Chapter CXVIII: Section 38: abolishes the so-called "Army Canteen," in (1)

compliance with strenuous demands from temperance
organizations in the country, notwithstanding much testimony
favorable to the canteen system from well-informed and
conscientious witnesses. The language of the section is as
follows: "The sale of or dealing in beer, wine, or any
intoxicating liquors, by any person in any post exchange or
canteen or army transport, or upon any premises used for
military purposes by the United States, is hereby prohibited.
The Secretary of War is hereby directed to carry the
provisions of this section into full force and effect." Prompt
obedience to this command of law was given by the War
Department, which issued the required general order February
4th.

The following amendment, proposed by Senator Hoar for addition
to the Act, was voted down: "Provided, That no further
military force shall be used in the Philippine Islands, except
such as may be necessary to keep order in places there now
actually under the peaceable control of the United States and
to protect persons or property to whom, in the judgment of the
President, protection may be due from the United States, until
the President shall have first proclaimed an amnesty for all
political offenses committed against the United States in the
Philippine Islands, and shall have, if in his power, agreed
upon an armistice with persons now in hostility to the United
States, and shall have invited such number, not less than 10,
as he shall think desirable of the leaders or representatives
of the persons now hostile to the United States there to come
to the United States and state their wishes and the condition,
character, and wishes of the people of the Philippine Islands
to the Executive and Congress, and shall have offered to
secure to them safe conduct to come, abide, and return, and
shall have provided at the public charge for the expenses of
their transportation both ways and their stay in this country
for a reasonable and sufficient time for such purpose."

{680}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1910 (February).
The Russian sugar question.
United States countervailing duty and Russian retaliation.

See (in this volume)
SUGAR BOUNTIES.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (February-March).
Adoption of the so-called "Spooner Amendment" to
the Army Appropriation Bill empowering the President to
establish a civil government in the Philippines.

See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY-MARCH).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (February-March).
Adoption of the "Platt Amendment," prescribing conditions on
which the President is authorized to "leave the government and
control of the island of Cuba to its people."

See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY-MARCH).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (March).
Reinauguration of President McKinley for a second term in the
executive office. His inaugural address.

The reinauguration of President McKinley, for the second term
of office to which he had been elected, was performed with the
customary ceremonies, at the capitol, in Washington, on the
4th of March, 1001. His inaugural address upon the occasion is
especially interesting, for the reason that it indicates the
understanding with which the President received his
re-election, and the interpretation which he has put upon it
as an expression of the national will on questions of
extraordinary moment. He spoke as follows:

"My Fellow Citizens: When we assembled here on March 4, 1897,
there was great anxiety with regard to our currency and
credit. None exists now. Then our treasury receipts were
inadequate to meet the current obligations of the government.
Now they are sufficient for all public needs, and we have a
surplus instead of a deficit. Then I felt constrained to
convene the Congress in extraordinary session to devise
revenues to pay the ordinary expenses of the government. Now I
have the satisfaction to announce that the Congress just
closed has reduced taxation in the sum of $41,000,000. Then
there was deep solicitude because of the long depression in
our manufacturing, mining, agricultural and mercantile
industries, and the consequent distress of our laboring
population. Now every avenue of production is crowded with
activity, labor is well employed and American products find
good markets at home and abroad. Our diversified productions,
however, are increasing in such unprecedented volume as to
admonish us of the necessity of still further enlarging our
foreign markets by broader commercial relations. For this
purpose reciprocal trade arrangements with other nations
should in liberal spirit be carefully cultivated and promoted.

"The national verdict of 1896 has for the most part been
executed. Whatever remains unfulfilled is a continuing
obligation resting with undiminished force upon the Executive
and the Congress. But fortunate as our condition is, its
permanence can only be assured by sound business methods and
strict economy in national administration and legislation. We
should not permit our great prosperity to lead us to reckless
ventures in business or profligacy in public expenditures.
While the Congress determines the objects and the sum of
appropriations, the officials of the executive departments are
responsible for honest and faithful disbursement, and it
should be their constant care to avoid waste and extravagance.
Honesty, capacity and industry are nowhere more indispensable
than in public employment. These should be fundamental
requisites to original appointment and the surest guarantees
against removal.

"Four years ago we stood on the brink of war without the
people knowing it and without any preparation or effort at
preparation for the impending peril. I did all that in honor
could be done to avert the war, but without avail. It became
inevitable, and the Congress at its first regular session,
without party division, provided money in anticipation of the
crisis and in preparation to meet it. It came. The result was
signally favorable to American arms and in the highest degree
honorable to the government. It imposed upon us obligations
from which we cannot escape, and from which it would be
dishonorable to seek to escape. We are now at peace with the
world, and it is my fervent prayer that if differences arise
between us and other powers they may be settled by peaceful
arbitration, and that hereafter we may be spared the horrors
of war.

"Intrusted by the people for a second time with the office of
President, I enter upon its administration appreciating the
great responsibilities which attach to this renewed honor and
commission, promising unreserved devotion on my part to their
faithful discharge and reverently invoking for my guidance the
direction and favor of Almighty God. I should shrink from the
duties this day assumed if I did not feel that in their
performance I should have the cooperation of the wise and
patriotic men of all parties. It encourages me for the great
task which I now undertake to believe that those who
voluntarily committed to me the trust imposed upon the chief
executive of the republic will give to me generous support in
my duties to 'preserve, protect and defend the constitution of
the United States,' and to 'care that the laws be faithfully
executed.' The national purpose is indicated through a
national election. It is the constitutional method of
ascertaining the public will. When once it is registered it is
a law to us all, and faithful observance should follow its
decrees.

"Strong hearts and helpful hands are needed, and fortunately
we have them in every part of our beloved country. We are
reunited. Sectionalism has disappeared. Division on public
questions can no longer be traced by the war maps of 1861.
These old differences less and less disturb the judgment.
Existing problems demand the thought and quicken the
conscience of the country, and the responsibility for their
presence as well as for their righteous settlement rests upon
us all, no more upon me than upon you. There are some national
questions in the solution of which patriotism should exclude
partisanship. Magnifying their difficulties will not take them
off our hands nor facilitate their adjustment. Distrust of the
capacity, integrity and high purpose of the American people
will not be an inspiring theme for future political contests.
Dark pictures and gloomy forebodings are worse than useless.
These only becloud, they do not help to point the way of
safety and honor. 'Hope maketh not ashamed.'

{681}

"The prophets of evil were not the builders of the republic,
nor in its crises have they saved or served it. The faith of
the fathers was a mighty force in its creation, and the faith
of their descendants has wrought its progress and furnished
its defenders. They are obstructionists who despair and who
would destroy confidence in the ability of our people to solve
wisely and for civilization the mighty problems resting upon
them. The American people, intrenched in freedom at home, take
their love for it with them wherever they go, and they reject
as mistaken and unworthy the doctrine that we lose our own
liberties by securing the enduring foundations of liberty to
others. Our institutions will not deteriorate by extension,
and our sense of justice will not abate under tropic suns in
distant seas.

"As heretofore so hereafter will the nation demonstrate its
fitness to administer any new estate which events devolve upon
it, and in the fear of God will 'take occasion by the hand and
make the bounds of freedom wider yet.' If there are those
among us who would make our way more difficult we must not be
disheartened, but the more earnestly dedicate ourselves to the
task upon which we have rightly entered. The path of progress
is seldom smooth. New things are often found hard to do. Our
fathers found them so. We find them so. They are inconvenient.
They cost us something. But are we not made better for the
effort and sacrifice, and are not those we serve lifted up and
blessed?

"We will be consoled, too, with the fact that opposition has
confronted every onward movement of the republic from its
opening hour until now, but without success. The republic has
marched on and on, and its every step has exalted freedom and
humanity. We are undergoing the same ordeal as did our
predecessors nearly a century ago. We are following the course
they blazed. They triumphed. Will their successors falter and
plead organic impotency in the nation? Surely after one
hundred and twenty-five years of achievement for mankind we
will not now surrender our equality with other Powers on
matters fundamental and essential to nationality. With no such
purpose was the nation created. In no such spirit has it
developed its full and independent sovereignty. We adhere to
the principle of equality among ourselves, and by no act of
ours will we assign to ourselves a subordinate rank in the
family of nations.

"My fellow citizens, the public events of the last four years
have gone into history. They are too near to justify recital.
Some of them were unforeseen; many of them momentous and far
reaching in their consequences to ourselves and our relations
with the rest of the world. The part which the United States
bore so honorably in the thrilling scenes in China, while new
to American life, has been in harmony with its true spirit and
best traditions, and in dealing with the results its policy
will be that of moderation and fairness.

"We face at this moment a most important question—that of the
future relations of the United States and Cuba. With our near
neighbors we must remain close friends. The declaration of the
purposes of this government in the resolution of April 20,
1898, must be made good. Ever since the evacuation of the
island by the army of Spain the Executive with all practicable
speed has been assisting its people in the successive steps
necessary to the establishment of a free and independent
government prepared to assume and perform the obligations of
international law, which now rest upon the United States under
the Treaty of Paris. The convention elected by the people to
frame a constitution is approaching the completion of its
labors. The transfer of American control to the new government
is of such great importance, involving an obligation resulting
from our intervention and the treaty of peace, that I am glad
to be advised by the recent act of Congress of the policy
which the legislative branch of the government deems essential
to the best interests of Cuba and the United States. The
principles which led to our intervention require that the
fundamental law upon which the new government rests should be
adapted to secure a government capable of performing the
duties and discharging the functions of a separate nation, of
observing its international obligations, of protecting life
and property, insuring order, safety and liberty, and
conforming to the established and historical policy of the
United States in its relation to Cuba.

"The peace which we are pledged to leave to the Cuban people
must carry with it the guarantees of permanence. We became
sponsors for the pacification of the island, and we remain
accountable to the Cubans no less than to our own country and
people for the reconstruction of Cuba as a free commonwealth,
on abiding foundations of right, justice, liberty and assured
order. Our enfranchisement of the people will not be completed
until free Cuba shall 'be a reality, not a name—a perfect
entity, not a hasty experiment, bearing within itself the
elements of failure.'

"While the treaty of peace with Spain was ratified on February
6, 1899, and ratifications were exchanged nearly two years
ago, the Congress has indicated no form of government for the
Philippine Islands. It has, however, provided an army to
enable the Executive to suppress insurrection, restore peace,
give security to the inhabitants and establish the authority
of the United States throughout the archipelago. It has
authorized the organization of native troops as auxiliary to
the regular force. It has been advised from time to time of
the acts of the military and naval officers in the islands, of
my action in appointing civil commissions, of the instructions
with which they were charged, of their duties and powers, of
their recommendations and of their several acts under
Executive commission, together with the very complete general
information they have submitted.

"These reports fully set forth the conditions, past and
present, in the islands, and the instructions clearly show the
principles which will guide the Executive until the Congress
shall, as it is required to do by the treaty, determine 'the
civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants.'
The Congress having added the sanction of its authority to the
powers already possessed and exercised by the Executive under
the constitution, thereby leaving with the Executive the
responsibility for the government of the Philippines, I shall
continue the efforts already begun until order shall be
restored throughout the islands, and as fast as conditions
permit will establish local governments, in the formation of
which the full co-operation of the people has been already
invited, and when established will encourage the people to
administer them.

{682}

"The settled purpose, long ago proclaimed, to afford the
inhabitants of the islands self-government as fast as they
were ready for it will be pursued with earnestness and
fidelity. Already something has been accomplished in this
direction. The government's representatives, civil and
military, are doing faithful and noble work in their mission
of emancipation, and merit the approval and support of their
countrymen. The most liberal terms of amnesty have already
been communicated to the insurgents, and the way is still open
for those who have raised their arms against the government
for honorable submission to its authority.

"Our countrymen should not be deceived. We are not waging war
against the inhabitants of the Philippine Islands. A portion
of them are making war against the United States. By far the
greater part of the inhabitants recognize American
sovereignty, and welcome it as n guarantee of order and
security for life, property, liberty, freedom of conscience
and the pursuit of happiness. To them full protection will be
given. They shall not be abandoned. We will not leave the
destiny of the loyal millions in the islands to the disloyal
thousands who are in rebellion against the United States.
Order under civil institutions will come as soon as those who
now break the peace shall keep it. Force will not be needed or
used when those who make war against us shall make it no more.
May it end without further bloodshed, and there be ushered in
the reign of peace, to be made permanent by a government of
liberty under law."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (March).
Rejection by the British government of the Interoceanic Canal
Treaty as amended by the Senate.

See (in this volume)
CANAL, INTEROCEANIC: A. D. 1901 (MARCH).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (March).
Death of Ex-President Harrison.

Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States 1889-1893,
died at his home in Indianapolis, on the afternoon of March
13, 1901, after an illness of a few days.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (March-April).
Capture of Aguinaldo, the Filipino leader.
His oath of allegiance to the United States.

See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1901 (MARCH-APRIL).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (April).
Organization of the enlarged regular army.
Its strength, 76,000 men.

A Press despatch from Washington, April 24, announced that the
Secretary of War had approved recommendations of
Lieutenant-General Miles for the organization of the army, not
raising it to the full strength of 100,000 men authorized by
Congress, but providing for a force of 76,787 enlisted men,
distributed as follows:
"Line of the army, 74,504;
ordnance department, 700;
signal corps, 760;
post quartermaster sergeants, 150;
post commissary sergeants, 200;
electrician sergeants, 100;
Military Academy detachment and band, 298;
Indian scouts, 75.

The cavalry is to be organized into fifteen regiments,
consisting of 12 troops of 85 enlisted men, which, with the
bands, will make a cavalry force of 15,840 men. The infantry
is to consist of 38,520 men, divided into 30 regiments of 12
companies each. The artillery corps will have a total of
18,862 men, of which the coast artillery will have 13, 734,
organized into 126 companies of 109 men each; and the field
artillery, 4,800 men, organized into 30 batteries of 150 men
each. The engineer battalions will consist of 12 companies
amounting to 1,282 men. This plan makes no provision for the
employment of Filipino natives, but this is explained by the
fact that the 12,000 authorized for the native military force
was made a distinctive feature of the Army bill by Congress
and separated from the Regular Army."

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (April).
Petition from the workingmen of Porto Rico.

See (in this volume)
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1901 (APRIL).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1901 (May).
Decision of the Supreme Court in the cases involving
questions touching the status of the new territorial
possessions of the nation.

The opinions of the Supreme Court in the cases before it known
as "the insular cases," involving questions touching the
relations of the government of the United States to the
insular possessions lately acquired (see above: A. D.
1900-1901), were announced on the 27th of May, as these sheets
of the present volume were about to go to press.

In the case of Elias S. A. De Lima et al. the opinion of the
majority of the Court, delivered by Justice Brown, was against
the claim of the government to duties on goods imported into
the United States from Porto Rico after the ratification of
the treaty of peace with Spain and before the passage of the
Porto Rican act of April 12, 1900.

See, (in this volume),
PORTO RICO: A. D. 1899-1900; and 1900, APRIL).

It was held in this decisive opinion that Porto Rico, at the
time the duties in question were collected, was not a foreign
country, but a territory of the United States. Said Justice
Brown: "If an Act of Congress be necessary to convert a
foreign country into domestic territory, the question at once
suggests itself, What is the character of the legislation
demanded for this purpose? Will an act appropriating money for
its purchase be sufficient? Apparently not. Will an act
appropriating the duties collected upon imports to and from
such country for the benefit of its government be sufficient?
Apparently not. Will acts making appropriations for its postal
service, for the establishment of lighthouses, for the
maintenance of quarantine stations, for erecting public
buildings, have that effect? Will an act establishing a
complete local government, but with the reservation of a right
to collect duties upon commerce, be adequate for that purpose?
None of these, nor all together, will be sufficient, if the
contention of the government be sound, since acts embracing
all these provisions have been passed in connection with Porto
Rico, and it is insisted that it is still a foreign country
within the meaning of the tariff laws. We are unable to
acquiesce in this assumption that a territory may be at the
same time both foreign and domestic. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that at the time these duties were levied Porto Rico
was not a foreign country within the meaning of the tariff
laws, but a territory of the United States; that the duties
were illegally exacted, and that the plaintiffs are entitled
to recover them back."

But in the case of Samuel B. Downes et al. a different set of
circumstances was dealt with, since the duties in question
were on goods imported from Porto Rico after the passage of
the Act of April 12 (called "the Foraker Act"). On the
question thus presented the majority of the Court sustained
the contention of the government, saying, in an opinion
delivered by Justice Brown:

{683}

"We are of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a
territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but
not a part of the United States within the revenue clause of
the Constitution; that the Foraker act is constitutional so
far as it imposes duties upon imports from such island and
that the plaintiff cannot recover the duties exacted in this
case." The following general conclusions were held by Justice
Brown to be established:

"First—That the District of Columbia and the Territories are
not States, within the judicial clause of the Constitution
giving jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different
States.

"Second—That Territories are not States, within the meaning of
revised statutes, section 709, permitting writs of error from
this court in cases where the validity of a State's statute is
drawn in question.

"Third—That the District of Columbia and the Territories are
States as that word is used in treaties with foreign powers,
with respect to the ownership, disposition and inheritance of
property.

"Fourth—That the Territories are not within the clause of the
Constitution providing for the creation of a Supreme Court and
such inferior courts as Congress may see fit to establish.

"Fifth—That the Constitution does not apply to foreign
countries or trials therein conducted, and that Congress may
lawfully provide for such trials before consular tribunals,
without the intervention of a grand or petit jury.

"Sixth—That where the Constitution has been once formally
extended by Congress to Territories, neither Congress nor the
Territorial Legislature can enact laws inconsistent
therewith."

Five of the nine justices of the Court concurred in the decree
announced by Justice Brown; but three of them, viz., Justices
White, Shims and McKenna, placed their concurrence on
different and quite opposed grounds, in an opinion prepared by
Justice White. In their view of the case before the court,
"the sole and only issue is, had Porto Rico, at the time of
the passage of the Act in question, been incorporated into and
become an integral part of the United States?" and their
conclusion is reported to have been, that "the question when
Porto Rico was to be incorporated was a political question, to
be determined by the American people, speaking through
Congress, and was not for the courts to determine."

The minority of the Court, consisting of Chief Justice Fuller,
Justices Harlan, Brewer and Peckham dissented from the decree
rendered by the majority, and from the varying grounds on
which the two sections of that majority had rested it. As
summarized in press despatches of the day, their opinion,
delivered by the Chief Justice, "absolutely rejected the
contention that the rule of uniformity [that is, the
constitutional provision that 'all duties, imposts and excises
shall be uniform throughout the United States'] was not
applicable to Porto Rico because it had not been incorporated
into and become an integral part of the United States; the
word incorporation had no occult meaning, and whatever its
situation before, the Foraker act made Porto Rico an organized
Territory of the United States." "The concurring opinion of
the majority," said the Chief Justice, "recognized that
Congress, in dealing with the people of new territories or
possessions, is bound to respect the fundamental guarantees of
life, liberty and property, but assumes that Congress is not
bound in those territories or possessions to follow the rules
of taxation prescribed by the Constitution. And yet the power
to tax involves the power to destroy and the levy of duty
touches all our people in all places under the jurisdiction of
the Government. The logical result is that Congress may
prohibit commerce altogether between the States and
Territories, and may prescribe one rule of taxation in one
Territory, and a different rule in another. That theory
assumes that the Constitution created a government empowered
to acquire countries throughout the world, to be governed by
different rules than those obtaining in the original States
and Territories, and substitutes for the present system of
republican government, a system of domination over distant
provinces in the exercise of unrestricted power. In our
judgment, so much of the Porto Rican act as authorized the
imposition of these duties is invalid and plaintiffs were
entitled to recover."

Justice Harlan announced his concurrence with the dissenting
opinion delivered by the Chief Justice. He regarded the
Foraker act as unconstitutional in its revenue provisions, and
believed that Porto Rico, after the ratification of the treaty
with Spain, became a part of the United States. In conclusion,
Justice Harlan said: "The addition of Porto Rico to the
territory of the United States has been recognized by direct
action upon the part of Congress. It has legislated in
recognition of the treaty with Spain. If Porto Rico did not by
such action become a part of the United States it did become
such, at least, when Congress passed the Foraker act. I can
not believe that Congress may impose any duty, impost or
excise with respect to that territory and its people which is
not consistent with the constitutional requirement that all
duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the
United States."

No decision was rendered in the case of the Fourteen Diamond
Rings, which involved questions relative to the status of the
Philippine Islands in their relations to the government of the
United States.

----------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: End--------

UNITED STATES OF CENTRAL AMERICA.
Its formation and dissolution.

See (in this volume)
CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1898.

UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION.

See (in this volume)
TRUSTS: UNITED STATES: THE CLIMAX, &c.

UNIVERSITIES.

See (in this volume)
EDUCATION.

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA:
Expeditions to explore the ruins of Nippur.

See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL, RESEARCH: BABYLONIA: AMERICAN EXPLORATION.

UNYORO:
British regulation of the kingdom.

See (in this volume)
UGANDA: A. D. 1897-1898.

UR.

See (in volume 1)
BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE;

See (in volume 4)
SEMITES;
and (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA.

{684}

URUGUAY: A. D. 1896-1899.
Revolutionary movement.
Assassination of President Borda.
Blancos and Colorados.
Restoration of tranquil government by the
Vice President, Cuestas.

In November, 1896, a movement for the overthrow of President
Borda was begun, with strong assistance from the neighboring
Brazilian State of Rio Grande do Sul. Months of civil war
followed, with varying fortunes, but the summer of 1897 found
the President parleying with the insurgents, endeavoring to
make terms. His original opponents had been the party called
that of the Blancos, or Whites; the Colorados, or Reds, had
supported him; but he seemed to be making enemies among them.
By an assassin of his own party he was shot, on the 25th of
August, as he came from a service in the cathedral at
Montevideo which commemorated the anniversary of Uruguayan
independence. Senor Juan Luis Cuestas, the President of the
Senate and ex-officio Vice President of the Republic, assumed
the administration of the government, made peace with the
insurgents, and prepared to deal with a faction in the
Chambers which is said to have made good government
impossible. "The Representatives had made themselves hated by
violence, corruption, and attacks on property. Senor Cuestas
accordingly removed all officials devoted to the Chambers,
called out a thousand National Guards, and being thus master
of the situation, on February 10th dissolved the Chambers and
declared himself provisional President. He then appointed a
'Council' of eighty prominent citizens of all parties,
invested them with the legislative power, and directed them to
elect a new President, and to settle the method and time of
the next elections. … According to the 'Times',
correspondent, the citizens of Monte Video of all parties
approved his action, not a stroke was struck for the Chambers,
and public securities rose at once by from eight to fourteen
points. Senor Cuestas, in fact, is trusted and competent."

_The Spectator (London),
March 26, 1898._

In due time, the Provisional President had to deal with a
military revolt, which he effectually suppressed. Then, on the
1st of March, 1899, he was constitutionally elected President,
after resigning his dictatorial powers for a fortnight, in
order that the election might be freely held.

UTAH: A. D. 1895-1896.
Prohibition of polygamous marriages.
Proclamation of admission to the Union.

On the 4th of January, 1896, a proclamation by the President
of the United States, after reciting the provisions of the Act
of Congress approved July 16, 1894, and the action taken by a
convention of the people of Utah, held in accordance with the
said act, in March, 1895, which convention "did, by ordinance
irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the
people of said State, as required by said act, provide that
perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and
that no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person
or property on account of his or her mode of religious
worship, but that polygamous or plural marriages are forever
prohibited," thereupon declared and proclaimed the creation of
the State of Utah and its admission into the Union to be
accomplished. The constitution of the new State has some
radical features, providing for an eight-hours labor-day, and
giving to women equal rights with men in suffrage and in
eligibility to public office.

V.

VASSOS, Colonel, in Crete.

See (in this volume)
TURKEY: A. D. 1897 (FEBRUARY-MARCH).

"VEGETARIANS," The.

See (in this volume)
CHINA: A. D. 1895 (AUGUST).

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895.
Revolt suppressed.

An attempted rising, in the interest of Dr. Rojas Paul,
against the government of President Crespo, in the autumn of
1895, was quickly suppressed.

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (July).
The question of the boundary of British Guiana taken up by the
government of the United States.
Despatch of Secretary Olney to Ambassador Bayard.

For a number of years the government of the United States had
been exerting itself to bring about the settlement of a long
standing dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela
concerning the line of boundary between the territory of
Venezuela and that of British Guiana. In 1895 the effort
became more resolute, as appeared in a lengthy despatch
addressed, on the 20th of July, by the American Secretary of
State, Mr. Olney, to the American Ambassador in London, Mr.
Bayard. In this despatch Mr. Olney reviewed the long
controversy which had been in progress, and recalled the
communications on the subject which had passed between the
governments of the United States and Great Britain since 1886.
He then summarised "the important features of the existing
situation" as represented in his recital, by the following
statement:

"1. The title to territory of indefinite but confessedly very
large extent is in dispute between Great Britain on the one
hand, and the South American Republic of Venezuela on the
other.

2. The disparity in the strength of the claimants is such that
Venezuela can hope to establish her claim only through
peaceful methods—through an agreement with her adversary
either upon the subject itself or upon an arbitration.

3. The controversy with varying claims on the part of Great
Britain has existed for more than half-a-century, during which
period many earnest and persistent efforts of Venezuela to
establish a boundary by agreement have proved unsuccessful.

4. The futility of the endeavour to obtain a conventional line
being recognized, Venezuela, for a quarter of a century, has
asked and striven for arbitration.

5. Great Britain, however, has always and continuously
refused, and still refuses, to arbitrate except upon the
condition of a renunciation of a large part of the Venezuelan
claim, and of a concession to herself of a large share of the
territory in controversy.

{685}

6. By the frequent interposition of its good offices at the
instance of Venezuela, by constantly urging and promoting the
restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries,
by pressing for arbitration of the disputed boundary, by offering
to act as Arbitrator, by expressing its grave concern whenever
new alleged instances of British aggression upon Venezuelan
territory have been brought to its notice, the Government of
the United States has made it clear to Great Britain and to
the world that the controversy is one in which both its honour
and its interests are involved, and the continuance of which
it cannot regard with indifference."

Mr. Olney proceeds next to consider the rights, the interests
and the duty of the United States in the matter, and to what
extent, if any, it "may and should intervene in a controversy
between and primarily concerning only Great Britain and
Venezuela," and his conclusions on these points are founded on
the doctrine set forth by President Monroe, of resistance to
European intervention in American affairs. Quoting President
Monroe's celebrated Message on the subject, in 1823, Mr. Olney
remarks:

"The Message just quoted declared that the American continents
were fully occupied, and were not the subjects for future
colonization by European Powers. To this spirit and this
purpose, also, are to be attributed the passages of the same
Message which treat any infringement of the rule against
interference in American affairs on the part of the Powers of
Europe as an act of unfriendliness to the United States. It
was realized that it was futile to lay down such a rule unless
its observance could be enforced. It was manifest that the
United States was the only Power in this hemisphere capable of
enforcing it. It was therefore courageously declared, not
merely that Europe ought not to interfere in American affairs,
but that any European Power doing so would be regarded as
antagonizing the interests and inviting the opposition of the
United States.

"That America is in no part open to colonization, though the
proposition was not universally admitted at the time of its
first enunciation, has long been universally conceded. We are
now concerned, therefore, only with that other practical
application of the Monroe doctrine the disregard of which by
an European Power is to be deemed an act of unfriendliness
towards the United States. The precise scope and limitations
of this rule cannot be too clearly apprehended. It does not
establish any general Protectorate by the United States over
other American States. It does not relieve any American State
from its obligations as fixed by international law, nor
prevent any European Power directly interested from enforcing
such obligations or from inflicting merited punishment for the
breach of them. It does not contemplate any interference in
the internal affairs of any American State, or in the
relations between it and other American States. It does not
justify any attempt on our part to change the established form
of Government of any American State, or to prevent the people
of such State from altering that form according to their own
will and pleasure. The rule in question has but a single
purpose and object. It is that no European Power or
combination of European Powers shall forcibly deprive an
American State of the right and power of self-government, and
of shaping for itself its own political fortunes and
destinies. That the rule thus defined has been the accepted
public law of this country ever since its promulgation cannot
fairly be denied. …

"It is manifest that, if a rule has been openly and uniformly
declared and acted upon by the Executive Branch of the
Government for more than seventy years without express
repudiation by Congress, it must be conclusively presumed to
have its sanction. Yet it is certainly no more than the exact
truth to say that every Administration since President
Monroe's has had occasion, and sometimes more occasions than
one, to examine and consider the Monroe doctrine, and has in
each instance given it emphatic indorsement. … A doctrine of
American public law thus long and firmly established and
supported could not easily be ignored in a proper case for its
application, even were the considerations upon which it is
founded obscure or questionable. No such objection can be
made, however, to the Monroe doctrine understood and defined
in the manner already stated. It rests, on the contrary, upon
facts and principles that are both intelligible and
incontrovertible. That distance and 3,000 miles of intervening
ocean make any permanent political union between an European
and an American State unnatural and inexpedient will hardly be
denied. But physical and geographical considerations are the
least of the objections to such a union. Europe, as Washington
observed, has a set of primary interests which are peculiar to
herself. America is not interested in them, and ought not to
be vexed or complicated with them. …

"If, … for the reasons stated, the forcible intrusion of
European Powers into American politics is to be deprecated—if,
as it is to be deprecated, it should be resisted and
prevented—such resistance and prevention must come from the
United States. They would come from it, of course, were it
made the point of attack. But, if they come at all, they must
also come from it when any other American State is attacked,
since only the United States has the strength adequate to the
exigency. Is it true, then, that the safety and welfare of the
United States are so concerned with the maintenance of the
independence of every American State as against any European
Power as to justify and require the interposition of the
United States whenever that independence is endangered? The
question can be candidly answered in but one way. The States
of America, South as well as North, by geographical proximity,
by natural sympathy, by similarity of Governmental
Constitutions, are friends and allies, commercially and
politically, of the United States. To allow the subjugation of
any of them by an European Power is, of course, to completely
reverse that situation, and signifies the loss of all the
advantages incident to their natural relations to us. But that
is not all. The people of the United States have a vital
interest in the cause of popular self-government. … To-day the
United States is practically Sovereign on this continent, and
its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its
interposition. Why? It is not because of the pure friendship
or good-will felt for it. It is not simply by reason of its
high character as a civilised State, nor because wisdom and
justice and equity are the invariable characteristics of the
dealings of the United States. It is because, in addition to
all other grounds, its infinite resources, combined with its
isolated position, render it master of the situation, and
practically invulnerable as against any or all other Powers.
{686}
All the advantages of this superiority are at once imperilled
if the principle be admitted that European Powers may convert
American States into Colonies or provinces of their own. The
principle would be eagerly availed of, and every Power doing
so would immediately acquire a base of military operations
against us. What one Power was permitted to do could not be
denied to another, and it is not inconceivable that the
struggle now going on for the acquisition of Africa might be
transferred to South America. If it were, the weaker countries
would unquestionably be soon absorbed, while the ultimate result
might be the partition of all South America between the
various European Powers. …

"The people of the United States have learned in the school of
experience to what extent the relations of States to each
other depend not upon sentiment nor principle, but upon
selfish interest. They will not soon forget that, in their
hour of distress, all their anxieties and burdens were
aggravated by the possibility of demonstrations against their
national life on the part of Powers with whom they had long
maintained the most harmonious relations. They have yet in
mind that France seized upon the apparent opportunity of our
Civil War to set up a Monarchy in the adjoining State of
Mexico. They realize that, had France and Great Britain held
important South American possessions to work from and to
benefit, the temptation to destroy the predominance of the
Great Republic in this hemisphere by furthering its
dismemberment might have been irresistible. From that grave
peril they have been saved in the past, and may be saved again
in the future, through the operation of the sure but silent
force of the doctrine proclaimed by President Monroe. …

"There is, then, a doctrine of American public law, well
founded in principle and abundantly sanctioned by precedent,
which entitles and requires the United States to treat as an
injury to itself the forcible assumption by an European Power
of political control over an American State. The application
of the doctrine to the boundary dispute between Great Britain
and Venezuela remains to be made, and presents no real
difficulty. Though the dispute relates to a boundary-line,
yet, as it is between States, it necessarily imports political
control to be lost by one party and gained by the other. The
political control at stake, too, is of no mean importance, but
concerns a domain of great extent—the British claim, it will
be remembered, apparently expanding in two years some 33,000
square miles—and, if it also directly involves the command of
the mouth of the Orinoco, is of immense consequence in
connection with the whole river navigation of the interior of
South America. It has been intimated, indeed, that in respect
of these South American possessions, Great Britain is herself
an American State like any other, so that a controversy
between her and Venezuela is to be settled between themselves
as if it were between Venezuela and Brazil, or between
Venezuela and Colombia, and does not call for or justify
United States intervention. If this view be tenable at all,
the logical sequence is plain. Great Britain as a South
American State is to be entirely differentiated from Great
Britain generally; and if the boundary question cannot be
settled otherwise than by force, British Guiana with her own
independent resources, and not those of the British Empire,
should be left to settle the matter with Venezuela—an
arrangement which very possibly Venezuela might not object to.
But the proposition that an European Power with an American
dependency is for the purposes of the Monroe doctrine to be
classed not as an European but as an American State will not
admit of serious discussion. If it were to be adopted, the
Monroe doctrine would be too valueless to be worth asserting.
…

"The declaration of the Monroe Message—that existing Colonies
or dependencies of an European Power would not be interfered
with by the United States—means Colonies or dependencies then
existing with their limits as then existing. So it has been
invariably construed, and so it must continue to be construed,
unless it is to be deprived of all vital force. Great Britain
cannot be deemed a South American State within the purview of
the Monroe doctrine, nor, if she is appropriating Venezuelan
territory, is it material that she does so by advancing the
frontier of an old Colony instead of by the planting of a new
Colony. The difference is matter of form, and not of
substance, and the doctrine if pertinent in the one case must
be in the other also. It is not admitted, however, and
therefore cannot be assumed, that Great Britain is in fact
usurping dominion over Venezuelan territory. While Venezuela
charges such usurpation Great Britain denies it, and the
United States, until the merits are authoritatively
ascertained, can take sides with neither. But while this is
so—while the United States may not, under existing
circumstances at least, take upon itself to say which of the
two parties is right and which wrong—it is certainly within
its right to demand that the truth shall be ascertained. …

"It being clear, therefore, that the United States may
legitimately insist upon the merits of the boundary question
being determined, it is equally clear that there is but one
feasible mode of determining them, viz., peaceful arbitration.
The impracticability of any conventional adjustment has been
often and thoroughly demonstrated. Even more impossible of
consideration is an appeal to arms—a mode of settling national
pretensions unhappily not yet wholly obsolete. If, however, it
were not condemnable as a relic of barbarism and a crime in
itself, so one-sided a contest could not be invited nor even
accepted by Great Britain without distinct disparagement to
her character as a civilized State. Great Britain, however,
assumes no such attitude. On the contrary, she both admits
that there is a controversy, and that arbitration should be
resorted to for its adjustment. But, while up to that point
her attitude leaves nothing to be desired, its practical
effect is completely nullified by her insistence that the
submission shall cover but a part of the controversy—that, as
a condition of arbitrating her right to a part of the disputed
territory, the remainder shall be turned over to her. If it
were possible to point to a boundary which both parties had
ever agreed or assumed to be such either expressly or tacitly,
the demand that territory conceded by such line to British Guiana
should be held not to be in dispute might rest upon a
reasonable basis. But there is no such line. The territory
which Great Britain insists shall be ceded to her as a
condition of arbitrating her claim to other territory has
never been admitted to belong to her.
{687}
It has always and consistently been claimed by Venezuela. Upon
what principle—except her feebleness as a nation—is she to be
denied the right of having the claim heard and passed upon by
an impartial Tribunal? No reason or shadow of reason appears
in all the voluminous literature of the subject. …

"In these circumstances, the duty of the President appears to
him unmistakable and imperative. Great Britain's assertion of
title to the disputed territory, combined with her refusal to
have that title investigated, being a substantial
appropriation of the territory to her own use, not to protest
and give warning that the transaction will be regarded as
injurious to the interests of the people of the United States,
as well as oppressive in itself, would be to ignore an
established policy with which the honour and welfare of this
country are closely identified. While the measures necessary
or proper for the vindication of that policy are to be
determined by another branch of the Government, it is clearly
for the Executive to leave nothing undone which may tend to
render such determination unnecessary. You are instructed,
therefore, to present the foregoing views to Lord Salisbury by
reading to him this communication (leaving with him a copy
should he so desire), and to reinforce them by such pertinent
considerations as will doubtless occur to you. They call for a
definite decision upon the point whether Great Britain will
consent or will decline to submit the Venezuelan boundary
question in its entirety to impartial arbitration. It is the
earnest hope of the President that the conclusion will be on
the side of arbitration, and that Great Britain will add one
more to the conspicuous precedents she has already furnished
in favour of that wise and just mode of adjusting
international disputes. If he is to be disappointed in that
hope, however—a result not to be anticipated, and in his
judgment calculated to greatly embarrass the future relations
between this country and Great Britain—it is his wish to be
made acquainted with the fact at such early date as will
enable him to lay the whole subject before Congress in his
next Annual Message."

_Great Britain, Parliamentary Publications
(Papers by Command:
United States Number 1, 1896, pages 13-21)._

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (November).
The British Guiana boundary question.
Replies of Lord Salisbury to Secretary Olney.

The reply of Lord Salisbury was not written until the 26th of
November. It was then given in two despatches, bearing the
same date,—one devoted entirely to a discussion of "the Monroe
doctrine" and of the argument founded on it by Mr. Olney; the
other to a rehearsal of the Venezuela controversy from the
standpoint of the British government. In the communication
first mentioned he wrote:

"The contentions set forth by Mr. Olney in this part of his
despatch are represented by him as being an application of the
political maxims which are well known in American discussion
under the name of the Monroe doctrine. As far as I am aware,
this doctrine has never been before advanced on behalf of the
United States in any written communication addressed to the
Government of another nation; but it has been generally
adopted and assumed as true by many eminent writers and
politicians in the United States. It is said to have largely
influenced the Government of that country in the conduct of
its foreign affairs; though Mr. Clayton, who was Secretary of
State under President Taylor, expressly stated that that
Administration had in no way adopted it. But during the period
that has elapsed since the Message of President Monroe was
delivered in 1823, the doctrine has undergone a very notable
development, and the aspect which it now presents in the hands
of Mr. Olney differs widely from its character when it first
issued from the pen of its author. The two propositions which
in effect President Monroe laid down were, first, that America
was no longer to be looked upon as a field for European
colonization; and, secondly, that Europe must not attempt to
extend its political system to America, or to control the
political condition of any of the American communities who had
recently declared their independence. The dangers against
which President Monroe thought it right to guard were not as
imaginary as they would seem at the present day. … The system
of which he speaks, and of which he so resolutely deprecates
the application to the American Continent, was the system then
adopted by certain powerful States upon the Continent of
Europe of combining to prevent by force of arms the adoption
in other countries of political institutions which they
disliked, and to uphold by external pressure those which they
approved. … The dangers which were apprehended by President
Monroe have no relation to the state of things in which we
live at the present day. … It is intelligible that Mr. Olney
should invoke, in defence of the views on which he is now
insisting, an authority which enjoys so high a popularity with
his own fellow-countrymen. But the circumstances with which
President Monroe was dealing, and those to which the present
American Government is addressing itself, have very few
features in common. Great Britain is imposing no 'system' upon
Venezuela, and is not concerning herself in any way with the
nature of the political institutions under which the
Venezuelans may prefer to live. But the British Empire and the
Republic of Venezuela are neighbours, and they have differed
for some time past, and continue to differ, as to the line by
which their dominions are separated. It is a controversy with
which the United States have no apparent practical concern. It
is difficult, indeed, to see how it can materially affect any
State or community outside those primarily interested, except
perhaps other parts of Her Majesty's dominions, such as
Trinidad. The disputed frontier of Venezuela has nothing to do
with any of the questions dealt with by President Monroe. It is
not a question of the colonization by a European Power of any
portion of America. It is not a question of the imposition
upon the communities of South America of any system of
government devised in Europe. It is simply the determination
of the frontier of a British possession which belonged to the
Throne of England long before the Republic of Venezuela came
into existence.

{688}