Central
American conference series and by the national laws inspired by
these conferences.
A few years hence, on September 15, 1921, the five states will
celebrate the centenary of their independence. The intervening
time until then is ample to prepare a new United States of Central
America, if it is well employed. The friends of Central America
feel that she should adopt that ambition as her cardinal policy.
They feel that her separate states should now make all possible re-
forms looking toward that end. They feel that her constitutions
should be scientifically analyzed, and from such studies a draft
constitution for the new federation should be produced. They feel
that her experts in finance should study the national debts and
devise equitable methods of consolidating them, — possibly by under-
taking projects of real Central American scope such as the consoli-
dation of railroad, telegraph and telephone systems.
The spirit of Central America is ready to realize the great ideal
of a centennial union. Statesmen of broad vision are needed to
make the idea their own and to lead the five sister states to the common
goal.
APPENDIX I.
a. General Treaty of Peace and Amity.
The Governments of the Republics of Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras,
Nicaragua, and Salvador, being desirous of establishing the foundations
which fix the general relations of said countries, have seen fit to conclude
a General Treaty of Peace and Amity which will attain said end, and for
that purpose have named as Delegates:
Costa Rica: Their Excellencies Doctor Don Luis Anderson and Don
Joaquin B. Calvo;
Guatemala: Their Excellencies Doctor Don Antonio Batres Jauregui,
Doctor Don Luis Toledo Herrarte, and Don Victor Sanchez-Ocana;
Honduras: Their Excellencies Doctor Don Policarpo Bonilla, Doctor
Don Angel Ugarte, and Don E. Constantino Fiallos;
Nicaragua: Their Excellencies Doctors Don Jose Madriz and Don
Luis F. Corea; and
Salvador: Their Excellencies Doctor Don Salvador Gallegos, Doctor
Don Salvador Rodrlguez-Gonzalez, and Don Federico Mejia.
By virtue of the invitation sent in accordance with Article II of the
Protocol signed at Washington on September 17, 1907, by the Plenipo-
tentiary Representatives of the five Central American Republics, their
excellencies, the Representative of the Government of the United Mexican
States, Ambassador Don Enrique C. Creel, and the Representative of the
Government of the United States of America, Mr. William I. Buchanan,
were present at all the deliberations.
The Delegates, assembled in the Central American Peace Conference
at Washington, after having communicated to one another their respec-
tive full powers, which they found to be in due form, have agreed to carry
out the said purpose in the following manner:
Art. I. — The Republics of Central America consider as one of their
first duties, in their mutual relations, the maintenance of peace ; and they
bind themselves always to observe the most complete harmony, and de-
cide every difference or difficulty that may arise among them, of what-
soever nature it may be, by means of the Central American Court of Justice,
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
ii
created by the Convention which they have concluded for that purpose
on this date.
Art. II. — Desiring to secure in the Republics of Central America the
benefits which are derived from the maintenance of their institutions,
and to contribute at the same time to maintaining their stability and the
prestige with which they ought to be surrounded, it is declared that every
disposition or measure which may tend to alter the constitutional organ-
ization in any of them is to be deemed a menace to the peace of said
Republics.
Art. III. — Taking into account the central geographical position of Hon-
duras and the facilities which owing to this circumstance have made its
territory most often the theater of Central American conflicts, Honduras
declares from now on its absolute neutrality in event of any conflict between
the other Republics; and the latter, in their turn, provided such neutrality
be observed, bind themselves to respect it and in no case to violate the
Honduranean territory.
Art. IV. — Bearing in mind the advantages which must be gained from
the creation of Central American institutions for the development of their
most vital interests, besides the Pedagogical Institute and the Interna-
tional Central American Bureau which are to be established according to
the Conventions concluded to that end by this Conference, the creation
of a practical Agricultural School in the Republic of Salvador, one of
Mines and Mechanics in that of Honduras, and another of Arts and Trades
in that of Nicaragua, is especially recommended to the Governments.
Art. V.- — In order to cultivate the relations between the States, the
contracting Parties obligate themselves each to accredit to the others a
permanent Legation.
Art. VI. — The citizens of one of the contracting Parties, residing in
the territory of any of the others, shall enjoy the same civil rights as are
enjoyed by nationals, and shall be considered as citizens in the country
of their residence if they fulfill the conditions which the respective con-
stituent laws provide. Those that are not naturalized shall be exempt from
obligatory military service, either on sea or land, and from every forced
loan or military requisition, and they shall not be obliged on any account
to pay greater contributions or ordinary or extraordinary imposts than
those which natives pay.
Art. VII. — The individuals who have acquired a professional degree
in any of the contracting Republics, may, without special exaction, prac-
tice their professions, in accordance with the respective laws, in any one
of the others, without other requirements than those of presenting the
TREATY OF PEACE AND AMITY
iii
respective degree or diploma properly authenticated and of proving, in
case of necessity, their personal identity and of obtaining a permit from
the Executive Power where the law so requires.
In like manner shall validity attach to the scientific studies pursued
in the universities, professional schools, and the schools of higher educa-
tion of any one of the contracting countries, provided the documents which
evidence such studies have been authenticated, and the identity of the
person proved.
Art. VIII. — Citizens of the signatory countries who reside in the terri-
tory of the others shall enjoy the right of literary, artistic or industrial
property in the same manner and subject to the same requirements as
natives.
Art. IX. — The merchant ships of the signatory countries shall be consid-
ered upon the sea, along the coasts, and in the ports of said countries as
national vessels; they shall enjoy the same exemptions, immunities and con-
cessions as the latter, and shall not pay other dues nor be subject to further
taxes than those imposed upon and paid by the vessels of the country.
Art. X. — The Governments of the contracting Republics bind them-
selves to respect the inviolability of the right of asylum aboard the mer-
chant vessels of whatsoever nationality anchored in their ports. Therefore,
only persons accused of common crimes can be taken from them after
due legal procedure and by order of the competent judge. Those prose-
cuted on account of political crimes or common crimes in connection with
political ones, can only be taken therefrom in case they have embarked
in a port of the State which claims them, during their stay in its juris-
dictional waters, and after the requirements hereinbefore set forth in the
case of common crimes have been fulfilled.
Art. XI. — The Diplomatic and Consular Agents of the contracting
Republics in foreign cities, towns and ports shall afford to the persons,
vessels and other property of the citizens of any one of them, the same
protection as to the persons, ships and other properties of their compatriots,
without demanding for their services other or higher charges than those
usually made with respect to their nationals.
Art. XII. — In the desire of promoting commerce between the contracting
Republics, their respective Governments shall agree upon the establishment
of national merchant marines engaged in coastwise commerce and the
arrangements to be made with and the subsidies to be granted to steamship
companies engaged in the trade between national and foreign ports.
Art. XIII. — There shall be a complete and regular exchange of every
class of official publications between the contracting Parties.
IV
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
Art. XIV. — Public instruments executed in one of the contracting
Republics shall be valid in the others, provided they shall have been properly
authenticated and in their execution the laws of the Republic whence
they issue shall have been observed.
Art. XV. — The judicial authorities of the contracting Republics shall
carry out the judicial commissions and warrants in civil, commercial or
criminal matters, with regard to citations, interrogatories and other acts
of procedure or judicial function.
Other judicial acts, in civil or commercial matters, arising out of a personal
suit, shall have in the territory of any one of the contracting Parties equal
force with those of the local tribunals and shall be executed in the same
manner, provided always that they shall first have been declared execu-
tory by the Supreme Tribunal of the Republic wherein they are to be
executed, which shall be done if they meet the essential requirements of
their respective legislation and they shall be carried out in accordance
with the laws enacted in each country for the execution of judgments.
Art. XVI. — Desiring to prevent one of the most frequent causes of
disturbances in the Republics, the contracting Governments shall not
permit the leaders or principal chiefs of political refugees, nor their agents,
to reside in the departments bordering on the countries whose peace they
might disturb.
Those who may have established their permanent residence in a frontier
department may remain in the place of their residence under the imme-
diate surveillance of the Government affording them an asylum, but from
the moment when they become a menace to public order they shall be
included in the rule of the preceding paragraph.
Art. XVII. — Every person, no matter what his nationality, who, within
the territory of one of the contracting Parties, shall initiate or foster
revolutionary movements against any of the others, shall be immediately
brought to the capital of the Republic, where he shall be submitted to
trial according to law.
Art. XVIII. — With respect to the Bureau of Central American Republics
which shall be established in Guatemala, and with respect to the Peda-
gogical Institute which is to be created in Costa Rica, the Conventions
celebrated to that end, shall be observed, and those that refer to Extradi-
tion, Communications, and Annual Conferences, shall remain in full force
for the unification of Central American interests.
Art. XIX. — The present Treaty shall remain in force for the term of
ten years counted from the day of the exchange of ratifications. Never-
theless, if one year before the expiration of said term, none of the contract-
ADDITIONAL TREATY OF PEACE
V
ing Parties shall have given special notice to the others concerning its
intention to terminate it, it shall remain in force until one year after
such notification shall have been made.
Art. XX. — The stipulations of the Treaties heretofore concluded among
the contracting Countries, being comprised or suitably modified in this,
it is declared that all stipulations remain void and revoked by the present,
after final approval and exchange of ratifications.
Art. XXI. — The exchange of ratifications of the present Treaty, as well
as that of the other Conventions of this date, shall be made by means
of communications which are to be addressed by the Governments to
that of Costa Rica, in order that the latter shall notify the other contracting
States. The Government of Costa Rica shall also communicate its rati-
fication if it effects it.
Signed at the city of Washington on the twentieth day of December,
one thousand nine hundred and seven.
Luis Anderson
J. B. Calvo
Antonio Batres Jauregui
Luis Toledo Herrarte
Victor Sanchez O.
Policarpo Bonilla
Angel Ugarte
E. Constantino Fiallos
Jose Madriz
Luis F. Corea
Salvador Gallegos
Salvador Rodriguez G.
F. Mejia
b. Additional Treaty.
The Governments of the Republics of Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras,
Nicaragua, and Salvador have seen fit to conclude a Convention additional
to the General Treaty, and to that end have named as Delegates:
Costa Rica: Their Excellencies Doctor Don Luis Anderson and Don
Joaquin B. Calvo;
Guatemala: Their Excellencies Doctor Don Antonio Batres Jauregui,
Doctor Don Luis Toledo Herrarte, and Don Victor Sanchez-Ocana;
Honduras: Their Excellencies Doctor Don Policarpo Bonilla, Doctor
Don Angel Ugarte, and Don E. Constantino Fiallos;
Nicaragua: Their Excellencies Doctors Don Jose Madriz and Don
Luis F. Corea; and
Salvador: Their Excellencies Doctor Don Salvador Gallegos, Doctor
Don Salvador Rodriguez-Gonzalez, and Don Federico Mejia.
By virtue of the invitation sent in accordance with Article II of the
Protocol signed at Washington on September 17, 1907, by the Plenipo-
VI
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
tentiary Representatives of the five Central American Republics, their
excellencies, the Representative of the Government of the United Mexican
States, Ambassador Don Enrique C. Creel, and the Representative of
the Government of the United States of America, Mr. William I. Buchanan,
were present at all the deliberations.
The Delegates assembled in the Central American Peace Conference
at Washington, after having communicated to one another their respective
full powers, which they found to be in due form, have agreed to carry
out the said purpose in the following manner:
Art. I. — The Governments of the High Contracting Parties shall not
recognize any other Government which may come into power in any of
the five Republics as a consequence of a coup d'etat, or of a revolution
against the recognized Government, so long as the freely elected representa-
tives of the people thereof, have not constitutionally re-organized the
country.
Art. II. — No Government of Central America shall in case of civil
war intervene in favor of or against the Government of the country where
the struggle takes place.
Art. III. — The Governments of Central America, in the first place, are
recommended to endeavor to bring about, by the means at their command,
a constitutional reform in the sense of prohibiting the re-election of the
President of a Republic, where such prohibition does not exist, secondly
to adopt all measures necessary to effect a complete guaranty of the prin-
ciple of alternation in power.
Signed at the city of Washington on the twentieth day of December
one thousand nine hundred and seven.
Luis Anderson
J. B. Calvo
Antonio Batres Jauregui
Luis Toledo Herrarte
Victor Sanchez O.
Policarpo Bonilla
Angel Ugarte
E. Constantino Fiallos
Jose Madriz
Luis F. Corea
Salvador Gallegos
Salvador Rodriguez G.
F. Mejia.
APPENDIX II.
a. Convention for the Establishment of a Central American Court of
Justice.
The Governments of the Republics of Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras,
Nicaragua and Salvador, for the purpose of efficaciously guaranteeing
their rights and maintaining peace and harmony inalterably in their re-
lations, without being obliged to resort in any case to the employment
of force, have agreed to conclude a Convention for the constitution of
a Court of Justice charged with accomplishing such high aims, and, to
that end, have named as Delegates:
Costa Rica: Their Excellencies Doctor Don Luis Anderson and Don
Joaquin B. Calvo;
Guatemala: Their Excellencies Doctor Don Antonio Batres Jauregui,
Doctor Don Luis Toledo Herrarte, and Don Victor Sanchez-Ocana;
Honduras: Their Excellencies Doctor Don Policarpo Bonilla, Doctor
Don Angel Ugarte, and Don E. Constantino Fiallos;
Nicaragua: Their Excellencies Doctors Don Jose Madriz and Don
Luis F. Corea; and
Salvador: Their Excellencies Doctor Don Salvador Gallegos, Doctor
Don Salvador Rodriguez-Gonzalez, and Don Federico Mejia.
By virtue of the invitation sent in accordance with Article II of the
Protocol signed at Washington on September 17, 1907, by the Plenipo-
tentiary Representatives of the five Central American Republics, their
excellencies, the Representative of the Government of the United Mexican
States, Ambassador Don Enrique C. Creel, and the Representative of the
Government of the United States of America, Mr. William I. Buchanan,
were present at all the deliberations.
The Delegates, assembled in the Central American Peace Conference
at Washington, after having communicated to one another their respec-
tive full powers, which they found to be in due form, have agreed to carry
out the said purpose in the following manner:
Vlll
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
Art. I. — The High Contracting Parties agree by the present Convention
to constitute and maintain a permanent tribunal which shall be called
the “Central American Court of Justice,” to which they bind themselves
to submit all controversies or questions which may arise among them,
of whatsoever nature and no matter what their origin may be, in case the
respective Departments of Foreign Affairs should not have been able to
reach an understanding.
Art. II. — This Court shall also take cognizance of the questions which
individuals of one Central American country may raise against any of
the other contracting Governments, because of the violation of treaties
or conventions, and other cases of an international character; no matter
whether their own Government supports said claim or not; and provided
that the remedies which the laws of the respective country provide against
such violation shall have been exhausted or that denial of justice shall
have been shown.
Art. III.1 — It shall also take cognizance of the cases which by common
accord the contracting Governments may submit to it, no matter whether
they arise between two or more of them or between one of said Govern-
ments and individuals.
Art. IV. — The Court can likewise take cognizance of the international
questions which by special agreement any one of the Central American
Governments and a foreign Government may have determined to submit
to it.
Art. V.3 — The Central American Court of Justice shall sit at the
City of Cartago in the Republic of Costa Rica, but it may temporarily
transfer its residence to another point in Central America whenever it
1 An additional protocol, signed at Washington, December 20, 1907, corrects
this article to read as follows:
“It shall also have jurisdiction over cases arising between any of the contract-
ing Governments and individuals, when by common accord they are submitted
to it.”
3 By a convention signed at Guatemala City, January 10, 1911, and owing to
the destruction of the Carnegie palace of the Court of Justice at Cartago by an
earthquake on May 4, 1910, the Court of Justice was transferred to San Jose.
The Guatemala convention provides:
Art. I. — Art. V of the Treaty of Washington of December 20, 1907, remains
in force in the following terms: “The Central American Court of Justice shall
sit at the City of San Jose in the Republic of Costa Rica, but it may temporarily
transfer its residence to another point in Central America whenever it deems
it expedient for reasons of health, or in order to insure the exercise of its functions,
or for the personal safety of its members.”
CONVENTION ESTABLISHING COURT
IX
deems it expedient for reasons of health, or in order to insure the exercise
of its functions, or for the personal safety of its members.
Art. VI. — The Central American Court of Justice shall consist of five
Justices, one being appointed by each Republic and selected from among
the jurists who possess the qualifications which the laws of each country
prescribe for the exercise of high judicial office, and who enjoy the highest
consideration, both because of their moral character and their professional
ability.
Vacancies shall be filled by substitute Justices, named at the same time
and in the same manner as the regular Justices and who shall unite the
same qualifications as the latter.
The attendance of the five justices who constitute the Tribunal is in-
dispensable in order to make a legal quorum in the decisions of the Court.
Art. VII. — The Legislative Power of each one of the five contracting
Republics shall appoint their respective Justices, one regular and two
substitutes.
The salary of each Justice shall be eight thousand dollars, gold, per
annum, which shall be paid them by the Treasury of the Court. The
salary of the Justice of the country where the Court resides shall be fixed
by the Government thereof. Furthermore each State shall contribute
two thousand dollars, gold, annually toward the ordinary and extraordi-
nary expenses of the Tribunal. The Governments of the contracting
Republics bind themselves to include their respective contributions in
their estimates of expenses and to remit quarterly in advance to the
Treasury of the Court the share they may have to bear on account of
such services.
Art. VIII. — The regular and substitute Justices shall be appointed for
a term of five years, which shall be counted from the day on which they
assume the duties of their office, and they may be re-elected.
In case of death, resignation or permanent incapacity of any of them,
the vacancy shall be filled by the respective Legislature, and the Justice
elected shall complete the term of his predecessor.
Art. IX. — The regular and substitute Justices shall take oath or make
affirmation prescribed by law before the authority that may have appointed
them, and from that moment they shall enjoy the immunities and prerog-
atives which the present Convention confers upon them. The regular
Justices shall likewise enjoy thenceforth the salary fixed in Article VII.
Art. X. — While they remain in the country of their appointment the
regular and substitute Justices shall enjoy the personal immunity which
the respective laws grant to the magistrates of the Supreme Court of
X
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
Justice, and in the other contracting Republics they shall have the privi-
leges and immunities of Diplomatic Agents.
Art. XI. — The office of Justice while held is incompatible with the
exercise of his profession, and with the holding of public office. The
same incompatibility applies to the substitute Justices so long as they
may actually perform their duties.
Art. XII. — At its first annual session the Court shall elect from among
its own members a President and Vice-President; it shall organize the
personnel of its office by designating a Clerk, a Treasurer, and such other
subordinate employees as it may deem necessary, and it shall draw up
the estimate of its expenses.
Art. XIII. — The Central American Court of Justice represents the
national conscience of Central America, wherefore the Justices who
compose the Tribunal shall not consider themselves barred from the dis-
charge of their duties because of the interest which the Republics, to which
they owe their appointment, may have in any case or question. With
regard to allegations of personal interest, the rules of procedure which
the Court may fix shall make proper provision.
Art. XIV. — When differences or questions subject to the jurisdiction
of the Tribunal arise, the interested party shall present a complaint which
shall comprise all the points of fact and law relative to the matter, and
all pertinent evidence. The Tribunal shall communicate without loss of
time a copy of the complaint to the Governments or individuals interested,
and shall invite them to furnish their allegations and evidence within the
term that it may designate to them, which, in no case, shall exceed sixty
days counted from the date of notice of the complaint.
Art. XV. — If the term designated shall have expired without answer
having been made to the complaint, the Court shall require the defendant
or defendants to do so within a further term not to exceed twenty days,
after the expiration of which and in view of the evidence presented and
of such evidence as it may ex officio have seen fit to obtain, the Tribunal
shall render its decision in the case, which decision shall be final.
Art. XVI. — If the Government, Governments or individuals sued shall
have appeared in time before the Court, presenting their allegations and
evidence, the Court shall decide the matter within thirty days following,
without further process or proceedings; but if a new term for the presen-
tation of evidence be solicited, the Court shall decide whether or not there
is occasion to grant it; and, if this is granted, it shall fix therefor a reasonable
time. Upon the expiration of such term, the Court shall pronounce its
final judgment within thirty days.
CONVENTION ESTABLISHING COURT
Xl
Art. XVII. — Each one of the Governments or individuals directly-
concerned in the questions to be considered by the Court has the right
to be represented before it by a trustworthy person or persons, who shall
present evidence, formulate arguments, and shall, within the terms fixed
by this Convention and by the rules of the Court of Justice, do everything
that in their judgment shall be beneficial to the defense of the rights they
represent.
Art. XVIII. — From the moment in which any suit is instituted against
any one or more governments up to that in which a final decision has been
pronounced, the Court may at the solicitation of any one of the parties
fix the situation in which the contending parties must remain, to the end
that the difficulty shall not be aggravated and that things shall be con-
served in status quo pending " a final decision.
Art. XIX. — For all the effects of this Convention, the Central American
Court of Justice may address itself to the Governments or tribunals of
justice of the contracting States, through the medium of the Ministry
of Foreign Relations or the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of
Justice of the respective country, according to the nature of the requisite
proceeding, in order to have the measures that it may dictate within the
scope of its jurisdiction carried out.
Art. XX. — It may also appoint special commissioners to carry out the
formalities above referred to, when it deems it expedient for their better
fulfilment. In such case, it shall ask of the Government where the pro-
ceeding is to be had, its co-operation and assistance, in order that the
Commissioner may fulfill his mission. The contracting Governments
formally bind themselves to obey and to enforce the orders of the Court,
furnishing all the assistance that may be necessary for their best and
most expeditious fulfilment.
Art. XXI.— In deciding points of fact that may be raised before it,
the Central American Court of Justice shall be governed by its free judg-
ment, and, with respect to points of law, by the principles of international
law. The final judgment shall cover each one of the points in litigation.
Art. XXII. — The Court is competent to determine its jurisdiction,
interpreting the Treaties and Conventions germane to the matter in dis-
pute, and applying the principles of international law.
Art. XXIII. — Every final or interlocutory decision shall be rendered
with the concurrence of at least three of the Justices of the Court. In
case of disagreement, one of the substitute Justices shall be chosen by lot,
and if still a majority of three be not thus obtained other Justices shall be
successively chosen by lot until three uniform votes shall have been obtained.
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
xii
Art. XXIV. — The decisions must be in writing and shall contain a
statement of the reasons upon which they are based. They must be
signed by all the Justices of the Court and countersigned by the Clerk.
Once they have been notified they can not be altered on any account;
but, at the request of any of the parties, the Tribunal may declare the
interpretation which must be given to its judgments.
Art. XXV. — The judgments of the Court shall be communicated to the
five Governments of the contracting Republics. The interested parties
solemnly bind themselves to submit to said judgments, and all agree to
lend all moral support that may be necessary in order that they may be
properly fulfilled, thereby constituting a real and positive guaranty of
respect for this Convention and for the Central American Court of
Justice.
Art. XXVI. — The Court is empowered to make its rules, to formulate
the rules of procedure which may be necessary, and to determine the forms
and terms not prescribed in the present Convention. All the decisions
which may be rendered in this respect shall be communicated immedi-
ately to the High Contracting Parties.
Art. XXVII. — The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare that
on no ground nor in any case will they consider the present Convention
as void; and that, therefore, they will consider it as being always in force
during the term of ten years counted from the last ratification. In the
event of the change or alteration of the political status of one or more
of the Contracting Republics, the functions of the Central American Court
of Justice created by this Convention shall be suspended ipso facto; and
a conference to adjust the constitution of said Court to the new order of
things shall be forthwith convoked by the respective Governments; in
case they do not unanimously agree the present Convention shall be con-
sidered as rescinded.
Art. XXVIII. — The exchange of ratifications of the present Convention
shall be made in accordance with Article XXI of the General Treaty of
Peace and Amity concluded on this date.
Provisional Article.— As recommended by the five Delegations an Arti-
cle is annexed which contains an amplification of the jurisdiction of the
Central American Court of Justice, in order that the Legislatures may,
if they see fit, include it in this Convention upon ratifying it.
Annexed Article. — The Central American Court of Justice shall also
have jurisdiction over the conflicts which may arise between the Legis-
lative, Executive and Judicial Powers, and when as a matter of fact the
MATTERS BEFORE THE COURT
xiii
judicial decisions and resolutions of the National Congress are not
respected.
Signed at the city of Washington on the twentieth day of December,
one thousand nine hundred and seven.
Luis Anderson
J. B. Calvo
Antonio Batres Jauregui
Luis Toledo Herrarte
Victor Sanchez O.
Policarpo Bonilla
Angel Ugarte
b. Matters before the Central American Court of Justice.
Regulations of the Court, December 2, 1911, Andes de la Corte de Justicia
Centroamericana, I, 339-353; American Journal of International Law,
Supplement, VIII, 1 79-194.
Ordinance of Procedure, November 6, 1912, Anales de la Corte de Justicia
Centroamericana, II, 193-210; cf. project of same, ibid., 525, 52-54; American
Journal of International Law, Supplement, VIII, 194-213.
1. The Government of Honduras vs. the Governments of Guatemala
and Salvador, 1908.
Alleged encouragement of revolutionary outbreak; Art. XVII of general
treaty of peace and amity of December 20, 1907.
Interlocutory decree fixing status quo, July 13, 1908; modified by additional
decrees of July 17, July 25, August 1 and October 3, 1908.
Decision rendered, December 19, 1908; unfavorable to plaintiff.
References: Memoria de . . . Relaciones exteriores de Costa Rica . . . 1909,
vii-xi and 9-10; American Journal of International Law, II, 835-
841, and III, 434-436; Nouveau recueil general de traites, III2 * * * 6
serie, V, 325-352; Anales de la Corte de Justicia Centroamericana,
H, 88-89, and III, 7-8; Comunicaciones cruzadas entre la Corte
Suprema de Justicia Centroamericana y el Gobierno del Salvador con
motivo del reciente conflicto hondureno (San Salvador, 1908).
2. Pedro Andres Fornos-Diaz vs. the Government of Guatemala, 1909.
Suit by Nicaraguan for alleged damages to person and property.
Decision rendered, ; declared inadmissible.
References: Anales de la Corte de Justicia Centroamericana, II, 89, and
III, 9.
E. Constantino Fiallos
Jose Madriz
Luis F. Corea
Salvador Gallegos
Salvador Rodriguez G.
F. Mejia
XIV
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
3. Revolution in Nicaragua, April 27-July 27, 1910. (Extra-jurisdic-
tional.)
Tender of good offices to Jose Madriz and Juan Jose Estrada, leaders of
opposing parties.
References: Anales de la Corte de Justicia Centroamericana, I, 146-164;
and II, 129-150; Foreign Relations of the United States, 1910, 744-755.
4. Salvador Cerda vs. the Government of Costa Rica, 1911.
Habeas corpus suit appealed from Supreme Court of Costa Rica by
a Nicaraguan; Article VI of general treaty of peace and amity of
December 20, 1907.
Decision rendered, October 14, 1911; plea denied.
Reference: Anales de la Corte de Justicia Centroamericana, I, 199-214,
357-360.
5. Mediation between Nicaraguan factionists, August 5-September 3,
1912. (Extra-jurisdictional.)
Three judges of the court and its clerk appointed as a peace commission
to visit Nicaragua, consult contestants and offer mediation; proposi-
tion for truce and peace conference rejected by President Diaz
because an armistice “would surely not be respected by the revo-
lution.”
Reference: Anales de la Corte de Justicia Centroamericana, II, 1 29-1 50,
183-192.
6. Felipe Molina Larios vs. the Government of Honduras, 1913.
Seizure of papers and expulsion of Nicaraguan from country; Art. VI
of general treaty of peace and amity of December 20, 1907.
Decision rendered, December 12, 1913; court lacked jurisdiction.
Reference: Anales de la Corte de Justicia Centroamericana, III, 26-66.
7. Alejandro Bermudez y Nunez vs. the Government of Costa Rica,
1914-
Expulsion from country of Nicaraguan resident in Panama; alleged
violation of international law, and of national law of July 18, 1894;
Arts. VI and XVII of general treaty of peace and amity of December
20, 1907; claim of right to return with exercise of civil rights; claim
for damages.
Decision rendered, April 7, 1914; plea declared “without ground in
all its parts.”
Reference: Anales de la Corte de Justicia Centroamericana, IV, 1-119.
MATTERS BEFORE THE COURT
XV
8. The Government of Costa Rica vs. the Government of Nicaragua,
1916.
Alleged violation of Canas- Jerez treaty of April 15, 1858, between Costa
Rica and Nicaragua; alleged violation of arbitral award of President
Cleveland of March 22, 1888; free navigation of San Juan River;
accessory riverain rights; maritime mercantile rights in territory
stipulated to be leased to United States; Art. II of treaty of
August 5, 1914, between United States and Nicaragua; allegation
of nullity as respects Nicaragua; petition for interlocutory decree.
Interlocutory decree fixing status quo, May 1, 19x6.
Decision rendered, September 30, 1916; favorable to Costa Rica.
References: Memoria de ... de Relaciones exterior es de Costa Rica,
1915, viii-ix, 58-137; Before the Central American Court of Justice,
The Republic of Costa Rica against the Republic of Nicaragua. Com-
plaint of the Republic of Costa Rica growing out of a convention
entered into by the Republic of Nicaragua with the Republic of
the United States of America for the sale of the San Juan River and
other matters. With appendices. Translation; Decision and Opin-
ion of the Court on the Complaint of the Republic of Costa Rica
against the Republic of Nicaragua . . . Translation published by
the Costa Rican Legation, Washington; same, American Journal
of International Law, XI, 181-229.
9. The Government of Salvador vs. Nicaragua, 1916.
Contest of right to lease territory in Gulf of Fonseca; Art V of con-
vention of August 5, 1914, between the United States and Nicaragua.
Decision rendered, March, 1917; favorable to Salvador.
Reference: Libro rosado de El Salvador. Demanda del Gobierno de
El Salvador contra el Gobierno de Nicaragua ante la Corte de Justicia
Centroamericana .
APPENDIX III.
Projects of Union, 1838 to 1-902.
George Williamson, United States minister to Central America in the
70’s, recorded that the chief obstacles to union of the five countries were
nine in number: The memory of sanguinary struggles, the debt of the
1838 federation, local prejudices, refusal to allow the other countries to
take the lead, lack of homogeneity in population, absence of strong men,
the difficulty of intercommunication, and the traditional Costa Rican
policy of isolation.1 During the period from 1838 to 1902 these obstacles
became evident and then began to disappear.
On April 17 and July 17, 1842, the agreement and pact of the Diet of
Chinandega were signed, the former providing a program of things desired
and the latter establishing the constitution of a Central American Con-
federation,2 on the basis of the federation of 1824. The effort was not
completely Central American, Guatemala being opposed and Costa Rica
holding aloof.
Substantially the same performance was repeated in 1848 by the Diet
of Nacaome.
A third effort of Honduras, Nicaragua and Salvador began with a na-
tional congress which opened at Tegucigalpa on October 9, 1852, as a
result of which they again combined, and stayed together for 10 years.
In February, 1863, however, Salvador and Guatemala got into war. Hon-
duras sided with Salvador, and Nicaragua joined Guatemala; which
brought another federation to an untimely end.
A project for a complete Central American diet had been presented to
the president of Costa Rica by Francisco Maria Iglesias on November 25,
1862, following a conference and agreement between certain Central
American political leaders.^ Costa Rica had been the most difficult state
! 1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1874, 172-174.
2 The texts of these documents are reprinted in Centro-America, II, 205-213,
and in Lorenzo Montufar, Resena histdrica de Centro-America, IV, 266-282.
3 Text in Centro-America, II, 188.
PROJECTS OF UNION
xvn
to bring into schemes of union,1 and in fact she required the stabilizing
effect of federation least. But as Central America was incomplete without
her, the next move, which included her, seemed to be a step in advance.
On February 17, 1872, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and Salvador
signed at La Union, Salvador, a Pact of Central American Union.’ Nicara-
gua this time was staying out. She had a dispute with Costa Rica over
the interoceanic canal route. At Managua on August 26, 1873, Nicaragua
signed with Guatemala and Salvador a treaty in which they, “being con-
vinced that the present administration of Costa Rica is hostile to the peace
of the Central American states, pledge themselves to maintain a defensive
alliance against that government.”3
General Justo Rufino Barrios came to power as president of Guatemala
in 1873. On January 15, 1876, at his invitation, a conference of pleni-
potentiaries of the five states met at Guatemala City for the purpose of
re-organizing the old federation of 1824, and on February 28 signed a
“treaty of peace preparatory to union.” * Barrios reverted to the scheme
1 Costa Rica’s “ traditional policy seems to be that of isolation, to as great
an extent as consistent with the preservation of good relations.” (Minister
George Williamson to Secretary of State Hamilton Fish, June 24, 1874, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1874, 174.) Costa Rica’s entry into new schemes
of co-operation may be considered as the result of mature conviction. The report
of the Costa Rican committee to Congress recommending favorable action on
the Washington treaties referred to the new spirit in these words: “The frequent
argument that our policy toward [Central American states] . . . must be one of
abstention and isolation is an argument sustained by an egoism inconsistent with
the irresistible pacificatory, commercial and altruistic currents which dominate
the world. To-day the formula of our conduct is that expressed by one of our
prominent public men in summarizing our relations with the other countries
of Central America: ‘For peace with all; for revolution with none.’” (El Foro,
HI, 357-)
’ Foreign Relations of the United States, 1872, 520-523; Nouveau reeueil general
de traites, 2e serie, 111,476-483; Tratados internacionalos celebrados por . . . Costa
Rica, II, ix— 2i.
3 Foreign Relations of the United Slates, 1874, 112. By November 21, the
treaty had been ratified by Guatemala, Salvador and Nicaragua and “without
doubt will also be ratified by the new government that is proposed to be organized
in Honduras.” (Minister George Williamson to Secretary of State Fish, ibid.,
in.)
* Tratados internacionalos celebrados por . . . Costa Rica, II, 23-29. This effort
seems to be not unconnected with encouragement by the United States and will-
ingness of Costa Rica. Minister George Williamson wrote on September 14, 1873,
to Secretary of State Fish: “It is my purpose ... to touch upon, as adroitly as I
can, the advantages that would result to Central America from a union of all
the states under one government. . . . The universally professed sentiment is in
favor of the union, except among the office-holders.” He worked with that object
from 1873 to 1879- The president of Costa Rica in 1874 favored and worked
for such a conference. (Foreign Relations of the United States, 1874, 1 25-135.)
xviii NEW PAN AMERICANISM
again in 1883 when he was in the full bloom of a dictator’s power. He
called a congress of the five states to meet at San Salvador in March, 1884,
but Costa Rica, evidently suspecting Barrios of a thirst for power beyond
the borders of Guatemala, declined to attend, and the scheme fell through.
In his next move Barrios gave evidence of ambition. In September he
entertained the presidents of Honduras and Salvador and a representative
of the president of Nicaragua, concluding from the interview that they
were won to federation. He accordingly had the legislative assembly of
Guatemala pass a resolution and in accordance therewith on February 28,
1885, issued a decree declaring the five states of Central America united
into one federal republic.1 This move did not succeed. Barrios at-
tempted to make it successful by armed force. Costa Rica, Nicaragua
and Salvador formed a league with Honduras,2 invaded Guatemala and
Barrios was killed in battle at Chalchuapa on April 2.3 The next day
the Guatemalan assembly revoked the decree of February 28.
Having rejected the idea of combining under pressure, Central America
lost little time in taking another tack. In Guatemala City on February
16, 1887, all five countries signed a treaty of peace and friendship. Many
provisions designed to weld the whole of Central America into one were
incorporated in the document, but the most promising were those of Arts.
1, 26 and 27. By Art. 1, all disputes were to be arbitrated by Argentina,
Belgium, Chile, Germany, France, Great Britain, Spain, Switzerland or
the United States. By Art. 26, a congress was to meet every two years,
the first at San Jose on September 15, 1888; and by Art. 27, the 1890 con-
gress was to form a union. 4 A treaty reforming this and other conventions
of February 16, 1887, was signed at San Jose, November 24, 1888. By
1 The decree was governmental. A proclamation of even date accompanying it
designated Barrios as “supreme military chief of the Central American Union.”
For texts see Foreign Relations of the United States, 1885, 75-81; for revocation
of decree, see ibid., 103; British and Foreign State Papers, 77, 446, 462.
2 Treaty of peace and defensive alliance, signed at Namasigue, April n, 1885,
{British and Foreign State Papers, 77, 463-464); see also treaty of Santa Ana of
March 22, 1885. ( Tratados internacionalos celebrados por . . . Costa Rica, II,
375-378.)
3 A treaty of peace between Guatemala, Honduras and Salvador was signed on
September 12, 1885. {Nouveau recueil general de traites, 2e serie, XIV, 268.)
■< The text is printed in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1887, 101-107.
The Iglesias project of 1862 was one of the bases of study. American Minister
Henry C. Hall reported in September, 1888, that Costa Rica, Guatemala and
Honduras had ratified the treaty unconditionally, and Salvador with amendments.
Nicaragua had appointed a delegation to the congress at San Jose without ratify-
ing the treaty. ( Foreign Relations, 1888, 165.)
PROJECTS OF UNION
XIX
its first article the arbiter state in case of a dispute was to be chosen by
lot from the list above until a satisfactory one was drawn.1
The program seems to have run ahead of schedule. At San Salvador
on October 15, 1889, without waiting for the proposed congress of 1890,
the five states drew up a Provisional Pact of Union for what was to be
the Republic of Central America.2 No tangible results seem to have come
from that effort, and revolutionary conditions in the following year pre-
vented the convoking of the congress to form a union in 1890.3 On Novem-
ber 16, 1891, at Managua, however, Costa Rica and Nicaragua signed a
treaty for the foundation of an arbitral “diet,” which was to become Central
American if the other states would join.-* Its provisions clearly fore-
shadowed the Central American court.
Profiting by the unsuccessful treaty of 1887, the plenipotentiaries of all
the states except Costa Rica, at San Salvador on May 23, 1892, signed a
treaty of peace and arbitration which provided for a Central American
Diet to hold its first session on January 1, 1893. This diet was to be a
mediatory and arbitrating body and was to draw up treaties between the
states respecting most of the matters actually made the subject of treaties
between 1907 and 1914. One of its provisions — about the only one that
lived — stipulated that, in case “any of these republics” should cause a
“de facto rupture, the neutral republics . . . shall constitute themselves
into a defensive alliance with the state offended or invaded.”5 That
practice was followed on some later occasions.
Three years passed and on June 20, 1895, 6 at Amapala, Honduras, the
Greater Republic of Central America was formed by Honduras, Nicara-
gua and Salvador. The Republic of Central America was to follow this
when “Guatemala and Costa Rica shall voluntarily accept the present
1 Tratados internacionalos celebrados por . . . Costa Rica, II, 31-40; the other
treaties are ibid., 41-71. The 1888 treaty was recommended for ratification on
December 4, 1888, by the Costa Rican executive.
3 The text is printed in Centro-America, I, 573-577, and in Nouveau recueil
general de traites, 2e serie, XVIII, 457.
5 Carlos Ezeta started a revolution in Salvador, assuming the provisional presi-
dency and eventually becoming constitutional president. Costa Rica, Guate-
mala and Nicaragua decided to continue under the pact of 1889, but the disturb-
ance was fatal to its fuller realization. ( Foreign Relations of the United Slates,
1908, 28, 37.)
4 Tratados internacionalos celebrados por . . . Costa Rica, II, 1 19-123.
5 Foreign Relations of the United Stales, 1894, 437-438.
6 Text in Centro-America, II, 288-290; Foreign Relations of the United States,
1896, 390-2; Nouveau recueil general de traites, 2 e serie, XXXII, 276-278; British
and Foreign Stale Papers, 92, 227. Ratifications were exchanged on September 15,
1896. (Moore, Digest of International Law, I, 145.)
XX
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
agreement.” This occurred two years later when an agreement signed
at Guatemala City on June 15, 1897/ established a complete federation.
There was pacifying work to be done, however, before a constitution
could be drawn up. A difference existed between Costa Rica and Nicara-
gua, which was settled on the high seas off Cape Blanco by the aid of
United States Minister William Lawrence Merry and the United States
man of war Alert, under the friendly mediation of Guatemala. Aboard
the Alert the disputants decided in a treaty of peace signed on April 26,
1898, to refer their mutual claims “to the civilized and enlightened medium
of arbitration” by three Central Americans.2
Next followed a constitutional congress of all five, which, convening
at Managua in June, on August 27, 1898, produced a constitution for the
United States of Central America.* A provisional executive council of
three persons took the helm of the newly-united states on November 1.
Elections for a president were fixed for December, but on November 13
Tomas Regalado started a revolution in Salvador in opposition to the
union. He was successful in ousting the president, and, Nicaragua refus-
ing to aid Honduras in obliging Salvador’s adherence to the new constitu-
tion, the provisional executive council at Amapala on November 29 saw
“itself under the painful necessity of declaring the Republic of the United
States of Central America dissolved. ”«
1 Nouveau recueil general de traites, 2e serie, XXXII, 279-284; Centro- America,
II, 105.
2 Nouveau recueil general de traites, 2e serie, XXXII, 84-86.
■ * Text in Centro-America, II, 291-305.
See correspondence in Foreign Relations of the United States, 1898, 172-177;
British and Foreign State Papers, 92, 242; Nouveau recueil general de traites, ?.e
serie, XXXII, 284-292.
APPENDIX IV.
The Nicaraguan Canal Route Controversies.
To the outside world Central America has meant a potential route
for an interoceanic canal. Though a canal is now in operation at Panama,
the early plans usually placed the route across Lake Nicaragua. The
Nicaraguan route was a minor diplomatic problem for many years, and for
a long period European states were maneuvering to dominate it without
coming into direct conflict with the Monroe doctrine. With one exception
their efforts were not based on territorial rights but depended for success
on acquisition of territory. The exception was Great Britain, which
had established protectorate relations with the Mosquito tribe of Indians
inhabiting much of the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua.
In the 1840’s the United States began actively to acquire a future canal
route. A treaty between the United States and Nicaragua was signed
June 21, 1849, by which either the United States or an American company
was to have the exclusive privilege of building a canal. On receipt of the
text of this treaty, Secretary of State John M. Clayton called to the British
minister’s attention the facts that it was unratified and that “great caution
would be required on both sides in order to prevent the United States and
Great Britain from being brought into collision on account of the Mosquito
question.” 1 The bargain that resulted was the Clayton-Buhver treaty
of April T9, 1850, between the United States and Great Britain, in which
they mutually declared “that neither the one nor the other will ever obtain
or maintain for itself any exclusive control over the said ship canal;” and
that neither will ever “occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume or exer-
cise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any
part of Central America.”
This treaty was superseded by the Hay-Pauncefote treaty 2 of November
18, 190T, which covers any canal route in Central America and which pro-
1 Moore, Digest of International Law, III, 134.
2 A treaty to the same end was signed by the same negotiators on February 5,
1900, but was amended by the Senate and was not ratified. The treaty of 1901
was negotiated to meet the Senate’s objections and undoubtedly any engage-
ments toward third parties to the former should therefore apply also to the latter.
XXII
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
vides that the “canal may be constructed under the auspices of the Govern-
ment of the United States.” The British protectorate over the Mos-
quito coast being no longer useful for trading purposes, Great Britain signed
with Nicaragua on April 19, 1905, a treaty which recognized absolute
Nicaraguan sovereignty over the Mosquito territory.1 Thus for only ten
years has the United States been in a position to deal alone with Central
America respecting interoceanic canal routes.
However, there was still an open market for the Nicaraguan route, as
can be seen from a quotation of Nicaraguan instructions to the Minister
at Paris, dated April 29, 1908:
Supposing, as is most likely, that in the end the Panama Canal will be the only
canal, yet we have to take into account that the United States fears, and rightly,
that another or other powers may render null and void a great part of their tre-
mendous labor. And in this sense it is indubitable that Colombia or Nicaragua
may obtain no inconsiderable political advantage from the insecure or be it false
position in which the United States finds itself.
Now, through the instrumentality of a certain English consul to this country
who may be well informed in the premises we have learned that Great Britain
and Japan have lately concerted the idea of the canal by way of Nicaragua.
It is my wish, therefore, that you, in an absolutely personal character and with
the greatest possible care and discretion, should talk with the Japanese ambassador
in Paris, saying that, although you are not in possession of instructions from your
Government to the effect, you would venture if the Government of Japan should
send agents to Nicaragua the overtures which they might make in connection with
this important matter would be very well received. All this without putting
on paper a single word of your conversations.
You are not to forget that this matter is of the utmost confidence, for as you
will plainly understand that if the United States were prematurely to get wind
of our proceedings, whatever we might do in the matter would cost us dear.
If success is ours we shall procure at the very least most enviable political ad-
vantages, above all greater consideration and respect from the United States,
and it may be an enviable position in respect to Central America.2
The Government of the United States naturally did not intend to be the
innocent bystander in such a game of blackmail, and when the Zelaya
regime, which plotted it, had the bad judgment to execute Cannon and
Groce the next year Washington saw Zelaya step down under revolutionary
pressure with very little regret. The succeeding Madriz regime was
short-lived, but the Estrada-Diaz government that followed was dis-
1 Text in British and Foreign State Papers, 98, 69, and in Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1905, 702.
2 George T. Weitzel, American Policy in Nicaragua, 9-10. (Sen. Doc. No. 334,
64th Cong. 1st Session.)
Canal route controversies xxiii
posed to do things on a business basis. Negotiations were begun and on
February 8, 1913, a treaty was signed by which the United States v/as to
have a perpetual and exclusive option on the Nicaraguan canal route,
was to lease Great and Little Corn Islands in the Caribbean and secure a
naval station in the Gulf of Fonseca on the Pacific side, all in consideration
of the payment of $3,000,000 in trust to Nicaragua to be used for general
education, public works and advancement of the country’s welfare. The
American administration changed on March 4, 1913, before this treaty
was ratified. The succeeding administration re-signed the treaty with
verbal changes on August 5, 1914, and the ratifications were exchanged on
June 22, 1916.
There is also a Central American side to this story. The Clayton-
Bulwer treaty included Costa Rica by name in its self-denying clause.
Precisely what it meant was the San Juan River, which runs southeast from
Lake Nicaragua to the Caribbean and forms throughout much of its
length part of the boundary between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Any
Nicaraguan canal will probably make use of the San Juan channel. By
the Canas- Jerez treaty of April 15, 1858, between the two states it is
stipulated:
Art. 6. The Republic of Nicaragua shall have exclusively dominion and full
sovereignty over the waters of the San Juan River, from its sources in the lake
to its mouth in the Atlantic; but the Republic of Costa Rica shall have in said
waters perpetual, rights of free navigation, from the mouth as described to within
three English miles from Castillo Viejo [where the river ceases to be the bound-
ary], for purposes of commerce, either with Nicaragua or to the interior of Costa
Rica. . . .
Art. 8. If the contracts of canalization or of transit celebrated previously to
this convention coming to the knowledge of Nicaragua should, for whatever
cause, become null and void, Nicaragua promises to conclude no other on the said
subjects without previously learning the opinion of the Government of Costa
Rica on the inconveniences which the matter might have for the two countries,
provided that this opinion is given within 30 days after knowledge thereof is
received, in case Nicaragua declares the decision to be urgent; and if the natural
rights of Costa Rica in the affair are not injured, this opinion shall be advisory.
Twenty-five years later the two countries had a dispute about the mean-
ing of the treaty, President Grover Cleveland of the United States being
eventually chosen as arbitrator. He rendered his award on March 22,
1888, deciding in part:
First. The above-mentioned treaty of limits, signed on the 15th day of April,
1858, is valid. . . .
XXIV
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
Third. With respect to the points of doubtful interpretation communicated
as aforesaid by the Republic of Nicaragua, I decide as follows: . . .
10. The Republic of Nicaragua remains bound not to make any grants for
canal purposes across her territory without first asking the opinion of the Republic
of Costa Rica, as provided in Article VIII of the treaty of limits of the 15th
day of April, 1858. The natural rights of the Republic of Costa Rica alluded to
in the said stipulation are the rights which, in view of the boundaries fixed by the
said treaty of limits, she possesses in the soil thereby recognized as belonging ex-
clusively to her; . . . the rights which she possesses in so much of the River San Juan
as lies more than three English miles below Castillo Viejo, measuring from the
exterior, fortifications of the said castle as the same existed in the year 1858; and
perhaps other rights not here particularly specified. These rights are to be deemed
injured in any case where the territory belonging to the Republic of Costa Rica
is occupied or flooded; ... or where there is such an obstruction or deviation of
the River San Juan as to destroy or seriously impair the navigation of the said
river or any of its branches at any point where Costa Rica is entitled to navigate
the same.
11. The treaty of limits of the 15th day of April, 1858, does not give to the
Republic of Costa Rica the right to be a party to grants which Nicaragua may
make for interoceanic canals; though in cases where the construction of the canal
will involve an injury to the natural rights of Costa Rica, her opinion or advice,
as mentioned in Article VIII of the treaty, should be more than “advisory” or
“consultative.” It would seem in such cases that her consent is necessary, and
that she may thereupon demand compensation for the concession she is asked to
make; but she is not entitled as a right to share in the profits that the Republic
of Nicaragua may reserve for herself as a compensation for such favors and privi-
leges as she, in her turn, may concede.
On March 24, 1916, the Government of Costa Rica filed with the Central
American Court of Justice a formal complaint against the Government
of Nicaragua on account of its having concluded the treaty of August 5,
1914, with the United States. Costa Rica alleged: (1) that the American-
Nicaraguan treaty violates the rights of Costa Rica, acquired by the
Canas-Jerez treaty, the Cleveland award and the Central American treaty
of peace and friendship of 1907; (2) that the violation rendered null the
American-Nicaraguan treaty, “especially because both contracting parties
knew in signing it of the incapacity of Nicaragua”; and (3) that therefore
the said treaty is null and ineffective as respects Costa Rica.
The plaintiff also asked the Court to issue an interlocutory decree es-
tablishing, as respected Costa Rica, the status quo existing before the
treaty, and to notify the United States and Nicaragua of this action and
of the bringing of the suit. The Court on May 1, 1916, passed a resolution
on the interlocutory petition in the “considerations” of which the jurisdic-
CANAL ROUTE CONTROVERSIES
XXV
tion of the Court over the controversy was asserted. The resolution
provided:
That the complaint presented by the Government of Costa Rica be admitted;
that the Licentiate Luis Castro Urena be recognized as the representative of the
Complainant Government; that the Defendant Government be notified and
called upon to answer the complaint within sixty days from the date on which
notice of the complaint shall have been received by His Excellency the Minister
of Foreign Relations of the Republic of Nicaragua, to whom, also, shall be sent,
through the medium of a note, copies of the petition of the complaint, of the
evidence presented and of this decision; and that the following precautionary
measure ( medida precautoria) be decreed: The Governments of Costa Rica and
Nicaragua are under the obligation to maintain the status quo that existed be-
tween them prior to the Treaty that gave rise to the present controversy. 1
The United States did not become a party to the case but had previously
developed its attitude in diplomatic notes. Nicaragua, of course, was
defendant when the Court accepted jurisdiction, though no counsel appeared
before the Court on her behalf.
From the antecedent exchanges of notes the lines of the defense are
apparent. Separate protocols had been signed by the United States
with both Costa Rica and Nicaragua on December i, 1900, by which it
was agreed “that when the President of the United States is authorized
by law to acquire control of such portion of the territory now belonging
to Costa Rica as may be desirable and necessary on which to construct
and protect a canal . . . , they mutually agree to enter into negotiations with
each other to settle the plan and the agreements in detail.”2 It was further
agreed that both should adhere to the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of February
5, 1900. The United States held that the treaty with Nicaragua of August
5, 1914, was preliminary to carrying this agreement into effect, and “since
the Government of the United States has manifested its desire to enter
into negotiations for the conclusion of a treaty of similar character” with
Costa Rica, the secretary of state did not see how the Nicaraguan treaty
could affect any existing right of Costa Rica. 3 To make sure, the Senate in
consenting to ratification of the treaty of August 5, 1914, added a declara-
tion to it which was ratified by both the United States and Nicaragua.
The declaration reads:
1 Complaint, as issued in translation through the Legation of Costa Rica at
Washington, page 40.
2 Treaties in Force (1904), 220 and 591; Treaties, Conventions, etc. (1909) 351
and 1290.
3 Secretary of State Lansing to Minister Manuel Castro Quesada, March 1, 1916.
XXVI
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
Whereas, Costa Rica, Salvador and Honduras 1 have protested against the
ratification of the said Convention in the fear or belief that said Convention
might in some respect impair existing rights of said States; therefore, it is de-
clared by the Senate that in advising and consenting to the ratification of the
said Convention as amended such advice and consent are given with the under-
standing, to be expressed as a part of the instrument of ratification, that nothing
in said Convention is intended to affect any existing right of any of the said named
States.
Nicaragua in diplomatic replies to Costa Rica refused to admit that the
extent of Costa Rica’s negotiations or Nicaragua’s attitude in response
indicated the exhaustion of diplomatic resources, and consequently claimed
that appealing to the Court was premature. She cited the fact of complete
sovereignty as a principal condition of the legitimacy of the 1914 treaty,
which, it was argued, specifically acknowledged the exclusive authority of
Nicaragua over the territory. She argued that the Cleveland award was
not subject to revision, and in any case not to the revision of the Central
American Court, which had no jurisdiction over “events occurring prior
to its existence.” Further, Nicaragua held that Costa Rica had no right
under either the treaty or the award to be a party to the concession, but only
to put in a claim “if the construction of the canal should involve damage
to her natural rights.” And finally Nicaragua declared that the Costa
Rican claim was without basis because the treaty with the United
States transferred no territory and granted no canal route, but simply
“grants in perpetuity to the Government of the United States the exclusive
proprietary rights for the construction, operation and maintenance of a
canal, . . . the details of the terms ... to be agreed to by the two govern-
ments whenever the Government of the United States shall notify the
Government of Nicaragua of its desire or intention to construct such canal.” 1
Nicaragua was not represented by counsel before the Court, and per-
mitted the 60-day period stipulated in the interlocutory decree of May 1
to elapse without a diplomatic reply. On August 16, 1916, therefore, the
Court extended the period by 20 days, under the provisions of Art. XV of
the organic convention. On August 25 the Court received a diplomatic
reply, dated August 1, from Nicaragua. This contained the following
contentions:
1. That absolutely nothing in the American-Nicaraguan convention
refers to a sale of the San Juan River, an exclusive option for the conclusion
of a treaty for that purpose being only stipulated;
1 Honduras has not as a matter of fact made any protest.
2 The Nicaraguan arguments are analyzed here from Memoria de la Secretaria de
Relaciones exteriores {de Costa Rica), 1915, 72-75, 113-116.
CANAL ROUTE CONTROVERSIES
XXVll
2. That only after the matter should have been studied in order to select
a canal route could Nicaragua proceed to enter into a canal treaty or con-
tract,— the implication being that only then would Costa Rica rightfully
be entitled to be consulted;
3. That the complaint was technically erroneous in so far as it was
based on the unconsummated treaty of February 8, 1913, between the
United States and Nicaragua, and that respecting the subsequent treaty
of August 5, 1914, Costa Rica had not exhausted diplomatic efforts, as
provided by Art. I of the convention establishing the Court;
4. That any decision of the Court would be null and void for want of
jurisdiction. Nicaragua’s government had acted in exercise of full sov-
ereignty when negotiating and approving the treaty, and, while violation
or damage claims might be cognizable by the Court, it could not legally
nullify sovereign rights, especially those in which a third party participated.
The Nicaraguan Government therefore believed and declared that
“it is under no obligation to reply to the complaint of the Costa Rican
Government because it cannot admit, even conditionally, the competence
of the Court to take cognizance of, and to decide, that complaint; . . .
and, in the event of a decision adverse to her, Nicaragua declares that she
will be unable to abide by it.”
The Court’s decision was delivered on September 30, 1916, with the
member for Nicaragua absent. The decision, in accordance with con-
clusions voted on September 22, when the judge for Nicaragua was pres-
ent, follows:
“First. — It is declared that the peremptory exception interposed by
the High Party Defendant is denied, and that, in consequence, this Court
is competent to decide the complaint brought by the Government of the
Republic of Costa Rica against the Government of the Republic of Nica-
ragua.
“ Second. — It is declared that the Government of Nicaragua has violated,
to the injury of Costa Rica, the rights granted to the latter by the Canas-
Jerez Treaty of Limits of April 15, 1858, by the Cleveland award of March
22, 1888, and by the Central American Treaty of Peace and Amity of
December 20, 1907; and
“Third. — That, respecting the prayer in the complaint asking that the
Bryan-Chamorro treaty [of August 5, 1914,] be declared null and void,
this Court can make no declaration whatsoever.”
Salvador was plaintiff against Nicaragua respecting a grievance growing
out of the same treaty. Salvador complains of Nicaragua’s grant to the
United States of a naval station in the Gulf of Fonseca, on which both of
xxviii NEW PAN AMERICANISM
the states front. Honduras likewise has a littoral on the gulf, amounting
to nearly half of its total but not including either boundary headland.
Of the three, Nicaragua’s littoral on the gulf is the shortest. Physically
a naval station on Nicaraguan soil would dominate the gulf, and this
seems to be the real basis of objection. The body of water has a total
littoral of some ioo miles, with an entrance over 19 miles wide. The
American naval station will probably be placed on a Nicaraguan peninsula
forming the southerly entrance to the gulf, but its site is not yet determined.
By international law a body of water 19 miles wide at the entrance cannot
be considered as territorial if, as in this case, more than one state owns
its littoral. Among the three states, however, there seems to have been
in the past some tendency toward the theory of a condominium, but a
formal act of partition has for some years been in effect.1 This is conceived
as determining exclusive ownership of territorial waters, according to
normal standards, and not as contemplating a claim to the right of par-
titioning the whole gulf.
On August 14, 1916, Salvador laid its case before the Central American
Court of Justice. It alleged that provisions of the American-Nicaraguan
treaty of August s, 1914, granting the United States a naval station on the
Gulf of Fonseca were “highly prejudicial to the supreme interests of the
Salvadorean nation because they put its integrity and preservation in
jeopardy, violate its undeniable rights of condominium in the Gulf of
Fonseca and injure its most legitimate aspirations for the future in a Cen-
tral American nation.” The allegations of the complaint were:
1. The treaty is an official act of the Government of Nicaragua which
puts in danger the national safety of Salvador. “The establishment of
a naval base by a powerful state in the immediate vicinity of the Republic
of Salvador would constitute a serious menace, not imaginary but evident
and real, directed against the existence of its free life and autonomy.”
2. The treaty fails to recognize, and violates, the rights of dominion
which Salvador has in the gulf.
3. The primordial interests of Salvador as a Central American state
are injured.
4. The treaty is contrary to Art. II of the general treaty of Washington.
5. It could not be validly celebrated.
6. Direct methods of approaching Nicaragua were employed without
effect.
Wherefore Salvador petitioned the Court “to condemn Nicaragua to
1 The fact is given on the authority of a conversation with the Nicaraguan
charge d’affaires at Washington.
CANAL ROUTE CONTROVERSIES
xxix
abstain from fulfilment of the aforesaid treaty.” Nicaragua denied the
jurisdiction of the Court, but took no more active part in defending the
case than in the Costa Rican complaint. The Court has not as yet handed
down its decision.
Salvador’s protest to the United States was dated October 21, 1913,
and referred to the treaty of February 8 preceding. In reply the De-
partment of State “was not disposed to controvert” the contention “that
the Gulf of Fonseca is a territorial bay whose waters are comprehended
within the jurisdiction of the jointly border states.” The contention
that, as in the days of the Republic of Central America, the border states
were “legitimate masters and sovereigns in common” of the gulf was
obviously not an accepted idea with Nicaragua, and was understood not
to be accepted by Honduras. “It appears that this was formerly the point
of view of Salvador, as is shown by the treaty concluded between Salvador
and Honduras on April 10, 1884, by virtue of which the boundary be-
tween Salvador and Honduras was to be traced through the Gulf of Fon-
seca.” Though this treaty did not become effective owing to Honduras
failing to ratify, “the treaty seems to have supposed that previously each
of the border states claimed a certain part of the gulf as its own and ex-
ercised jurisdiction solely over that part. The Department is informed that
this is the state of things which exists at present.” To this Salvador
replied that the treaty of 1884 clearly had intended to “put an end to
the ‘indivision’ of the Gulf of Fonseca,” and consequently was in fact
“one of the best proofs of the recognition by the contracting states of the
joint and undivided possession of the Gulf of Fonseca.”
To the contention that the naval station would “radically alter the
political situation in that region,” the United States demurred, adding
that it “would take to heart the interests of Central America not less
than its own,” and “would particularly have in view the defense of local
sovereignty.” To this end, it was prepared to consider a concession from
Salvador or Honduras, or both. To which Salvador replied that Art.
38 of her constitution prohibited the celebration or approval of a treaty
diminishing “the integrity of the territory or the national sovereignty.”
Salvador held that the concession would form an obstacle to the restora-
tion of the Central American union; in reply it was contended that it
“would not give to the United States any right or interest in the political
affairs of Central America beyond those actually existing, and under
no point of view would the United States place obstacles in the way of
the political "union of the Central American states” at any time.
Salvador’s suggestion that a plebiscite would have been necessary was
XXX
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
regarded by the United States as founded on the idea of joint ownership
of the gulf, and consequently as without a solid basis. In reply, Salvador
repeated that the concession would necessitate a plebiscite.
Salvador protested anew on February 9, 1916, at a time when the treaty
of August 5, 1914, wras about to be acted upon by the Senate. This protest
alleged that the American-Nicaraguan treaty affected the neutralized
condition of Honduras, a naval base constituting “a menace against the
neutrality of the waters dominated.” The project for such a base was
described as “an effort violatory in a flagrant and clear manner of the
principle of the neutrality of Honduras,” which Salvador claimed a right
to champion because the commonalty of interests in the gulf was “suffi-
cient to justify the rights of each [state] to oppose every act of any other
country which menaces their security.”
Secretary Lansing in reply recalled Art. Ill of the treaty of Washington
neutralizing Honduras, and asserted that he failed to appreciate how the
treaty with Nicaragua “could tend in any degree to make the territory
of Honduras the theater of Central American conflicts, or to provoke
Honduras to depart from her neutral attitude in conflicts between her
neighbors.” In further reply he quoted the Senate’s proviso included in
its resolution advising ratification of the disputed treaty.
Between Salvador and Nicaragua, there has been very little correspond-
ence. On April 14, 1916, the minister for foreign relations of Salvador
handed to the Nicaraguan minister a note which practically served to cover
copies of the correspondence with the United States. Salvador’s notes of
October 21, 1913, February 9, 1914, and its amplification of March 13, were
transmitted with the protest. The reply of Nicaragua, dated July 26, 1916,
is the best state paper of the whole controversy. It carefully summarizes
the arguments of Salvador and then replies to them in order, with annexes
containing justificatory documents.
Nicaragua’s reply presented her attitude as follows:
Nicaragua was surprised that Salvador should have been protesting to
the United States without “taking into account this Republic, which was
the other contracting party and in whose territory were situated the in-
terests which were the objects of negotiations.” This was the more strange
because the protests were based on the Central American general treaty of
1907, to which the United States was not a party, while Nicaragua was.
Nicaragua saw with pain the effort of Salvador to “provoke difficulties
with Nicaragua as to the celebration of that convention [with the United
States], assuming to represent not only Honduras, which has not up to
now shown in this respect any disagreement with the Government of this
CANAL ROUTE CONTROVERSIES
xxxi
Republic, but also all Central America, as if any Central American govern-
ment could legally represent the political rights of the Isthmus.”
Nicaragua denied that there is any common possession of the Gulf of
Fonseca, “ since what really occurred over a long period of time on account
of [the coexistence of sovereign border countries] is that the territorial
part corresponding to each of the three republics had not been separated
by a formal demarkation of frontiers.” Nicaragua cited as evidence of
this contention the text of the unratified treaty of April xo, 1884, between
Honduras and Salvador, and the effective convention of limits of October
7, 1894, between Nicaragua and Honduras. Under the latter convention
a mixed commission was appointed, and in its act of February 12, 1900,
it described the Honduran-Nicaraguan boundary line through the gulf to
its central point, apportioning islands. Therefore “it is not a state of com-
mon ownership, but of no demarkation of the frontier line across the
waters of the gulf ” which exists as respects Salvador.
Nicaragua rebutted Salvador’s claim that she had common rights as
a “coastal ( ribereno ) state” under the acts dissolving the Central American
Confederation in 1839. Nicaragua argued that “the conception of coastal
states essentially includes the conception of being conterminous ( colin -
dancia). . . . Therefore, no true community existing between the three
republics adjacent to the Gulf of Fonseca, and Salvador not being coastal
as respects Nicaragua, there is no reason by which she can demand the
previous accord and consent of the three in order that the demarkation
of the frontier lines which separate them may be effected.”
Nicaragua argued that, “when a bay or gulf belongs to three nations,
each of them will enjoy [the customary] rights in the part belonging to it,
but it does not follow that each of them remains prohibited, within the
part of territorial waters corresponding to it, from exercising the acts neces-
sary or convenient in the orbit of its sovereignty. If Nicaragua were a
maritime power, ... no canon of international law would prevent her
establishing a naval station in the part of the Gulf of Fonseca belonging
to her. . . . The sovereign right of being able to establish in the said gulf
a naval station in the part adjacent to its coasts has been transferred to the
United States by lease, for whatever time may be agreed upon in the
Chamorro-Bryan treaty. . . . Nor is any change introduced into the present
debate by the fact that the Republics of Salvador and Honduras have
deep ports, while Nicaragua has not.”
The possession by Honduras and Salvador of islands in the gulf was some-
thing that Nicaragua “cannot admit as giving force in any manner to the
arguments of the Salvadorean chancellery.”
xxxn
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
The Nicaraguan constitution, although recognizing the positive duty of
contributing to the re-establishment of the Central American nationality,
does not “prohibit Nicaragua from performing acts, within the limits of
its sovereignty, . . . that it may consider as positively contributing to the
perfecting of its own security as a nation, and to its welfare and future
development or which may tend to increase the prosperity, not only of
Central America, but of all humanity.”
Nicaragua would never accept the necessity of a collective consent by
plebiscite because: “ i, ... as an autonomous, independent and free nation
there neither is nor can be the obligation of consulting another govern-
ment or nation as to what it must or may do within its own sovereignty;
2, neither in our constitution nor secondary laws is the plebiscite recognized
as a necessary condition for the legal exercise of acts of sovereignty; 3,
the said lease to the United States in no wise conflicts with the rights
of the Republics of Honduras and Salvador.”
Nicaragua contended that the lease did not “violate in any way the
territory of Honduras” in the sense of Art. Ill of the general treaty of 1907,
because, if the signatories “were obligated not to construct military forts
nor to establish naval bases on the frontier of the neutral territory, they
would have said so in terms, for the very reason that every special law
requires strict acceptation and interpretation.” The definite provision
of Art. 13 of the treaty of March 30, 1856, neutralizing the Black Sea, the
similar provision respecting the Baltic, and provisions in the entente cordiale
of April 8, 1904, and in the Franco-German arrangements of November
4, 1911, were cited in proof of the statement.
Nicaragua denied that the “constitutional order,” within the meaning of
the general treaty of Washington, was altered by the lease because, in the
words of Fiore, “the personality of the state must be considered integral,”
. . . even though “change and diminution of population and of territorial
possessions modify the state’s personality.” Moreover, “it is evident that
the signatory republics considered the phrase, ‘every disposition or measure
which may tend to alter the constitutional organization in any of them
is to be deemed a menace to the peace of said Republics,’ ... as referring
solely to dispositions or measures by some respecting others or, taken by
one of them, should alter the constitutional order of the others in some
degree; but in no case may it be reasonably accepted that this declaration
refers to dispositions or measures altering the constitutional order in the
same republic which takes it.” This point of view was upheld by an ex-
tensive review of the negotiations of 1907.
The Nicaraguan secretary considered five reasons in the notes of Salva-
CANAL ROUTE CONTROVERSIES
xxxiii
dor as relating to “a fact foreign to the present question, the consequences
which would result from a strong and powerful nation being in control
of a part of the territory of a weak nation in the character of a conqueror.”
These were accordingly not discussed.1
'The correspondence from which this statement is summarized is: Minister
Francisco Duefias to Secretary of State Bryan, October 21, 1913; Secretary
Bryan to Minister Duenas, February 18, 1914; Minister Duenas to Secretary
Bryan, March n, 1914, Bole tin del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores ( Libro
Rosado de El Salvador), VII, Nos. I— III, 8-1 1; Minister Rafael Zaldivar to Secre-
tary of State Lansing, February 9, 1916; Secretary Lansing to Minister Zaldivar,
March 13, 1916, Boletin del Ministerio, VIII, Nos. IV- VI, 51-53.
F. Martinez Suarez, minister of foreign relations of Salvador, to the Nicaraguan
minister, April 14, 1916, Boletin del Ministerio, VIII, No. VIII, 4-5; Diego M.
Chamorro, minister of foreign relations of Nicaragua, to the Salvadorean min-
ister, July 26, 1916, Boletin del Ministerio, VIII, No. VIII, 5-36.
Correspondence respecting a supposed provision in the treaty of February 8,
1913, making the principle of the Platt amendment to the Cuban constitution ap-
plicable to Nicaragua was as follows: Charge d’Affaires Carlos A. Meza to Secre-
tary of State Bryan, July 8, 1914; Secretary Bryan to Charge Meza, July 16,
1914; Charge Meza to Secretary Bryan, July 21, 1914, Boletin del Ministerio,
VII, Nos. I-III, 11-13.
INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY
Edited by EDWIN D. MEAD
PUBLISHED BY THE WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION
CLOTH BOUND
ADDRESSES ON WAR. By Charles Sumner. 8vo, xxvii+321 pages.
Postpaid $0.60
AMERICAN ADDRESSES AT THE SECOND HAGUE CONFERENCE.
Edited by James Brown Scon. 8vo, xlviii+217 pages. Postpaid . . . i.6j
DISCOURSES ON WAR. By William Ellery Channing. 8vo, lxi+229
pages. Postpaid 6e
ETERNAL PEACE AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ESSAYS. By
Immanuel Kant. 8vo, xxiv+179 pages 7j
ETHICS OF FORCE. By H. E. Warner. 8vo, v+126 pages. Postpaid, .55
FIRST BOOK OF WORLD LAW. By Raymond L. Bridgman. 8vo,
v + 308 pages. Postpaid i.6j
FIRST HAGUE CONFERENCE. By Andrew D. White. 8vo, vi+125
pages. Postpaid . 33
FISHERIES ARBITRATION ARGUMENT OF ELIHU ROOT. Edited,
with Introduction and Appendix, by James Brown Scott. 8vo, ciid-523
pages. Postpaid 3.5c
FUTURE OF WAR. By Jean de Bloch. 8vo, ixxix+380 pages. Postpaid, .63
GREAT DESIGN OF HENRY IV. With Introduction by Edwin D. Mead.
8vo, xxi+91 pages. Postpaid 35
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRAL LAW AND PROCEDURE. By Jackson
H. Ralston. 8vo, xix-t-352 pages. Postpaid 2.2c
INTER-RACIAL PROBLEMS. Papers communicated to the First Universal
Races Congress, London, July 26-29, 1911- Edited by G. Spiller.
Quarto, xvi+485 pages. Postpaid 2.40
MOHONK ADDRESSES. By Edward Everett Hale and David J. Brewer.
8vo, xiviii + 150 pages. Postpaid 1.00
MORAL DAMAGE OF WAR. By Walter Walsh. 8vo, xiii+462 pages.
Postpaid . 00
NEW PEACE MOVEMENT. By William I. Hull. 8vq, xi+217 pages.
Postpaid . 1. 00
PRIZE ORATIONS OF THE INTERCOLLEGIATE PEACE ASSOCIATION.
Edited, with introduction by Stephen F. Weston. 8vo, xiii+185 pages.
Postpaid is
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL UNIONS. By Paul S. Reinscb. 8vo, viii+
189 pages. Postpaid 165
SIR RANDAL CREMER. By Howard Evans. 8vo, 356 pages. Postpaid, 1.40
TEXTS OF THE PEACE CONFERENCES AT THE HAGUE, 1899 and 1907.
Edited by James Brown Scott. 8vo xxxiv+447 pages. Postpaid . . . 2.40
TWO HAGUE CONFERENCES. By Wilxjam I. Hull. 8vo, xiv+516
pages. Postpaid i.6j
WAR INCONSISTENT WITH THE RELIGION OF JESUS CHRIST. By
David Low Dodge. 8vo, xxiv-|-i68 pages. Postpaid 60
WORLD ORGANIZATION. By Raymond L. Bridgman. 8vo, vi+172
pages. Postpaid 6o
PAPER BOUND
BETHINK YOURSELVES! By Leo Tolstoi. x 4^ in., 50 page3. Postpaid. . Jc.io
BLOOD OF THE NATION. By David Starr Jordan. 6 % x 4*4 in., 82 pages.
Postpaid is
THE COMING PEOPLE. By Charles F. Dole. 4 x 6H in., xii+224 pages.
Seventh edition, with ch apter on “The Coming World Order.” Postpaid .... .35
DUEL BETWEEN FRANCE AND GERMANY. By Charles Sumner. 7M * sH
in., 76 pages. Postpaid .40
KING'S EASTER. By Harriet Prescott Spofford. 7% x 5 in., 16 pages. Postpaid, .10
LEAGUE OF PEACE. A By Andrew Carnegie. x M in., 47 pages. Postpaid, -ic
PATRIOTISM AND THE NEW: INTERNATIONALISM By Lucia Ames Mead.
6H x i*/i in., 12s pages. Postpaid .20
SYLLABUS OF LECTURES ON INTERNATIONAL CONCILIATION. By David
Starr Jordan and Edward B. Krehbiel. qK x in., 180 pages. Postpaid . . 73
TRUE GRANDEUR OF NATIONS. By Charles Sumner. x sH in., 13a
pages. Postpaid .20
WARSYSTEM OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS. By Charles Sumner.
7V7 X SH in.. 107 pages. Postpaid 20
WHAT SHALL WE SAY? By David Starr Jordan. oli x 6 in., 82 pages. Postpaid, .35
WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION
PAMPHLET SERIES
AMERICA AND THE EUROPEAN WAR. By Norman Angell
AMERICAN LEADERSHIP FOR PEACE AND ARBITRATION. By Carl Schurz
ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENT OF 1817. By Charles H. Levermore
COMMISSION OF INQUIRY: THE WILSON-BRYAN PEACE PLAN. By Denys P.
Myers
CONCERNING SEA POWER. By David Starr Jordan
CONFERENCE OF NEUTRAL STATES
DRAIN OF ARMAMENTS. By Arthur W. Allen
DREADNOUGHTS AND DIVIDENDS. EXPOSURE OF THE ARMAMENTS
RING. By Philip Snowden, M.P.
FORCES THAT MAKE FOR PEACE. By Hon. William J. Bryan
FORCES WARRING AGAINST WAR. By Havelock Ellis
FOUNDATIONS OF A LEAGUE OF PEACE. By G. Lowes Dickinson
IMMUNITY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SEA. By Joseph H. Choate
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE AMERICAN DELEGATES TO THE HAGUE CONFER-
ENCES, i8qo and 1907. By John Hay and Elihu Root
MISSION OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE CAUSE OF PEACE. By David J.
Brewer
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS CONCERNING NEUTRAL AND BELLIGERENT RIGHTS
ISSUED SINCE AUGUST 4, 1914. Separate pamphlets with individual titles
as follows:
Neutrality Proclaimed and Explained; Appendix, The Declaration of
London.
War Zones.
War Zones (continued). Interference with American Trade with Neutrals.
Foodstuffs Cargo op the “Wilhelmina” in British Prize Court, German
and Austrian Attitude toward American Trade, Sinking oe the “William
P. Frye.”
Sinking of the “Lusitania,” and Attacks on the “Falaba,” “Gulflight,” “Cush-
ing,” and “Nebraskan.”
ORGANIZING THE PEACE WORK. By Edwin Ginn
OUTLINE OF LESSONS ON WAR AND PEACE. By Lucla Ames Mead
PANAMA CANAL TOLLS: THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES. By
Hon. Elihu Root
PANAMA CANAL TOLLS, OUR DUTY CONCERNING. By Thomas Raeburn White
gn/J PlIA DT FMAPN1T TftWFD
RIGHT AND WRONG OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE. By Charles F. Dole
SOME SUPPOSED JUST CAUSES OF WAR. By Jackson H. Ralston
SUGGESTIONS FOR LECTURES ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. By Charles
H. Levermore
SYNDICATES FOR WAR. London Correspondence of the New York Evening Post
UNITED STATES OF EUROPE. By Victor Hugo
WAR NOT INEVITABLE. By Hon. John W. Foster
WASHINGTON, JEFFERSON AND FRANKLIN ON WAR. By Edwin D. Mead
WASTE OF MILITARISM. From the report of the Massachusetts Commission on the
Cost of Living, 1910
WOMAN AND WAR. By Edwin D. Mead
WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION: WORK IN 1914
Single copies free. Price in quantities on application
Volume title-pages for binding furnished on request
WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION
40 Mt. Vernon Street Boston, Mass.
pjorlb |bace iFounhat
ton
40 MT. VERNON 8TREET
BOSTON
Single copies of all pamphlets free
Complete list of publications on application
Heague to Enforce $eaci>
The Foundations of a League of Peace. By G. Lowes Dickinson.
A League to Enforce Peace. By A. Lawrence Lowell.
The Outlook for International Law with letter commending the
League to Enforce Peace. By Elihu Root.
The Monroe Doctrine and the Program of the League to Enforce
Peace. By George Grapton Wilson.
The Conciliation Plan of the League to Enforce Peace, with American
treaties in force.
Historical Light on the League to Enforce Peace.
| &f)e Wb rk of tfje Hague Conferences!
American Addresses at the Second Hague Conference. Edited
by James Brown Scott. 8vo, xlviii+217 pages. Cloth-
bound, postpaid $1.50
First Hague Conference. By Andrew D. White. 8vo, \d4-125
pages. Cloth -bound, postpaid 55
Immunity of Private Property at Sea. By Joseph H. Choate.
Instructions to the American Delegates to the Hague Conferences,
1899 and 1907. By Hon. John Hay and Hon. Elihu
Root, Secretaries of State.
Record of The Hague. By Denys P. Myers.
Texts of the Peace Conferences at The Hague, 1899 and 1907.
Edited by James Brown Scott. 8vo, xxxiv+447 pages.
Cloth-bound, postpaid 1.65
Towards International Government. By John A. Hobson. 216
pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid 50
Two Hague Conferences. By William I. Hull. 8vo, xiv-f-516
pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid 1.65
PWIit Peace Jjmmhaium
plampl|let Jirrtes
ANNUAL REPORT
1916
Published Bimonthly by the
WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION
40 MT. VERNON STREET, BOSTON
April, 1917
Vol. VII. No. 2.
Entered as second-class matter January 15, 1913, at the post-office at Boston, Mass.,
under the Act of August 24, 1912
(SKKorlO |Drace JfounDatton
Unfit mt, flafifiarlfUfirtta
♦FOUNDED IN 1910
BY
EDWIN GINN
The corporation is constituted for the purpose of educating the people
of all nations to a full knowledge of the waste and destructiveness of war,
its evil effects on present social conditions and on the well-being of future
generations, and to promote international justice and the brotherhood
of man; and, generally, by every practical means to promote peace
and good will among all mankind. — By-laws of the Corporation.
It is to this patient and thorough work of education, through the school,
the college, the church, the press, the pamphlet and the book, that the
World Peace Foundation addresses itself. — Edwin Ginn, Foreword,
World Peace Foundation: Its Present Activities (Pamphlet Series, Vol. I,
No. 6, Part I).
The idea of force cannot at once be eradicated. It is useless to believe
that the nations can be persuaded to disband their present armies and
dismantle their present navies, trusting in each other or in the Hague
Tribunal to settle any possible differences between them, unless, first,
some substitute for the existing forces is provided and demonstrated
by experience to be adequate to protect the rights, dignity, and territory
of the respective nations. My own belief is that the idea which underlies
the movement for the Hague Court can be developed so that the nations
can be persuaded each to contribute a small percentage of their military
forces at sea and on land to form an International Guard or Police Force. —
Edwin Ginn, An International School of Peace, letter to the editor of the
“Nation,” September 7, 1909; also in the original draft of Mr. Ginn’s
will of 1908, defining the purpose of his endowment.
* Incorporated under the laws of Massachusetts, July 12, 1910, as the International School of Peace*
Name changed to World Peace Foundation, December 22, 1910.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
1916
The term of office is seven years.
Annual meeting on the last Tuesday in November in each year.
Class of 1917
GEORGE H. BLAKESLEE
A. LAWRENCE LOWELL
JOSEPH SWAIN
Class of 1918
SAMUEL J. ELDER
ALBERT E. PILLSBURY
Class of 1920
SARAH LOUISE ARNOLD
EDWARD CUMMINGS
(Resigned June 3, 1916; elected General Secretary, June 3, 1916.)
SAMUEL T. DUTTON
SAMUEL W. McCALL
Class of 1922
GEORGE W. ANDERSON
WILLIAM H. P. FAUNCE
GEORGE A. PLIMPTON
Officers and Committees of the Board
President
GEORGE A. PLIMPTON
The President is ex-ojjicio member of all committees.
Secretary
GEORGE H. BLAKESLEE
Executive Committee
EDWARD CUMMINGS, Chairman
GEORGE H. BLAKESLEE A. LAWRENCE LOWELL
WILLIAM H. P. FAUNCE JOSEPH SWAIN
Finance Committee
GEORGE W. ANDERSON, Chairman
SAMUEL J. ELDER ALBERT E. PILLSBURY
Treasurer
ARTHUR W. ALLEN
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
1917
The term of office is semen years.
Annual meeting on the last Tuesday in November in each year.
Class of 1917
GEORGE H. BLAKESLEE
A. LAWRENCE LOWELL
JOSEPH SWAIN
Class of 1918
SAMUEL J. ELDER
ALBERT E. PILLSBURY
Class of 1920
SARAH LOUISE ARNOLD
SAMUEL T. DUTTON
SAMUEL W. McCALL
Class of 1922
GEORGE W. ANDERSON
WILLIAM H. P. FAUNCE
GEORGE A. PLIMPTON
Officers and Committees of the Board
President
GEORGE A. PLIMPTON
The President is ex-officio member of all committees.
Secretary
GEORGE H. BLAKESLEE
Executive Committee
A. LAWRENCE LOWELL, Chairman
GEORGE H. BLAKESLEE WILLIAM H. P. FAUNCE
SAMUEL J. ELDER JOSEPH SWAIN
Finance Committee
GEORGE W. ANDERSON, Chairman
A. LAWRENCE LOWELL
Treasurer
ARTHUR W. ALLEN
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL
Miss JANE ADDAMS
Pres. EDWIN A. ALDERMAN
Mrs. FANNIE FERN ANDREWS
Ex-Pres. JAMES BURRILL ANGELL1
Hon. SIMEON E. BALDWIN
Hon. RICHARD BARTHOLDT
Prof. JEAN C. BRACQ
Ex-Pres. JOHN C. BRANNER
Mr. JOHN I. D. BRISTOL
Pres. S. P. BROOKS
Chancellor ELMER E. BROWN
Pres. WILLIAM L. BRYAN
Prof. JOHN W. BURGESS
Hon. THEODORE E. BURTON
Pres. NICHOLAS MURRAY BUTLER
Rev. FRANCIS E. CLARK
Prof. JOHN B. CLARK
Rev. SAMUEL M. CROTHERS
Mr. JAMES H. CUTLER
Rev. CHARLES FRANCIS DOLE
Prof. CHARLES P. FAGNANI
Prof. FRANK A. FETTER
Pres. JOHN H. FINLEY
Mrs. J. MALCOLM FORBES
Hon. JOHN W. FOSTER
Pres. G. STANLEY HALL
Rabbi EMIL G. HIRSCH
Prof. JESSE HERMAN HOLMES
Rev. CHARLES E. JEFFERSON
Rev. JENKIN LLOYD JONES
Pres. HARRY PRATT JUDSON
Hon. WILLIAM KENT
Prof. GEORGE W. KIRCH WEY
Hon. PHILANDER C. KNOX
Prof. EDWARD B. KREHBIEL
Rev. FREDERICK LYNCH
Mr. S. S. McCLURE
Mrs. LUCIA AMES MEAD
Mr. THEODORE MARBURG
Prof. ADOLPH C. MILLER
Pres. S. C. MITCHELL
Dr. JOHN R. MOTT
Prof. P. V. N. MYERS
Prof. BLISS PERRY
Mr. H. C. PHILLIPS
Mr. JACKSON HARVEY RALSTON
Prof. PAUL S. REINSCH
Pres. RUSH RHEES
Judge HENRY WADE ROGERS
Dean W. P. ROGERS
Prof. ELBERT RUSSELL
Dr. JAMES BROWN SCOTT
Pres. L. CLARK SEELYE
Mrs. MAY WRIGHT SEW ALL
Mr. THORVALD SOLBERG
Mr. MOORFIELD STOREY
Pres. CHARLES F. THWING
Pres. CHARLES R. VAN HISE
Dr. JAMES H. VAN SICKLE
Pres. GEORGE E. VINCENT
Pres. ETHELBERT D. WARFIELD
Mr. HARRIS WEINSTOCK
Hon. ANDREW DICKSON WHITE
Mr. THOMAS RAEBURN WHITE
Prof. GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON
Rabbi STEPHEN S. WISE
Pres. MARY E. WOOLLEY
Mr. STANLEY R. YARNALL
Deceased, April i, 1916.
GENERAL STAFF
1916
FRED B. FOULK
(Resigned to take effect October i, 1916.)
CHARLES H. LEVERMORE
EDWIN D. MEAD
(On leave of absence until September 30, 1916; retired on pension from October i, 1916.)
DENYS P. MYERS
(Corresponding Secretary and Librarian from April 1, 1916.)
GEORGE W. NASMYTH
Acting General Secretary
EDWARD CUMMINGS
(General Secretary from lune 3, 1916.)
Lecturers
RALPH NORMAN ANGELL LANE
(Until July 31, 1916.)
G. LOWES DICKINSON
(Until April 18, 1916.)
HAMILTON HOLT
GENERAL STAFF
1917
EDWARD CUMMINGS
General Secretary
CHARLES H. LEVERMORE
GEORGE W. NASMYTH
DENYS P. MYERS
Corresponding Secretary and Librarian
HAMILTON HOLT
Lecturer
OFFICE STAFF
ARTHUR W. ALLEN
Treasurer; in general charge of the clerical and office
staff and the building
ANNUAL REPORT; 1916
EFFECT OF THE WAR
War inevitably brought about a change of emphasis in the educa-
tional work of the Foundation. The general work of persuading the
world of the horrors of war and the blessings of peace was taken
over by the war itself, and done so effectively that it was no longer
necessary for the advocates of peace to go on writing, publishing
and lecturing on that theme. Before long even the warring nations
had officially declared that they were fighting one another for the
sole purpose of securing permanent peace, and making future wars
impossible. War-makers, peacemakers and neutrals all professed
to want the same thing — a practical plan of international co-operation
to insure peace. Under such circumstances, a great advance toward
the goal of international organization and world peace seemed pos-
sible, provided, before the war ended, the right plan could be dis-
covered, and the leaders of public opinion in the great nations could
be persuaded to favor its adoption as a basis for the coming peace.
The Foundation addressed itself to the twofold task of discovering
and advocating such a plan.
Fortunately the program outlined by the League to Enforce Peace
at Philadelphia, June 17, 1915, seemed to meet the requirements.
Moreover, it was advocated by men of commanding influence, and
it had the great advantage of uniting people who were divided on
other issues. Accordingly, on July 12, 1915, the Board of Trustees
expressed its approval of the general principles and policy adopted
by the League to Enforce Peace, and instructed its representatives
to support such principles and policy in the name of the Foundation.
The Foundation forthwith embarked upon an extensive educational
campaign for the purpose of creating an enlightened public opinion
in favor of such a League. To this end, the available energies and
resources of the Foundation have been freely used. The members
of the General Staff have entered into the work with enthusiasm.
Members of the Board of Trustees have also been prominently
identified with the movement; and their influence and devotion have
8 ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
contributed to the remarkable success of the movement in this country
and abroad.
In view of this action by the Foundation, it is interesting and
gratifying to see how closely the principles underlying the program
of the League to Enforce Peace coincide with the ideas so con-
sistently advocated by Mr. Ginn. The close parallel of his views
and those subsequently adopted by the League to Enforce Peace
is seen in the following passages. The first paragraph is from
Mr. Ginn’s pamphlet describing the World Peace Foundation in
1911; and the second is taken from his last published statement,
entitled “Organizing the Peace Work,” which was printed in the
World Peace Foundation Pamphlet Series in 1913, six months before
his death. They do not differ essentially from other statements
which appeared over his name, — one of which, from his letter to the
Nation in 1909, is quoted on the second page of this report.
Mr. Ginn
The establishment of an in-
ternational power would be the
natural beginning of a world-
congress, and the more complete
development of the international
court would follow. Until these
three branches of international
organization are perfected, there
will continue to be great loss of
life and property, which should
be devoted to the natural, peace-
ful development of the human
race.
Why not establish an interna-
tional army and navy comprised
of a small proportion of the forces
of each nation, — five or ten per
cent., or whatever is sufficient
for the purpose, — to protect each
Program of the League to
Enforce Peace
We believe it to be desirable
for the United States to join a
league of nations binding the
signatories to the following:
I. All justiciable questions
arising between the signa-
tory powers, not settled by
negotiation, shall, subject
to the limitation of treaties,
be submitted to a Judicial
Tribunal for hearing and
judgment, both upon the
merits and upon any issue
as to its jurisdiction of the
question.
II. All other questions arising
between the signatories and
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
9
and every one alike and restrain
the turbulent and unruly? It
will cost not a dollar more than
the nations themselves are now
paying individually. The ques-
tion of the organization and
management of such a force has
been raised; but similar action
was successfully taken during
the Boxer difficulties, and I be-
lieve that it could be worked out
on a larger scale. At the present
moment the nations of Europe
are acting in concert to modify
and check the ravages of war.
Such concerted action should be
extended to include all the na-
tions of the world. All the na-
tions should agree together that
their first duty is to preserve the
rights of each and all and to se-
cure permanent peace. Some say
that the nations will not so act,
that they dare not give up the
strong right arm on which they
have relied so long. In the
formation of this international
army they are not asked to give
up their own individual military
protection, but simply that each
shall contribute its proportion
for the protection of all. This
would leave the individual na-
tions relatively as strong as be-
fore, and each could continue
in force the old system until
convinced that it was no longer
not settled by negotiation,
shall be submitted to a
council of conciliation for
hearing, consideration and
recommendation.
III. The signatory powers shall
jointly use forthwith both
their economic and mili-
tary forces against any one
of their number that goes
to war, or commits acts of
hostility, against another
of the signatories before
any question arising shall
be submitted as provided
in the foregoing.
The following interpretation of
Article Three has been authorized
by the Executive Committee:
“The signatory powers shall
jointly employ diplomatic and
economic pressure against any
one of their number that threat-
ens war against a fellow signa-
tory without having first
submitted its dispute for inter-
national inquiry, conciliation,
arbitration or judicial hearing,
and awaited a conclusion, or
without having in good faith
offered so to submit it. They
shall follow this forthwith by
the joint use of their military
forces against that nation if it
actually goes to war, or com-
mits acts of hostility, against
another of the signatories before
any question arising shall be
IO
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
needed. We can point to our
own Canadian frontier, which
has remained unarmed for a
hundred years, as an example of
what can be done through trust
and good will. The nations must
no longer think of themselves
alone, but each as a part of the
great world, a necessary part,
that cannot exist without con-
tact with others. We are practi-
cally one great world force, each
nation being a part of the uni-
versal body politic.
dealt with as provided in the
foregoing.”
IV. Conferences between the
signatory powers shall be
held from time to time to
formulate and codify rules
of international law, which,
unless some signatory shall
signify its dissent within a
stated period, shall there-
after govern in the decisions
of the Judicial Tribunal
mentioned in Article One.
He firmly believed that an agreement among nations to co-operate
in providing an international force to repress disorder would be the
natural beginning of a world congress, and the best means of securing
the more complete development of international courts of arbitra-
tion and methods of conciliation. It is a striking tribute to his fore-
sight that he so closely anticipated the program which many statesmen
in many countries now regard as the most promising plan for insuring
peace and justice throughout the world.
In furtherance of these aims, the World Peace Foundation has
during the year 1916 been able to co-operate in the work of the League
to Enforce Peace in many ways:
1. By supplying office accommodations, and other facilities,
at 40 Mt. Vernon Street, Boston, for the Massachusetts
Branch of the League.
2. By supplying office accommodations, and other facilities,
for Mr. John C. Burg, the District Secretary of the League
for New England.
3. By contributing the services of Dr. George W. Nasmyth,
who, as Secretary of the Massachusetts Branch of the League,
has conducted a local educational campaign in the cities
and larger towns of Massachusetts with marked success.
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
II
4. By contributing the services and traveling expenses of Dr.
Charles H. Levermore to the work of organizing state
branches of the League in some of the Southern States,
during the spring and early summer.
5. By defraying the expenses of lectures, publications and other
forms of educational propaganda, as approved by the Ex-
ecutive Committee, in accordance with the • votes of the
Board of Trustees.
6. By furnishing for general distribution a special group of
pamphlets, as follows:
The Foundations of a League of Peace. By G. Lowes
Dickinson.
A League to Enforce Peace. By A. Lawrence Lowell.
The Outlook for International Law with letter commend-
ing the League to Enforce Peace. By Elihu Root.
The Monroe Doctrine and the Program of the League to
Enforce Peace. By George Grafton Wilson.
The Conciliation Plan of the League to Enforce Peace, with
American treaties in force.
Historical Light on the League to Enforce Peace.
STUDENT CLUBS
In accordance with the vote of the Board of Trustees, Mr. Fred
B. Foulk, A.B., of the University of Michigan, was made Executive
Secretary for the Federation of International Polity Clubs, with the
understanding that he should also be allowed to pursue courses in
international relations at Harvard University. This arrangement
was part of an agreement by which the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace was to be financially responsible for organizers
and lecturers to travel among colleges and universities, and similarly
responsible for the free distribution of books and pamphlets among
the club members.
At the meeting of the Board of Trustees on January 8, 1916, the
Committee of College Presidents, appointed to consider the work of
the Foundation in colleges, made the following report:
12
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
The Committee of College Presidents to whom was referred for con-
sideration the work of the Foundation in colleges, are of opinion that
the creation of separate polity clubs for the discussion of international
problems and peace among nations is in some cases detrimental to the best
interests of the colleges themselves. They believe that distinct societies
of students to discuss special topics in public life are already so numerous
in many colleges as to interfere with the development of a vigorous organi-
zation of undergraduates for the consideration of public questions in their
manifold aspects. The Committee recommend, therefore, that the Foun-
dation do not, except with the approval of the college authorities, promote
or assist new or existing special clubs in a college life already over-organized,
or offer prizes for new contests in writing or speaking; but attempt to
secure consideration for the prevention of war by the existing general
organs designed for writing, speaking and debate.
The Committee are of opinion that the interest of students in inter-
national relations and the means of maintaining peace among nations,
which in many places is now curiously torpid, might also be aroused by
addresses on the part of well-qualified persons at meetings where the whole
student body, or large parts of it, are gathered together.
Some members of the Committee feel that teachers in many colleges
show too much aloofness from the current problems of the times, and that
good may be done by leading instructors in the appropriate subjects to
devote more attention in their classes to these things. But that is a deli-
cate matter to be approached with a great deal of tact. If in some colleges,
instructors are too reticent about current questions, in others they have
been indiscreet or dogmatic about them, causing at times no little harm
to the institution and to the principle of academic freedom. An effort
to interest and inform teachers about the problems for which this Founda-
tion exists, is part of our duty, but what they shall say to their students
had best be left to their own good sense.
A. Lawrence Lowell.
William H. P. Faunce.
Joseph Swain.
An important feature of the work for 1915 among students had
been a fifteen-day conference at Cornell University in June, held
under the joint auspices of the World Peace Foundation, the Car-
negie Endowment for International Peace and the Church Peace
Union. The generous hospitality of President Charles F. Thwing
made it possible to hold the 1916 conference at Western Reserve
University. There was a gratifying attendance of students. The
success of the conference was insured by the enthusiasm of the
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
13
students, and the distinguished character of the speakers. It is under-
stood that the addresses delivered at the conference will appear,
from time to time, in the monthly issues of the International Polity
News, which is the organ of the federated clubs.
Subsequently, as a result of a conference between the repre-
sentatives of the Carnegie Endowment and the World Peace Foun-
dation, it was decided that the interests of this important work would
be better served by abandoning the system of joint control. This
improved form of administration was made possible by the generosity
of the Carnegie Endowment, which, in the autumn of 1916, assumed
complete responsibility, and provided for the transfer of Mr. Foulk
to its staff. Under the new auspices, we may confidently expect
that this department of student activities will be conducted with
increasing success.
AMERICAN SCHOOL PEACE LEAGUE
During the year 1916 the World Peace Foundation has continued
the co-operative arrangement of previous years, by which it defrays
the expenses of certain addresses, conferences and other forms of
educational activity conducted by the American School Peace League
among school teachers and school children in all parts of the country.
The reports of Mrs. Fannie Fern Andrews, Secretary of the League,
show how manifold and far-reaching the results of this co-operation
have been: and those members of the Board of Trustees of the World
Peace Foundation best acquainted with the work are impressed
with the extensive results obtained from relatively small expendi-
tures.
On the other hand, the World Peace Foundation has more than once
felt obliged to consider seriously the propriety of continuing its
expenditures in this well-organized field, to the neglect of work im-
peratively needed elsewhere. The issue was sharpened by the
embarrassing shrinkage in the available income of the Foundation,
pending the settlement of the Ginn Estate; and the annual budget
for 1916 was reported to the Board of Trustees with a recommendation
for diminished expenditure in this field, or complete withdrawal.
The Executive Committee, however, after careful consideration,
and after conference with representatives of the American School
14
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
Peace League, finally recommended the Board of Trustees to recon-
sider its action, in order to avoid all risk of embarrassing the work
of the School Peace League and disappointing natural expectations
by any unannounced change of policy. Accordingly, the customary
appropriation was voted for the current year, with formal notice
that it carried no presumption in favor of renewal.
Here, as in the case of the work among student clubs, the Founda-
tion withdraws from an educational field in which it is keenly inter-
ested, with the satisfaction of knowing that the work it has helped
initiate is now in the hands of an organization admirably equipped
to carry it on. There is work enough to tax to the utmost the energies
and resources of all organizations; and efficiency is gained by avoiding
the dangers of overlapping and divided responsibility; but it is one
of the legitimate functions of such a Foundation as this to initiate
and foster important activities until they have had opportunity
to demonstrate their usefulness and secure independent recognition
and support.
PUBLICATIONS
An important part of the educational work of the World Peace
Foundation has, from the very first, consisted in publishing and
distributing books and pamphlets.
I. The International Library.
As early as 1904, Mr. Ginn started publishing and distributing books
relating to peace under the general title “International Library.”
These publications were subsequently taken over by the World
Peace Foundation. The Library now comprises 30 volumes, dealing
with international law, the Hague Conferences, peace classics and
kindred topics. A list of these books with prices is furnished on
application.
II. The Pamphlet Series.
By far the larger part of the publications of the World Peace
Foundation are issued in the form of the Pamphlet Series. A com-
plete set of these pamphlets, arranged in six annual volumes, com-
prises 88 titles. Of these, 46 are now on the active list; others,
having served their immediate purpose, are not in sufficient demand
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
IS
to warrant new editions. New pamphlets, selected or prepared by
the Staff of the Foundation, and approved by the Executive Com-
mittee, are sent to the 11,000 addresses on the regular mailing
list. The yearly distribution of pamphlets and leaflets is about
200,000. The number distributed in 1916 was 275,000. There is
a gratifying increase in the demand for these publications by uni-
versity teachers in international law and kindred subjects, who are
glad to place in the hands of their students documents and other
valuable material not otherwise available in convenient form. Lect-
urers, preachers and organizations engaged in peace propaganda
often use considerable quantities of these pamphlets to supplement
their work.
To facilitate ordering pamphlets, lists have been prepared, con-
veniently arranged by topics, with space for the name and address
of applicant. Single copies of publications are furnished free of
charge.
The following books and pamphlets were published during the year
1916:
In the International Library:
“The Great Solution” by Senator Henri La Fontaine of Belgium.
In the Pamphlet Series:
T itle
The New Pan Americanism
Introduction
1. President Wilson’s Policy toward Latin America:
Circular Note of March 12, 1913
2. “The United States and Latin America.” Address
by President Wilson before the Southern Com-
mercial Congress, October 27, 1913
3. Mexican Affairs and the A. B. C. Mediation
4. The Pan American Union and Neutrality
5. Pan American Treaties for the Advancement of Peace
The New Pan Americanism. Part II April, No. 2
6. First Pan American Financial Conference, 1915.
(Opening Addresses of the President and Secretary
of State.)
7. Pan American Action regarding Mexico
8. President Wilson’s Annual Address to Congress,
December 7, 1915
Volume VI
February, No. 1
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
16
g. Second Pan American Scientific Congress. (Ad-
dresses of the Secretary of State and President.)
10. Pan American Agreement proposed by United
States
11. Books for Reading, Study and Reference
The Outlook for International Law With Letter Com-
mending the League to Enforce Peace
By Elihu Root
The Monroe Doctrine and the Program of the League to
Enforce Peace
By George Grafton Wilson
The Conciliation Plan of the League to Enforce Peace
with American Treaties in Force
Historical Light on the League to Enforce Peace
I. International Court
II. Conciliation Council
III. Sanctions
IV. Conferences to Develop Law
THE LIBRARY
The Library includes reference books, bound sets of periodicals,
and pamphlet volumes relating to the peace movement. It now
contains about 2,000 volumes. Accessions during 1916 numbered
18 1. Some 5,000 pamphlets, magazine articles and broadsides
are on file. There is also an important collection of some 35,000
clippings available for reference.
THE READING ROOM
The reading room has been discontinued and subscriptions to
periodicals have been curtailed. It was not successful. The room
was needed for office accommodations, when the Foundation extended
its hospitality to the League to Enforce Peace.
GENERAL STAFF
General Secretary.
At the meeting of the Board of Trustees on January 8, 1916, Edward
Cummings was made Chairman of the Executive Committee, and
Acting General Secretary of the Foundation. This arrangement
continued until the meeting of the Trustees on June 3, 1916, when he
June, No. 3
August, No. 4
October, No. 5
December, No. 6
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916 17
was elected General Secretary, having first qualified for the position
by resigning from the Board of Trustees.
As executive officer of the Foundation, it is the business of the
General Secretary to supervise the activities of the Foundation,
and give effect to the policy adopted by the Board of Trustees. With
the exception of the summer months, when the pressure of office work
was light, his routine duties have ordinarily kept him at the office
for a substantial part of each day: attending to correspondence;
conferring with members of the working staff; editing and prepar-
ing pamphlets; deciding which of the numerous, and often volumi-
nous, manuscripts submitted to the Foundation for publication shall
be sent to the Executive Committee for final approval or rejection.
He also responds, so far as possible, to requests for lectures and
addresses to public meetings and organizations of business men;
attends occasional conferences in other cities; consults with Com-
mittees and Officers of the Board in regard to questions of adminis-
tration, or crises in public affairs calling for special action on the
part of the Foundation; and he endeavors to keep in touch with
other organizations and specialists in the same field, with a view to
securing co-operation and avoiding duplication.
At the end of June, 1916, a statement on the Mexican crisis, signed
by Charles W. Eliot, Richard Olney, Henry L. Higginson, Samuel
J. Elder and A. Lawrence Lowell, was forwarded by the Foundation
to Government officials in Washington, to members of the National
Senate and House of Representatives, and was extensively repro-
duced by the newspapers.
At other crises in national affairs, the General Secretary, after
consulting accessible members of the Board of Trustees, has given
to the press, over his own signature, brief statements bearing upon
the foreign policy of the Government, with special reference to the
indorsement given by the President of the United States to the plan
for the formation of a league of nations to insure peace, which the
Trustees of the Foundation instructed its representatives to support.
Corresponding Secretary and Librarian.
Denys P. Myers, A.B., joined the Staff of the Foundation in
1910. He was formally designated Corresponding Secretary and
i8
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
Librarian by vote of the Board of Trustees, in April, 1916. During
the year he has revised and improved the library catalogue, and
made other changes contributing to the efficiency of the Library.
He replies to about 1,500 letters per year, requesting the kind of
information which can be furnished to a considerable extent by
forms and printed matter. He gives regular attention to the diplo-
matic exchanges of the United States, France, Great Britain, Nether-
lands, Sweden, Germany, and to Japanese and Mexican affairs.
He prepares, or aids in the preparation of, pamphlets and other
printed matter for the Foundation. He has recently prepared an
extensive monograph, entitled “Notes on the Conduct of Foreign
Relations,” which has been published at The Hague and also in the
United States.
The Librarian regularly supplies the Trustees with lists of books
added to the Library. From time to time he sends books and other
printed matter to the Trustees for their information. On request,
the Library furnishes to members of the Board of Trustees books
relating to the international problems with which the Foundation
is concerned. Trustees desiring to retain books permanently are
requested to notify the Librarian.
George W. Nasmyth, Ph.D., has been a resident member of
the Staff since 1913, — having previously done extensive work for
the Foundation in behalf of peace organizations among students
in European countries. One of the most important contributions
which World Peace Foundation has made to the educational propa-
ganda of the League to Enforce Peace has been the assignment of
Dr. Nasmyth to serve as Secretary of the Massachusetts Branch
of the League. The Chairman of the State Branch is President
A. Lawrence Lowell. Mr. J. Mott Hallowed is Chairman of the
Executive Committee. Dr. Nasmyth and his working staff have
been furnished office accommodations and other facilities at the
headquarters of the Foundation. The educational campaign in
Massachusetts has been pushed with vigor. Local committees have
been organized in the principal cities, followed by important public
meetings and notable addresses. The large amount of publicity
thus secured through press notices and reports of meetings has been
persistently supplemented by the distribution of literature through
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
19
the mail. Dr. Nasmyth has also delivered courses of lectures in
Boston, and responded to the demand for addresses in other cities
and other states. His recent book entitled, “Social Progress and
the Darwinian Theory,” published by G. P. Putnam’s Sons, is rec-
ognized as an important contribution to the literature of the peace
movement. It deserves careful attention by all who are concerned
with the underlying philosophy of social evolution and international
relations.
Charles H. Levermore, Ph.D., came to the Foundation in 1913.
From March 30 to June 20, 1916, he was working in the interests
of the League to Enforce Peace in Florida, Virginia, Alabama and
Mississippi. During the summer he finished a comprehensive his-
torical study of the origins and development of the Anglo-American
Agreement of 1817; and subsequently prepared for the Central
Organization for a Durable Peace a memorandum upon Article II
of its Minimum Program, which has since been published at The
Hague. He is now bringing out, through the house of Ginn & Com-
pany, a new song book, which will feature songs of international
justice and good will. During the autumn he revised his pamphlet
upon international relations, in the hope of making it more helpful
to debating clubs. In November, at the request of Mr. Samuel T.
Dutton, General Secretary of the World’s Court League, and also
a member of the Board of Trustees of World Peace Foundation, he
went to New York to assist in the re-organization of the World’s
Court League. On December 2 Mr. Dutton, by authority of the
Executive Committee of the World’s Court League, submitted to
the annual meeting of the Trustees of World Peace Foundation a
formal request for an annual appropriation in support of a permanent
and far-reaching plan of co-operation by the two organizations.
Although unable to adopt the suggestion, the Board of Trustees
voted to authorize Dr. Levermore to continue his work with the
League at the discretion of the Executive Committee.
Fred B. Foulk, A.B., came to the Foundation in November,
1915, to act as Executive Secretary of the International Polity Clubs,
under the arrangement, already referred to, between the World
Peace Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace. This arrangement was subsequently formally approved by
20
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
the Board of Trustees of World Peace Foundation, and Mr. Foulk
continued on the Staff of the Foundation until the autumn of 1916,
when the plan of joint control was superseded and the Carnegie
Endowment assumed entire responsibility for this work among
student clubs, and provided for the transfer of Mr. Foulk to its Staff.
As Executive Secretary he edited the monthly organ of the Federa-
tion of International Polity Clubs, called the International Polity
News; he also arranged the itineraries of some of the lecturers who
were sent to colleges and universities by World Peace Foundation,
and took general charge of work among students which Dr. Nasmyth
was obliged to relinquish because of his absorbing duties as Secretary
of the Massachusetts Branch of the League to Enforce Peace.
His enthusiasm for his work also led him to assume the gratuitous
burden and responsibility of editing the monthly organ of the Cosmo-
politan Clubs, known as the Cosmopolitan Student, — a publication
which the Foundation has been glad to encourage without being
in any way directly responsible for it.
Edwin D. Mead.
Edwin D. Mead was already a veteran in the peace movement
when the World Peace Foundation was established. His distin-
guished services had been recognized at home and abroad. In grate-
ful recognition of his many years of unrequited service, it was the
express desire of Mr. Ginn that provision for a generous retiring
pension should be included in the original contract which the Founda-
tion made with Mr. Mead. This provision became operative on
the first of October, 19x6, when Mr. Mead formally withdrew from
the service of the Foundation. He has been continuously ill since
the first of April, 1915, when the Board of Trustees, in grateful appre-
ciation of his services to the Foundation, granted him prolonged
leave of absence without diminution of salary, and recorded their
hope and belief that a period of rest would enable him to return to
his work in complete health and vigor.
CHANGES IN FORM OF ORGANIZATION
At the annual meeting of 1915, the Board of Trustees adopted a
recommendation for a substantial change in the form of organization,
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
21
so that the Committee on Organization is now named the Executive
Committee; the Chief Executive officer, the General Secretary;
the other “directors,” the General Staff. These and other changes
made it necessary, or at any rate convenient, to repeal the Standing
Orders originally adopted, together with some later scattered amend-
ments, so as to bring into convenient and accessible form the entire
code of Standing Orders applicable to the new form of organization.
Accordingly, upon joint recommendation of the Committee on Finance
and the Executive Committee, the outstanding Standing Orders
were repealed by vote of the Board of Trustees, at the Annual Meeting,
December 2, 1916, and in lieu thereof revised Standing Orders were
adopted as follows:
Standing Orders of the World Peace Foundation
I.
Financial Year
The financial year of this Foundation shall be from October first to September
thirtieth inclusive, but the budget shall regularly be made for the calendar year.
II.
Finance Committee
At the annual meeting, 'there shall be chosen in such manner as the Board of
Trustees shall determine a Finance Committee of three or five to serve for the
ensuing year. Such Finance Committee shall, under the By-Laws and Votes
of the Board, have general management of the building, property, investments,
income and disbursements of the Corporation. They shall see that the Treasurer
gives bond in accordance with the By-Laws and any Vote of this Board; and shall
be responsible for the custody of said bond. They shall have general charge
of the system of keeping and auditing the books by the Treasurer and the Auditor,
and shall see that disbursements are made only in accordance with authority
given by this Board.
In cases of emergency or unusual need, this Board not being in session, said
Finance Committee may authorize the expenditure of a sum or sums not exceed-
ing in the aggregate one thousand ($1,000) dollars, but such expenditures shall as
soon as practicable be reported by said Committee to this Board for its approval.
Said Committee shall each year, seasonably before the Annual Meeting, after
consultation with the Executive Committee, prepare and report to this Board
the Annual Budget.
Said Committee shall be entitled to receive at any time on request full informa-
tion and reports from the Treasurer of the Corporation and from the Executive
22
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
Committee and any special committee with relation to any matters, acts done
or proposed to be done, by or in behalf of this Corporation, involving the expendi-
ture of money.
Said Committee shall from time to time make such reports and recommenda-
tions to this Board with relation to financial matters, particularly with relation
to securing funds and endowments, as to the said Committees may seem meet,
or as it shall from time to time be directed by this Board.
III.
Executive Committee
At the Annual Meeting there shall also be chosen, in such manner as the Board
of Trustees shall determine, an Executive Committee of three or five members
to serve for the ensuing year. One member shall be designated as Chairman
by the Trustees. Said Committee shall select its own Secretary, and shall keep
adequate records open to the inspection of all Trustees.
Such Executive Committee shall, subject to the By-Laws and Vote of the Board,
have general charge and supervision of the organization of the paid and un-
paid forces of this Corporation, including the work of the General Staff.
It shall, at the Annual Meeting, recommend to the Board the election for the
ensuing year, unless sooner removed, of a certain designated number of named
persons to constitute the General Staff; recommending also one of said persons
as General Secretary, who shall be the chief executive of the Foundation.
It may, from time to time, choose or select, in such manner as to it may seem
wise, persons interested in the general purposes of this Corporation as Associate
Members thereof, and provide plans and means for so organizing such Associate
Members as to make their names, efforts and influence effective in the work of
this Corporation, including in such organization an Advisory Council, consist-
ing of men eminent and influential in the peace movement.
Plans of the General Staff with relation to organizations, bureaus and commit-
tees of Associate Members existing or to exist under Article VII of the By-Laws,
shall be referred to the Executive Committee for its approval or disapproval.
It shall be the duty of the Executive Committee each year, seasonably before
the Annual Meeting, to submit to the Finance Committee estimates and recom-
mendations for the Annual Budget.
Three stated meetings of the Executive Committee shall, on call of the Chair-
man, be held each year, — one shortly prior to the annual meeting of the Board
of Trustees. The Chairman shall call the other two meetings at such times as
the Committee or the Chairman may determine. Special meetings may be
called at any time by the Chairman or by the General Secretary.
IV.
Joint Meetings of Committees
By vote of the Board of Trustees, or at the call of the President of the Board
of Trustees, the Committee on Finance and the Executive Committee shall sit
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916 23
as a Joint Board to consider any matters which may be referred to them, or as to
which consideration in said Joint Committee shall be deemed expedient.
V.
General Staff of the World Peace Foundation
There shall also be chosen after report by the Executive Committee, herein-
before provided, at the Annual Meeting, a General Secretary and General Staff,
who shall be the working staff of the World Peace Foundation. The General
Secretary shall be entitled to be present at all meetings of the Trustees, of the
Committee on Finance and of the Executive Committee, but shall have no vote.
It shall be the duty of said General Staff, among other things, to do the following:
1. To confer with the General Secretary and to devise means and methods
of carrying on the work of this Corporation efficiently.
2. To incur no expense for or in the name of this Corporation except pursuant
to authority first duly obtained.
3. To cause to be presented to the Treasurer proper vouchers and accounts of
all moneys disbursed.
4. To report acts done and plans made at any time on request to this Board,
to any duly authorized Committee thereof, and to the General Secretary.
5. To carry on the work in accordance with the Votes of this Board and with
the directions of the Executive Committee, as given from time to time.
VI.
President of the Board of Trustees
The President of the Board of Trustees shall be ex-officio member of all standing
committees; but his membership therein shall not affect the number required
for a quorum.
VII.
Duties of the Treasurer
The Treasurer is to be held personally responsible for the heating, lighting
and cleaning of the building, and shall see that every office, store and packing
room and hallway is kept in an orderly and cleanly condition.
The Treasurer is to have general charge of the clerical and office staff, so that
when the heads of the departments are absent, and their secretaries are thus
set free, they may be assigned to assist other persons, or to do such work as may
be needed.
VIII.
Publications
Neither the General Staff nor any member thereof shall order any publication
of books or pamphlets to be issued in the name of the Foundation, without the
assent and approval of a majority of the Executive Committee first obtained
by vote — or in writing, after notice sent to all members.
24
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
No platform or program of policy, including the manifesto or program issued
by the General Staff in the fall of 1914, shall be issued without:
a. The approval of the Executive Committee, such approval to be given only
after they have been informed fully of the nature of the proposals to be
submitted for consideration.
b. Subsequent approval of the Board of Trustees.
IX.
Support of the League to Enforce Peace
The World Peace Foundation expresses its approval of the general principles
and policy adopted by the League to Enforce Peace, in Philadelphia, on June
17, 1915, and instructs the General Staff and representatives of the Foundation
to support such principles and policy in the name of the Foundation.
X.
Appropriations for other Organizations
Any appropriation made by the World Peace Foundation for the assistance
of any other organization or for persons not regular members of the Staff should
be considered as specific, and not be regarded as involving any obligation of
renewal.
Office Staff.
Arthur W. Allen, A.M., served as Assistant Treasurer of the
Foundation from 1910 to 1912. After the resignation of Mr. Richard
Henry Dana as Treasurer, Mr Allen performed the functions of both
Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer. On January 8, 1916, the Board
of Trustees adopted the recommendation of the Finance Committee,
abolishing the office of Assistant Treasurer and providing that the
funds of the Foundation shall be kept in two accounts, one known
as the Reserve Account, checks thereon to be good only when counter-
signed by some member of the Finance Committee, the other, the
Current Account, to be subject to the Treasurer’s checks and from
it all current bills to be paid. In addition to the customary duties
of his office, the Standing Orders provide that the Treasurer shall
be responsible for the heating, lighting and care of the building at
40 and 42 Mt. Vernon Street, and shall have general charge of the
clerical and office staff.
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
25
All these functions, Mr. Allen has fulfilled with uniform tact and
courtesy. The situation has been complicated by the fact that
the unusually ample office accommodations of the Foundation have,
during the past year, been frequently taxed to their capacity by
the hospitality extended to the Massachusetts Branch and the New
England District Secretary of the League to Enforce Peace. At
times of special activity, this has meant the presence in the building
of a large force of additional workers. Such intimate association by
independent groups of workers calls for tact and forbearance, as
well as co-operation; and it is a pleasure to acknowledge the courtesy
of Miss Marie J. Carroll and her associates on Dr. Nasmyth’s office
staff.
No account of the year’s work would be complete without the
cordial acknowledgment of the cheerful and efficient service rendered
by members of the office staff, the personnel of which, fortunately,
remains unchanged: Mr. A. Gilbert Allen in the Shipping Depart-
ment; Miss Beulah M. Cord, in the Library; and Miss Mary J. Mac-
Donald and Miss Marguerite Norton, Secretaries.
A LEAGUE OF NATIONS
The price of peace is organization. History shows that the price
has to be paid in advance. All the stable forms of peace thus far
secured have been paid for in that way. Municipal peace, state
peace and national peace have been purchased by organizing munic-
ipal, state and national families, and equipping them with judicial
substitutes for war and adequate guaranties of law and order. In-
ternational peace will have to be paid for in advance in the same way,
by organizing the family of nations, and equipping it with adequate
means for the judicial settlement of disputes and the maintenance
of law and order. The nations of today have no right to expect the
blessings of peace, or to complain about the prevalence of war. They
have not yet paid the advance price. They have not yet organized
to provide adequate judicial substitutes for war, or adequate sanc-
tions and guaranties for international law and order. People cry for
peace at any price; but no peace worthy of the name can be had at
any price except that of international organization.
26
ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
In time of war prepare for peace, is a good maxim; but unfortu-
nately most of the peace programs fail to get a hearing from any but
their own advocates, when once national antagonisms are aroused
and patriotic feeling runs high, and war is actual or imminent. But
happily this plan for a league of nations does not meet the same prej-
udice and hostility. On the contrary, many patriotic citizens,
who are conscientiously opposed to peace under existing conditions,
are enthusiastic supporters of a plan for a league of nations to main-
tain peace, and provide judicial substitutes and preventives for future
wars. So, instead of interfering with this fundamental form of peace*
propaganda, the lessons of the war and the terrible logic of events
have powerfully re-enforced it. As a result, the movement has from
the first commanded the respectful attention of belligerents as well
as neutrals, combatants as well as noncombatants. It has gradually
secured a large measure of popular support, and has received the per-
sonal and official indorsement of distinguished statesmen in this
country and abroad. It has also had the powerful backing of the
President of the United States, with the result that the project of a
league of nations to secure peace and justice throughout the world
has become the official program of the Government, and a prominent
factor in the foreign policy of the nation.
The proposed league of nations is therefore no longer a local move-
ment or a private propaganda. It is already welcomed by many
people of many parties in many countries, and has attained the dig-
nity of a national policy. Moreover, it is probably the only peace
movement which could have secured such respectful attention and
made such remarkable progress in time of war. Consequently, it
has overcome, to a considerable extent, the traditional and mis-
chievous tendency to regard the cause of peace as inconsistent with
national loyalty and patriotic devotion. Finally, it has brought new
hope and enthusiasm to a host of discouraged and almost hopeless
friends of peace, whose confidence and optimism had been so ruthlessly
shattered by the shock of world war that they were drifting into the
militarist camp in sheer despair. Its chief opponents are, naturally,
extreme pacifists and extreme militarists.
Because world peace presupposes world organization, it is fitting
that the World Peace Foundation should devote its energies and
ANNUAL REPORT, 1 91 6
27
resources to organizing a league of nations which shall provide for the
judicial settlement of disputes and penalize wars undertaken without
resort to arbitration and conciliation. Such a league is the first
step toward world organization and world peace. It is the next
logical step in political evolution. Until this initial step has been
taken, nations will continue to destroy one another in the name of
patriotism and duty. The establishment of the proposed league is
as much a patriotic duty as a duty to humanity. Its success is as
necessary to our own national safety and prosperity as to the safety
and prosperity of civilization. Such a league represents the realiza-
tion not only of patriotic hopes, but of moral and religious ideals, in
so far as it is a practical movement toward the family of nations and
the brotherhood of man.
Edward Cummings,
General Secretary.
CASH RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1916
RECEIPTS
Balance on hand, September 30, 1915 $9,087.64
Receipts from Edwin Ginn Estate on account of income
from $800,000 (account unsettled) 31,000.00
Net income from investments of Foundation 9,244.72
Miscellaneous items 952.64 $50,285.00
DISBURSEMENTS
Salaries $19,664.67
Lectures and other educational work 2,644.82
Educational propaganda: books, pamphlets, etc 6,702.67
Postage, telegrams and expressage 1,369.13
Traveling expenses 1,853.96
Office and general expenses 1,571.11
Rent 2,000.00
Expenditures in behalf of the program of the League to
Enforce Peace, Massachusetts Branch 3,000.00
Expenditures, since repaid, for account of the League to
Enforce Peace, Massachusetts Branch 517.64
Expenditures in behalf of the League to Enforce Peace,
American Branch 675.32
Expenditures for account of Cleveland Conference on
International Relations of 1916 1,474.40
Expenditures for the work of the American School Peace
League 2,500.00
Miscellaneous items 1,354.64
Total Expenditures $45,328.36
Balance on hand, September 30, 1916 . 4,956.64 $50,285.00
INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY
Edited by EDWIN D. MEAD
PUBLISHED BY THE WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION
40 MT. VERNON STREET, BOSTON, MASS.
PEACE CLASSICS
Seven volumes, for the set, postpaid, $3.00
Addresses on War. By Charles Sumner. 8vo, xxvii, 321 pages.
Cloth-bound, postpaid $0.60
Bethink Yourselves! By Leo Tolstoi, byi x 4^ in., 50 pages.
Paper-bound, postpaid 10
Discourses on War. By William Ellery Channing. 8vo, lxi,
229 pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid 60
Eternal Peace and Other International Essays. By Immanuel
Kant. 8vo, xxiv, 179 pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid . . .75
Future of War. By Jean de Bloch. 8vo, lxxix, 380 pages.
Cloth-bound, postpaid 65
Great Design of Henry IV. With introduction by Edwin D.
Mead. 8vo, xxi, 91 pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid . . .55
War Inconsistent with the Religion of Jesus Christ. By David
Low Dodge. 8vo, xxiv, 168 pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid .60
WORLD ORGANIZATION
Sixteen volumes, for the set, postpaid, $14.00
American Addresses at the Second Hague Conference. Edited
by James Brown Scott. 8vo, xlviii, 217 pages. Cloth-
bound, postpaid $1.50
First Book of World Law. By Raymond L. Bridgman. 8vo,
v, 308 pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid 1.50
First Hague Conference. By Andrew D. White. 8vo, vi, 125
pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid 55
The Great Solution. Magnissima Charta. Essay on evolutionary
and constructive pacifism. By Henri La Fontaine. 8vo,
x, 177 pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid 1.25
International Arbitral Law and Procedure. By Jackson H.
Ralston. 8vo, xix, 352 pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid . 2.20
Inter-Racial Problems. Papers communicated to the First Uni-
versal Races Congress, London, July 26-29, 1911- Edited
by G. Spiller. Quarto, xvi, 485 pages. Cloth-bound,
postpaid ............ 2.00
Mohonk Addresses. By Edward Everett Hale and David J.
Brewer. 8vo, xxviii, 150 pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid . .50
INTERNATIONAL LIBRARY
Edited by EDWIN D. MEAD
WORLD ORGANIZATION (Continued)
New Peace Movement. By William I. Hull. 8vo, xi, 217 pages.
Cloth-bound, postpaid
Patriotism and the New Internationalism. By Lucia Ames
Mead. 6^4 x 4^4 in., 125 pages. Paper-bound, postpaid .
Public International Unions. By Paul S. Reinsch. 8vo, viii,
189 pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid
Sir Randal Cremer. By Howard Evans. 8vo, 356 pages.
Cloth-bound, postpaid
1.65
1.40
Texts of the Peace Conferences at The Hague, 1899 and 1907.
Edited by James Brown Scott. 8vo, xxxiv, 447 pages.
Cloth-bound, postpaid
The Coming People. By Charles F. Dole. 4x6^ in., xii, 224
pages. Seventh edition, with chapter on “The Coming
World Order.” Paper-bound, postpaid
Towards International Government. By John A. Hobson. 216
pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid
Two Hague Conferences. By William I. Hull. 8vo, xiv, 516
pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid
World Organization. By Raymond L. Bridgman. 8vo, vi, 172
pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid
1.65
•35
•50
1.6s
.60
MISCELLANEOUS
Blood of the Nation. By David Starr Jordan. 6^ x 4^/4 in.,
82 pages. Paper-bound, postpaid $0.15
Ethics of Force. By H. E. Warner. 8vo, v, 126 pages. Cloth-
bound, postpaid SS
Fisheries Arbitration Argument of Elihu Root. Edited, with In-
troduction and Appendix, by James Brown Scott. 8vo,
cli, 523 pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid 2.00
Moral Damage of War. By Walter Walsh. 8vo, xiii, 462
pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid 90
Prize Orations of the Intercollegiate Peace Association. Edited,
with introduction, by Stephen F. Weston. 8vo, xiii, 185
pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid 75
Student Conference on International Relations, Cornell Uni-
versity, June 15-30, 1915. 8vo, ix, 418 pages. Cloth-
bound, postpaid 1.75
Syllabus of Lectures on International Conciliation. By David
Starr Jordan and Edward B. Krehbiel. 9 x 5^ in.,
180 pages. Paper-bound, postpaid 25
WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION
PAMPHLET SERIES, SELECTED LIST
AMERICA AND THE EUROPEAN WAR. By Norman Angell
AMERICAN LEADERSHIP FOR PEACE AND ARBITRATION. By Cam. Schurz
ANGLO-AMERICAN AGREEMENT OF 1817. By Charles H. Levermore
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE FOR ARBITRATION
CONFERENCE OF NEUTRAL STATES
DRAIN OF ARMAMENTS. By Arthur W. Allen
FORCES WARRING AGAINST WAR. By Havelock Ellis
IMMUNITY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SEA. By Joseph H. Choate
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE AMERICAN DELEGATES TO THE HAGUE CONFERENCES,
i8gg and 1907. By Hon. John Hay and Hon. Elihu Root
INTERNATIONAL DUTY OF THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN. By
Edwin D. Mead
MISSION OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE CAUSE OF PEACE. By David J. Brewer
NEW PAN AMERICANISM
Part I. Introduction; 1. President Wilson’s Policy toward Latin America; 2. “The
United States and Latin America”; 3. Mexican Affairs and the A. B. C. Mediation;
4. The Pan American Union and Neutrality; 5. Pan American Treaties for the Ad-
vancement of Peace.
Part II. 6. First Pan American Financial Conference, igij; 7. Pan American Action
regarding Mexico; 8. President Wilson’s Annual Address, December 7, 1915; g. Second
Pan American Scientific Congress.
Part III. 10. Central American League of Nations.
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS CONCERNING NEUTRAL AND BELLIGERENT RIGHTS
ISSUED SINCE AUGUST 4, igi4. Separate pamphlets with individual titles as
follows:
Neutrality Proclaimed and Explained; Appendix, The Declaration of London.
War Zones.
War Zones (continued), Interference with American Trade with Neutrals.
Foodstuffs Cargo of the “Wilhelmina” in British Prize Court, German and
Austrian Attitude toward American Trade, Sinking of the “William P. Frye.”
Sinking of the “Lusitania,” and Attacks on the “Falaba,” “Gulflight,” “Cush-
ing,” and “Nebraskan.”
ORGANIZING THE PEACE WORK. By Edwin Ginn
PANAMA CANAL TOLLS; THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES. By Hon.
Elihu Root
PANAMA CANAL TOLLS, OUR DUTY CONCERNING. By Thomas Raeburn White
giOdl ^ pT.FUJA TOWER
PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT AND THE INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION.
By Christian L. Lange
RECORD OF THE HAGUE. Compiled by Denys P. Myers
SOME SUPPOSED JUST CAUSES OF WAR. By Jackson H. Ralston
UNITED STATES OF EUROPE. By Victor Hugo
WAR NOT INEVITABLE. By Hon. John W. Foster
WASHINGTON, JEFFERSON AND FRANKLIN ON WAR. By Edwin D. Mead
WASTE OF MILITARISM. From the report of the Massachusetts Commission on the Cost
of Living, 1910
WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION: ANNUAL REPORT, 1916
Full list of Volumes I -VII on request
Single copies free. Price in quantities on application
Volume title-pages for binding furnished on request
WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION
40 Mt. Vernon Street Boston, Mass.
PUmrlb Peace Jjomtfottimt
40 MT. VERNON STREET
BOSTON
Single copies of all pamphlets free
Complete list of publications on application
league to (Enforce $eace
The Foundations of a League of Peace. By G. Lowes Dickinson.
A League to Enforce Peace. By A. Lawrence Lowell.
The Outlook for International Law with letter commending the League
to Enforce Peace. By Elihu Root.
The Monroe Doctrine and the Program of the League to Enforce Peace.
By George Grafton Wilson.
The Conciliation Plan of the League to Enforce Peace, with American
treaties in force.
Historical Light on the League to Enforce Peace.
The Central American League of Nations.
| tBf )t fc of tf )t Hague Conferences j
American Addresses at the Second Hague Conference. Edited
by James Brown Scott. 8vo, xlviii+217 pages. Cloth-
bound, postpaid $1.50
First Hague Conference. By Andrew D. White. 8vo, vi+125
pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid 55
Immunity of Private Property at Sea. By Joseph H. Choate.
Instructions to the American Delegates to the Hague Conferences,
1899 and 1907. By Hon. John Hay and Hon. Elihu
Root, Secretaries of State.
Record of The Hague. By Denys P. Myers.
Texts of the Peace Conferences at The Hague, 1899 and 1907.
Edited by James Brown Scott. 8vo, xxxiv+447 pages.
Cloth-bound, postpaid 1.65
Towards International Government. By John A. Hobson. 216
pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid 50
Two Hague Conferences. By William I. Hull. 8vo, xiv+516
pages. Cloth-bound, postpaid 1.65
1
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11