The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-12-24
CALVO'S DOCTRINE
a Latin American Contention That
Is Now Being Rather Badly
Shattered.
Why Some Of the Members of the
Cabinet Object to The Hague
u Tribunal.

Wa shington, Dec. 24.---If the president
decides to arbitrate the Venezuelan matter
he will require the services of some one
rersed in International law. because the
crucial point in the controversy is the ia
NOUS Calvo doctrine. The doctrine, laid
down by the greatest of Latin American
International lawyers and for very many
years regarded as beyond question by all
Of the Latin American republics, denies
the right of any nation to intervene dip
Dramatically in behalf OF one of its sub
iects where the courts of the country are
open to his application for justice, Thus
Venezuela has asserted that all Of these
Claimants. British, German Italian,
French. might have gone before the Ven
ezuelan courts and if their causes were
just and if their judgments were just the
government would have paid the judg-
ments.
The objection to. that view is that no
account is taken of miscarriages of justice
Of corrupt courts and Of racial antipathies
which sometimes result in denial of jus
tice to foreigners. But so determined are
the South American countries to adhere
to that doctrine that some Of them have
gone TO extraordinary lengths in their re-
sistence Of the diplomatic efforts OF foreign
governments to secure justice for their
subjects. A notable case is that Of Sal
vador. Recently United States corpora
tion obtained after arbitra ton. Judgment
against the government of Salvador. The
verdict was received with intense indig-
nation in Salvador. and so intense was the
antl-foreign feeling excited that law was
passed making it a criminal offense and
one to be heavily punished for any Sal
Nadorian to give any evidence wha tever
before any court in behalf of a foreigner
who claimed damages against the Saliva
dorian government.
Some members Of the cabinet are OPP
posed to referring the matter The
Hague tribunal for these reasons: In the
first place they have no desire to submit
the Monroe Doctrine to the arbitrament
Of any non American tribunal. not even
excepting the august and eminently ia II
tribunal Of The Hague. They very much
prefer that ii this doctrine Is to be the
subject Of arbitration. if it is to be even
brought in incidentally that American in
f1uences shall pass on it, Not that the
fairness OF The Hague arbitrators Is i'm
peached, but as most Of them represent
European and monarchial interests it is
realized that their training may be re-
garded as unsympathetic where they are
required to deal with such an essentially
American subject as the Monroe Doctrine.
1t Is true that on It's face the arbitra ton
proposal contains nothing that indicates
that this doctrine is to be alta cked but so
complex and numerous are the questions
which will come before the arbitra ton
that it is unprecedented here that the ia
nous doctrine scarcely can be kept from
consideration.
Another reason that eliminates these cab
met officers in this inclina ton toward ac-
ceptance is their conviction that an in
ordinate length of time would be con
sumed If the issue is taken before The
Hague tribunal. The machinery is suffi-
Gent, but ponderous and difficult to put
in motion