the Treaty of Bogotá, and from that day to this have continued to pursue the same perverse policy.

Nothing further in the form of a settlement was attempted until March 1917, when the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate consented to "consider a new treaty with Colombia, by which the United States would pay something for the separation of Panama from the Republic, but made no mention of any expression of regret for the wrong done. This treaty was pressed to a vote during a special session of the Senate; but again it failed to pass. In July 1919 the Acting-Secretary of State, Mr. Polk, and the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Lodge, again took up the pending treaty, and once more with the same negative result. The Foreign Relations Committee then resolved to postpone indefinitely the approbation of any sort of treaty with Colombia, owing to that Government's decree declaring that all petroliferous lands were the property of the nation-as, indeed, they are, as much as the surveyed or unsurveyed public lands in the United States are the property of that nation. The Committee feared that any such admission meant "the confiscation of all petroliferous lands owned by United States companies." Such a contention, however, was raised by no other country whose nationals held oil tracts or concessions, satisfied to leave small nations to deal with such matters in their own way and according to their own laws. It is worthy of note in this connection that it was not until British capital had gone into Colombia and had helped materially towards preliminary tests (and later on the development) of the oil-fields of that Republic that United States interests there arose.

The continued bad faith of the great Northern State now became so palpable that no responsible Colombian politician could be found willing to continue to carry on negotiations, or even to allow to remain in type the draft of the original Urrutiá-Thompson Treaty. A number of native millionaires, in an outburst of patriotism, offered to turn over to the national Treasury in bars of gold the 25,000,000 dollars which the Government of the United States had long ago admitted to be due, but which it perversely refused to pay. Others advocated a complete breaking-off of negotiations with the United States and the entry into direct arrangements with Panama as regarded frontiers ; an appeal to the League of Nations regarding the treaty of 1846" and its scandalous violation"; a strong internal effort to invigorate and ennoble the Republic and to shelter

it from machinations from outside, and a great and united combination against "the threatening schemes of Yankee capitalism."

Wrongs, as we know, do not leave off where they begin, but still beget new mischiefs in their course. This axiom is being abundantly evidenced in the relations between the United States and many of the Latin American Republics, which see in the callous treatment of Panama a standing menace to their own interests, present and future.

The power and the will to terrorize and coerce the smaller countries of Latin America possessed by the United States were further exemplified by the action taken against Costa Rica about a year ago. In the spring of 1920 a party of British capitalists, working, as was believed, in loyal co-operation with North American interests, had obtained from the Costa Rican Government a valuable concession to work certain oil-bearing lands comprising an area of several thousands of square miles. At that time Washington was feeling offended with the small Central American State because it had had the audacity to reorganize its Administration and get rid of an unpopular President without consulting the wishes or the opinion of the United States. As a mark of resentment, the White House had refused to recognize the new Costa Rican Administration, but reconsidered its decision when British interests made their appearance in the Republic. Without first extending to the Government of Costa Rica official recognition of its existence, interference in its affairs might have been ineffective. Therefore, on August 2, 1920, the much desired intimation of recognition reached the national palace at San José, but accompanied by an expression of disapproval at the granting of any concession to British interests, the reason adduced being that certain--and absolutely necessary-water-rights along the Nicaraguan frontier were comprised within the grant. The United States, having dispossessed Colombia of Panama for the purposes of a canal, resolved that no other similar waterway or canal of any description should be built in this part of the world unless by North American interests; therefore it acquired, in its own way and at its own price, the only other possible canal route via the Atrato River and the Lake of Nicaragua, both within the borders of the latternamed State. Although the water-rights comprised within the British oil-concession could not in any way have interfered with, or jeopardized the success of, any Nicaraguan canal which might or might not be built within the next

hundred years, the "dog in the manger " policy of Washington again succeeded, as it always has succeeded, in Latin America.

Terrorized at the idea of offending the Northern Colossus, and fearful that the dearly cherished recognition at Washington might be withdrawn, Congress, sitting at San José, forthwith cancelled the British concession, although this had been duly granted with all necessary formalities through the good offices of the British Minister, Mr. A. P. Bennett, C.M.G. This now forfeited but very valuable concession will, no doubt, pass into the hands of North American interests which Washington can better control; and thus once again will British interests in Latin America have been sacrificed to please and placate the bullies of the State Department at Washington.

What have the Latin American States to hope for from the new occupant of the White House? Mr. Harding is believed to be imperialistic in his ideas regarding Latin American politics, and the smaller States have already expressed alarm at the prospect of dominating action by the great Republic of the north. The extravagantly interpreted Monroe Doctrine for ever suspended, like the Sword of Damocles, above their heads-that enactment once denounced by Bismarck as "a piece of international impertinence "--has eliminated the European and Eastern nations which would have extended their economic and constructive work to those promising, and as yet virgin, territories of Latin America. The "Doctrine " was intelligible when propounded. The United States had but recently obtained their freedom after a long and bitter struggle against this country; the Napoleonic Empire had fallen, and the Holy Alliance still stood as a menace to the liberty of religious thought and action of the New World. But those days have

passed, and the "Doctrine" appears to have lost much reality. Moreover, it has become something of an anomaly, since, while professing to exist for the protection of Latin Americans against the aggression of European nations, i.e. as a bulwark against dangers in which nobody believes, it offends the young and vigorous Latin American nations of the New World, occasioning among them a disquietude that cannot be allayed and threatening the sovereignty of those countries.

The case of Colombia above cited affords an objectlesson that cannot be misread or explained away, producing sentiments of resentment which have at length taken the form of a Latin American League of Nations, promoted by

VOL. LXXVII

22

influential Argentine and Mexican representatives, and formed mainly as a protective measure against the United States. This is the outcome of no German propaganda, as has been alleged; it reflects the earnest and serious concern of the Latin American peoples and their desire to save themselves from the ogre who poses as their guardian angel.

PERCY F. MARTIN

A SUGGESTION FOR THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

Ir is earnestly to be hoped that the forthcoming Imperial Conference will allot the foremost place in its deliberations to the question of Defence. Written Constitutions have not proved a success even for individual nations, and it would be a waste of time for the Conference to try to evolve such a constitution for that most complex organism known as the British Empire. Defence, however, is quite another matter. Not only is it essential to the safety of the British communities all over the world, but it offers the best and simplest method for drawing them together and cementing them into a firm and stable foundation upon which the peace of the world and the future of civilization can be built.

A mere glance at the map of the world is sufficient to impress upon anyone who takes the trouble to open an atlas the fact that each Dominion has its own peculiar and difficult problems of foreign policy. Now, however much we may dislike the idea, there can be no doubt that at the present stage in the world's development an effective foreign policy is impossible unless it can be backed by force when necessary. These two statements should be enough to show that the Dominions have a right to a voice in questions of policy which affect them, and also a right to be represented on any body charged with the organization of British forces; for it is evident that these forces must be organized as a whole and upon a co-operative basis if the Empire is to carry its full weight in the councils of the world and be in a position effectively to guarantee peace.

No doubt many people will quarrel with the last statement and say that there is no guarantee that these forces will not be used aggressively. History, however, affords us clear and perfectly impartial evidence on this point. There have been at least four occasions when Englishmen have intervened to prevent the whole of Europe falling under the domination of one man : in Elizabeth's time