rate of the Mosquito Coast and other portions of Central America created some anxiety in our minds, the Monroe

of Prussia and the Emperor of Russia," met at Paris to consider some method of averting the further spread of the desire for liberty which by them was considered as a disease. On September 26, 1815, they signed personally an agreement which from its first invocatory clause, “In the name of the Holy and Invisible Trinity," and its final words, "this Holy Alliance," has ever since that date been known as the “Treaty of the Holy Alliance."

The objects of this remarkable treaty, which, according to Capefigue, and as quoted by Professor Snow, is entirely in the handwriting of the Emperor Alexander, with corrections made by Madame Cruduer, were stated in Articles 1, 2 and 3 as follows:

"Article I. In conformity to the words of the Holy Scriptures, which command all men to regard one another as brethren, the three contracting monarchs will remain united, by the bonds of a true and indissoluble fraternity; and, considering each other as compatriots, they will lend one another, on every occasion, and in every place, assistance, aid, and support; and, regarding the subjects and armies, as the fathers of their families, they will govern them in the spirit of fraternity with which they are animated, for the protection of religion, peace and justice.

"Article II. Therefore, the only governing principles between the above-mentioned governments and their subjects, shall be that of rendering reciprocal services; of testifying, by an unalterable beneficence, the mutual affection with which they ought to be animated; of considering all as only the members of one Christian nation, the three allied powers looking upon themselves as delegated by Providence to govern three branches of the same family, to wit: Austria, Prussia, and Russia, confessing, likewise, that the Christian nation, of which they and their people form a part, have really no other sovereign than Him to whom alone power belongs of right, because in Him alone are found all the treasures of love, of science and of wisdom, that is to say, God, our Divine Saviour, Jesus Christ, the word of the Most High, the word of Life. "Their Majesties, therefore, recommend, with the most tender solicitude, to their people, as the only means of enjoying that peace which springs from a good conscience, and which alone is durable, to fortify themselves every day more and more in the principles and exercise of the duties which the divine Saviour has pointed out to us.

"Article III. All powers which wish solemnly to profess the sacred principles which have delegated this act, and who shall acknowledge how important it is to the happiness of nations, too long disturbed, that these truths shall henceforth exercise upon human destinies, all the influence which belongs to them, shall be received with as much readiness as affection, into this holy alliance."

Other Continental Powers were asked to accede to the treaty; on November 22, 1822, an additional secret treaty was entered into at Verona by representatives of Austria, France, Prussia and Russia, in which the

Doctrine was asserted, with the desired effect that the protectorate was withdrawn, although that result was not ac

vague expressions of the Treaty of Paris of 1815 were expressed in a somewhat more practical form.

This was sigued on behalf of their respective sovereigns by four of the most famous diplomats that Europe has ever known, to wit: Metternich for Austria, Chateaubriand for France, Bernstet for Prussia, and Nesselrode for Russia.

The original treaty to provide for the peace of Europe had been signed at Chamont, France, on March 1, 1814. England, Austria, Russia and Prussia were the signatory Powers; it was aimed largely at the great ascendency over European matters which France was then aspiring to, and also to suppress the liberal ideas awakened by the French Revolution and the wars of Napoleon. It was renewed at Vienna, March 25, 1815, at the commencement of the "One Hundred Days,” just after Napoleon had landed on his return from Elba.

It was again renewed at Paris, November 20, 1815, after the battle of Waterloo had forever removed Napoleon as a factor in European politics.

These last mentioned treaties, especially that of March, 1815, have sometimes been erroneously referred to as the "Holy Alliance;" the combination existing under that title, however, was confined to the treaties of Paris of September, 1815, and of Verona of November, 1822.

The treaty of November 20, 1815, provided for frequent congresses of the European Powers to regulate the affairs of Europe; pursuant thereto a Congress was held at Aix-la-Chapelle, in October, 1818. Great efforts were made by the Continental Powers to induce Great Britain to join in the "Holy Alliance," but the terms were too vague, and as the Duke of Wellingtop told the Emperor Alexander, there was no definite basis which justified the sovereign of Great Britain in acceding to it in such manner that his action would be understood or ratified by Parlia

ment.

Meanwhile, however, Louis XVIII. joined the alliance on behalf of France, and many secondary Powers of Europe also acceded to the treaty. Thus the whole of continental Europe was a unit in sustaining monarchical institutions; in 1823, after the Kings of Spain and Portugal had been restored to their thrones, principally through French intervention, the question of aiding Spain in a last effort to reconquer her rebellious provinces in America was brought up and a meeting of the Powers to consider the advisability of joint action in that respect was proposed. It was this proposition, the knowledge of which was acquired by the Monroe administration, that furnished the occasion for announcing the principles by which this country would be guided in case the Powers of Europe united in intervening in the contest between Spain and her provinces, in regard to which all of those Powers, as well as the United States, had up to that time remained neutral.

Separate contests were being waged for independence in Venezuela, New Guiana, Mexico, Chile and Peru. It would be interesting to review

complished without a muttered protest.1 In 1896, Lord Salisbury expressed his doubts as to our right to interfere

$ 54.

1 Central American affairs and the Enlistment Question, Washington, 1856; see also other congressional documents relating to this subject referred to in Chapter XI. entitled The Central American Imbroglio,

pp. 217 et seq. of Lindley Miller Keasbey's book on the Nicaragua Canal and the Monroe Doctrine, G. P. Putnam, 1896. See also references in footnote 1 to § 52 of this chapter, page 103.

these wars for independence-to recount the deeds of valor and patriotism of Miranda, Bolivar, San Martin and the other heroes struggling for liberty in South America, but this is not the place for such an extended history. We can only consider the effects of those wars as they affected our political and diplomatic relations with the other Powers. For an interesting history of these wars the reader is referred to Hezekiah Butterworth's Political History of South America (N. Y., Doubleday & McClure, 1898), which also contains a bibliography which will greatly aid any one desiring to pursue this branch of the subject in more extended research. The result of the announcement that the United States would take up the defence of the South American Republics in case the European powers abandoned their position of neutrality, had the desired effect. England recognized the Republics as well as the United States, and before long commercial and diplomatic relations were established which have ever since been maintained with occasional, but fortunately not serious, interruptions. The announcement was received with satisfaction not only in the United States, but also in England. In fact, Canning, who was then in the Foreign Office of Great Britain, claimed to have originated the idea himself and to have urged the announcement through Mr. Rush, our then minister to England; he is even credited with having said that he called the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old.

Undoubtedly he greatly favored the announcement and was glad of the opportunity of recognizing the Republics. Both Professor Snow and ex-Secretary of State, John W. Foster (A Century of American Diplomacy, 1900, Chapter XII., on The Monroe Doctrine) have shown that the Monroe Doctrine was essentially of American origin and American consummation. Mr. Foster says in regard to effect of the announcement, and as to Mr. Canning's connection therewith (on pp. 447-449) as follows: "While the declaration is very broad in its application, it is very precise and restricted as to its cause. It is America for the Americans, because otherwise (the peace and safety of) the United States would be endangered.

"President Monroe might have communicated this declaration to the allied powers in the usual diplomatic form, through the Department of State, to our Ministers at the various European capitals, but he wisely adopted the form of its promulgation in his annual message to Congress. It thus became a notice, not to the Holy Alliance only, but to the whole world, of the policy of the United States.

with England's arbitrary occupation of the disputed territory between Venezuela and British Guiana; the question how

་

"Few, if any, official utterances of the century have had such general and lasting influence. When the Message was published in London it received universal commendation. Said one of the journals: We shall hear no more of a Congress to settle the fate of the South American States;' another: 'It is worthy the occasion and of the people destined to occupy so large a space in the future history of the world.' Mr. Canning's biographer, in recording the effect of its publication in Europe, says that, coupled with the refusal of England to take part in the proposed Congress to discuss Spanish-American affairs, it effectually put an end to the project. Mr. Brougham, the English statesman, said: 'The question with regard to South America is now disposed of, or nearly so, for an event has recently happened than which no event has dispensed greater joy, exultation, and gratitude over all the freemen of Europe; that event, which is decisive on the subject in respect of South America, is the message of the President of the United States to Congress.' It is further reported that the South American deputies in London were wild with joy, and South American securities of every sort rose in value.' "The manner in which it was received in the United States was described by Mr. Webster, in a speech delivered in the Senate three years later, as follows: 'It met, sir, with entire concurrence and hearty approbation of the country. One general glow of exultation, one universal feeling of gratified love of liberty, one conscious and proud perception of the consideration which our country possessed, and of the respect and honor which belonged to it, penetrated all bosoms.' (3 Webster's Works, 178.) An undue share of credit has been assigned to Mr. Canning for the promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine, and to him has even been ascribed the origin or first suggestion of the idea. But it has been seen that fifteen years before, President Jefferson had set forth the policy in much broader terms than those contained in Canning's proposal to Rush. The published diplomatic correspondence shows that Secretary Adams was fully informed as to the designs of the Holy Alliance, and that six months before that proposal was broached he had given instructions to our Minister in Spain to make known at the proper time that our government would oppose any forcible intervention in American affairs or the transfer of any of the Spanish possessions to the European powers. Canning's proposal went no further than a protest against the transfer of any of the colonies to other powers, which was much narrower than Monroe's message; and the correspondence makes it plain that Great Britain was wholly influenced by a desire to retain and enlarge its trade and by its jealousy of France."

See also, as to effect of announcement and extracts from European publications, Professor McMaster's Origin, Meaning and Application of the Monroe Doctrine, Philadelphia, 1896.

The Monroe Doctrine has been asserted on numerous occasions between the time when it was first enunciated as a principle of American international diplomacy until its recent reaffirmance at The Hague un

ever was finally, on our insistence, referred to the Arbitration Tribunal, which has recently rendered its award, and

der the style of "Traditional policy of the United States in regard to American affairs."

The occasions upon which it has been asserted can be divided into two classes. First, when it has been asserted in regard to the efforts of European powers to obtain a foothold or to increase their colonial possessions in North, South or Central America; second, when it has been asserted in regard to the relations between the United States and other republics of the Western Hemisphere, and the right of the United States, as the most powerful Government in America, to regulate affairs for the purpose of maintaining peace and averting the evils of war. A few of these instances only can be referred to in this note. The reader is referred for a more detailed history of the application of the Monroe Doctrine to the authorities referred to at the end of this note; special reference is made at this point to Professor Freeman Snow's Treatise on American Diplomacy, published in 1894, over two hundred pages of which are devoted to a critical review of the Monroe Doctrine in its various aspects both as to origin and application, and which has greatly aided the author in making his own investigations in regard to this subject.

THE PANAMA CONGRESS.

Within a very brief period after the Monroe Doctrine was enunciated occasions arose for its practical application. In 1826 invitations were extended by some of the South American Republics to the United States to meet representatives of the other Republics in a Congress which was to be held at Panama to effect a general union of all the Republics. It was suggested that the Congress would consider, amongst other things, the desirability of "combining the forces of the Republics, to free the Islands of Puerto Rico and Cuba from the yoke of Spain . . to take measures for joining in a prosecution of the war at sea and on the coasts of Spain, and to determine whether these measures should also be extended to the Canary and Philippine Islands." These objects were wholly beyond the objects, desires or rights of the United States, and were entirely inconsistent with one of the other objects stated in the call for the Congress; to wit, "to take into consideration the means of making effectual the declaration of the President of the United States, respecting any ulterior design of a foreign power to colonize any portion of this continent, and also the means of resisting all interference from abroad with the domestic concerns of the American Governments." President John Quincy Adams, Mr. Monroe's successor, however accepted the invitation and stated in a message to Congress that ministers on the part of the United States "would be commissioned to attend at those deliberations and to take part in them so far as may be compatible with that neutrality, from which it is neither our intention nor the desire of the other American States that we should depart."

The president had power to appoint commissioners, but the appropria