which to attend, to such matters, Secretary Seward explained the Monroe Doctrine to the Emperor, and French support was withdrawn from the ill-fated Maximilian, thus ending the last attempt on the part of any European power to make a new foothold in the western hemisphere.1 57. Germany and Samoa.-Not under the Monroe Doctrine, but simply on general principles we cried halt to Germany in her efforts to acquire Samoa, and forced her to make an equitable arrangement with this country and Great Britain in regard to the control of that far-off Archipelago roe Doctrine as announced, its subsequent application and the opinions of publicists in regard thereto. At the foot of pp. 248, 285 and 300 will be found three notes which refer to numerous authorities which he has consulted in preparing his matter. The authorities as they are collated in those notes are as follows: At the foot of page 284: "Wheaton, Elem., pte. 2, ch. 1, Sec. 11; Wheaton, Hist., t. 1, pp. 110-114; t. II, pp. 219-239, 252-260; Vattel, Le droit, livre II, ch. iv, sec., 54, 56, 57; liv. III, ch. iii, Sec. 50; Martens, Precis, Sec. 74; Phillimore, Com., vol. I, pte. 4, pp. 433-483; Kent, Com., vol. I, pp. 22, 23; Kluber, Droit, Sec. 51; Heffter, Secs. 44-46; Bluntschli, Le droit, Sec. 474; Manning, pp. 97, 98; Wildmann, vol. I, p. 47; Bello, pte. I, cap. i, Sec. 7; Riquelme, lib. I, tit. 2, cap. xxiv; Halleck, ch. iv, Sec. 4; ch. xxiv, Sec. 12; Huber, De jure, lib. III, cap. vii, Sec. 4; Pando, p. 74; Dolloz, Repertoire, V. Droit des gens, ns. 86 et seq.; Verge, Martens, t. I, pp. 202 et seq.; Berriat Saint-Prix, Theorie, pp. 164 et seq.; Pinheiro Ferreira, Vattel, iv. II, ch. iv, Sec. 56; Guizot, Memories, t. IV, pp. 4, 5; Pradier-Fodere, Vattel, t. II, pp. 27 et seq., 308; Ott, Kluber, Sec. 51, note c; Hautefeuille, Le principe de non-intervention; Funck Brentano et Sorel, Precis, ch. xi, Hall; int. law, p. 242." At the foot of p. 300: "Dana, Elem., by Wheaton, note 36; British and foreign State papers, v. I, pp. 662 et seq.; v. VII, pp. 585 et seq.; v. VIII, pp. 524 et seq.; v. XI, pp. 4 et scq.; v. XII, pp. 535 et seq.; v. XIII, pp. 390 et seq.; 483 et seq.; v. XXXIII, pp. 198 et seq.; United States laws, v. X, p. 995; Calhoun, Works, vol. IV, p. 454; Mackintosh, Works, vol. III, pp. 433-478; Webster, Works, vol. III, p. 178; Torres Caicedo, Union, cap. xii, p. 63; Sarmiento, A discourse, p. 14; Sarmiento, Vida de Lincoln, int. p. xxiii; Lastari, La America, cap. xiv, p. 139; Valiente, Reformas, p. 211; Gervinus, t. x, pp. 125 et seq.; Ch. Calvo, America latina, periodo 1o, t. III, p. 338; periodo 3o; Alaman, t. V, pp. 815-819; Lawrence, Elem., by Wheaton, note 46; Buchanan, p. 276; Creasy, First platform, Secs. 303 et seq.; Woolsey, Introd. to the study of int. law, Sec. 74." § 56. Intervention in Mexico in note 1 to 1 See reference to Congressional § 52, page documents and history of French in the Pacific Ocean, which is of such strategic value to our merchant, and our naval, marine.1 Certainly, so far as international law is concerned, there is no doubt that it has been determined, by the consent of every nation of the world, that the right of acquisition of additional territory exists in every sovereign power, and that it exists paramountly in the United States. § 58. Monroe Doctrine and the Peace Conference at The Hague; 1899.-As appears in the foot note to § 52, the Monroe Doctrine is an American enunciation, to which some other nations claim that they have never acquiesced; the instances already cited, however, demonstrate that although almost every government has had the opportunity of protesting against its enforcement, they have all practically admitted our right to assert it. In 1899, at the Peace Conference at The Hague, a treaty was prepared in which the United States joined, but in doing so made the following reservation : "Nothing contained in this Convention shall be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not entering upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in the political questions or internal administration of any foreign state, nor shall anything contained in the said Convention be so construed as to require the relinquishment by the United States of America, of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions." The effect of this is that a treaty has been accepted by all the other signatory powers containing a declaration of the Monroe Doctrine as it has been adopted by, and made a part of, the traditional policy of the United States, and that all those Signatory Powers have recognized without protest the existence of the policy, and the intention of the United States to adhere to it. $ 57. 1 Convention between the United States, Germany and Great Britain to adjust amicably the questions between the three governments in respect to the Samoan Group of Islands. Signed December 2, 1899; ratified by Senate January 16, 1900; ratifications exchanged and treaty proclaimed February 16, 1900. 31 U. S. Statutes at Large, 56th Congress, 1st Sess. 1899-1900, appx. Treaties, p. 70. See other Treaties in regard to Samoan Islands: U. S. Treaties in Force 1899, p. 551. The history of this reservation, and some observations as to its effect, will be found in the Fifth Chapter of "The Peace Conference at The Hague," in which Mr. Frederick W. Holls, the able and efficient Secretary of the American Commission, has permanently recorded the transactions of the Conference; the extract from that interesting volume quoted in the note to this section shows what an important bearing the appending of that reservation to The Hague Treaty will always have upon our international relations.1 § 58. Convention shall be so construed tained in the said Convention be so construed as to require the relinquishment, by the United States of America, of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions.' 1"Reservation by the American as to require the United States of Representative; Text of the Amer- America to depart from its tradiican Declaration; The Monroe Doc- tional policy of not entering upon, trine; The Declaration accepted; interfering with, or entangling itits importance. According to this self in the political questions or Article every Signatory Power rec-internal administration of any forognizes a new international obliga-eign state, nor shall anything contion, as a duty toward itself and every other Signatory Power. Next to the establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration this Article undoubtedly marks the highest achievement of the Conference, for no doubt the establishment of the "The adoption of the treaty withcourt would have been incomplete, out any qualification of Article 27, if not nugatory, without this sol- would undoubtedly have meant, on emn declaration, which is undoubt- the part of the United States, a edly 'the crown of the whole work,' complete abandonment of its timeas it was declared to be by one of honored policy known originally as the American representatives in the Monroe Doctrine. This is not the Committee on Arbitration. At the place to discuss the merits of the same time there was just one that policy, or the truth and wisPower whose vital interests might dom of that doctrine. It is, howbe directly and unfavorably af- ever, a fact that the United States fected by this Article, if adopted of America is determined more without qualification, and that firmly than ever before in its hisPower was the United States of tory, to maintain this policy and America. The declaration, for the Monroe Doctrine, in its later which Mr. Holls made a reserva-approved and extended form, caretion in the Comite d'Examen, and fully and energetically. Not even which was afterward carefully in the supposed interest of univerformulated, is for the United States sal peace would the American peoof America by no means the least ple have sanctioned for one moment important part of the entire con- an abandonment or the slightest vention, and reads as follows: infraction of a policy which appeals to them as being founded, "Nothing contained in this § 59. Opposition to territorial expansion from within, and not from without. The only voices which have been raised in opposition to the right of the United States to acquire and to govern territory have come from within our own boundaries and not from without. There has always been a faction which has opposed the extension of the boundaries of the United States. The Supreme Court has, however, decided that the United States may constitutionally acquire territory by conquest, by treaty, by annexation and by discovery and the cases referred to in not only upon legitimate national tion by a reference opposite the desires and requirements but upon signatures of the American plenithe highest interests of peace and potentiaries. progress throughout the world. "The importance of this proceedTo recognize the American Conti- ing, so far as the United States of nents as proper objects of any kind America is concerned, will readily of European expansion, or inter- be seen. Never before that day had ference on the part of one or more the Monroe Doctrine been officially Powers, would not promote or in- communicated to the representacrease the peace, prosperity, or tives of all the great Powers, and happiness of a single human being; never before was it received with and assuming, in ever so small a all the consent implied by a cordial degree the responsibility for the acquiescence, and the immediate status of so large a part of the and unanimous adoption of the earth's surface, it is only fair that treaty upon that condition. An the great peace power of the West express acceptance or recognition should not be required to interfere was, of course, impossible, but against its will in any other quarrel. there can be no doubt that the Nor is any meritorious interest in declaration, as presented, constithe world unfavorably affected by tutes a binding notice upon every this attitude of the United States- Power represented at the Conferan attitude assumed and main-ence, forever estopping each one tained, not as a challenge, not of them from thereafter quoting boastfully toward Europe, nor the treaty to the United States patronizingly toward its sister States on the American Continent, but simply in pursuance of a wise and far-seeing recognition of obvious facts and their logical bearings. "The declaration was presented in the full session of the Conference on July 25, read by the Secretary of the Conference, and unanimously directed to be spread upon the minutes, and added to the Conven Government in a sense contrary to the declaration itself. The greatest advantage of the latter, however, is the fact that it leaves to the United States absolute and perfect freedom of action, and this, in view of the recent extension of American power, especially in the far East, is of incalculable importance." The Peace Conference at The Hague, Holls, The MacMillan Co., 1900, chap. V. pp. 269, 272. the appendix' are so conclusive that they place the matter beyond all controversy, so far as the legal elements are concerned ; in fact, it must be conceded at the present time that questions relating to annexation of territory and extension of the boundaries of the United States belong exclusively to the political departments of the government, and the judicial department has no control whatsoever thereover." § 60. Right to acquire territory based on nationality and sovereignty. The right of the United States to acquire territory, and to govern it, is based upon the sovereign and national power which the government possesses and which has been sustained in all the cases cited in the notes under preceding sections; in fact, if it were not for the complete nationality and sovereignty of the United States it would have been impossible for its Government to have made the treaties under which it acquired from other nations those great possessions by which our territory has more than quadrupled since the power was asserted in the Declaration of Independence that "as free and independent States they (the United States) have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do other rights and things which independent states may of right do."1 § 61. Power to govern acquired territory; the Insular Cases; 1901.-Article IV, section 3, clause 2 of the Constitution declares that Congress shall have the power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.1 Under this section it has been held that the Central Government has power to regulate all territory which the United States acquires, and that in doing so it has absolute and plenary powers, and is not limited in its legislation in the same § 59. 1 See classified cases, p. 535, post. 2 As to matters within domain of judicial department or legislative department and rules of non-interference by one with the other, see § 460, chapter XVI, Vol. II, post. § 60. The right of the United States to acquire territory was one of the questions involved in the Insular Cases, which will be discussed in 1"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property be |