The sun., 1903-02-08
COLLECTING DEBTS WIN GUNS.
Paimerston's View et Governmental Action
In Bsh III sf Private Credit.

In Bt h III q Private credit.
To TINE EpIroA OF THE suH--Sir: The
suggestion OF your correspondent, signing
himself ID. that our Government declare
as q sort Of c0rollafy to the Monroe Doctrine.
that we will not permit European Govern
ments to collect by force debts due their sub
Jects from South Am ,rcan states raises some
interesting considerations A. the Monroe
Doctrine has not yet been adopted into inter-
national law, Il IL not easy To see how we can
en- ter tain any hope Of our being permitted
by International sanction TO take a second
step before We have been allowed the afs'
The position OF both the German ard British
governments in the present crisis in yene-
zuela rests uooD the hrmcst foundations
They have the undoubted right 10 enforce.
oven by acts OF war, the payment OF debts.
whether large or small. due their citizens
from the Government OF that country When
the question OF payment arises merely be-
tween a citizen Of one State and citizen OF
another, neither Government will inter fere.
but the contestants will be renitted 10 the
regular tribunals OF one or the other country.
But when the question arises bet ween a citi-
zen Of a state and Il foreign nation or Govern
ment. the Government may make the contro-
versy matter OF diplomatic NEGOTIATION.
and In case OF the failure OF that method OF
settlement, force may be used even TO acts
OF war
This principle is firmly established. Our
! old friend Nattel, discusses IL at some length
Phillinlore states IL thus
The right OF interference on the part OF state.
for the purpose OF enforcing the performance OF
Justice 10 It's citizens from foreign state, stands
upon an unIueStlonablc Foundation. when the for
eign State has become Itself the debtor OF those
citizens
Il must OF course. he assumed that such state
has. through the medium OF Its proper and icgti-
organ be the Sovereign alone according 10 the Con
sutuuon OF Russia. or the sovereign and Parlia-
meni, according 10 the Constitution OF England,
the debt tractcd with fore, ciu zens whether
In an individual or n corporate capacity. consu-
tutcs an obligation Of which the country OF the
lenders has right 10 require and enforce the full
nlment
Whether the Government will exercise
that right Is not a question OF principle but
of private domestic policy
1t was in accordance with this principle
that lord Palmerston wrote and sent his
wel-known circular letter IN January. isAs.
to the British representatives in foreign
States. Your correspondent seems to have
had this letter in mind, but rs will presently
appear. neither the letter itself nor the prac-
tice Of the British Government since That time
warrants the assertion, that since the days
OF lord Palmcrston, II has refused to collect
lord Palmerston snid
II the question Is to be considered simply In iu
bearing upon International right there can be no
doubt whatever OF the perfect nGht, which the
Cove OF every country possesses, to take up.
a. a matter OF d ponatic negotiation, any well
founded complaint. which any OF It's subjects may
prefer against the Government OF another country,
or any wrong which from such foreign Government
those subjects may have sustained II Is
therefore simply . question OF discretion with the
British Government whether this matter should not
be taken up by dplomstlc negotiation. and the
decision OF that question Of discretion turns en-.
urely upon British and domestic considerations
IIc then proceeds to declare 1t to be the
policy Of the British Government to discour-
age hazardous loans 10 foreign Governments
who may be either unable or unwilling to pay
the stipulated interest thereupon.
He closes with these words, which are the
reserva tons, with which the policy IL
announced,
But. nevertheless II might happen that the loss
occasloned to British subjects by the non payment
Of interest upon loans made by them to foreign
Governments mi ght become so great that It would
he too high price for the nation to pay for such
warning a. 10 the future and In such a state OF
things It nigh, become the duty OF the Rr,ish Gov
eminent TO make these matters the subject OF dlplo
matte negotiation.
The principles here laid down by lord
Palmereton were resffirmed by Lord Sails
bury. Bee the London Timcs for January
7. 1850.
Great Britain as a debt collector is no
stranger in the international field. though
her practice would sAem TO have been gov
erned by the cir cumstances Of each case, and
has not been uniform. In the controversy
between the British holders Of the bonds OF
the State Of Virginia. and that State. Lord
Granville, then Foreign Secretary, declined
in ISL To interfere The Argentina case.
which brought down one OF the greatest bank
ing houses in the world was not made the sub
ject of active governmental Interference.
Gu the other hand, the interests on the
debts OF Two other South American States
Colombia and Ecuador have been allowed
to be paid through the British Ministers
accredited to thcss States In Egypt, the
finances have for many years been chiefly
under the Joint control OF En- gland and France.
because of the large proportion OF Egyptian
bonds held by English and French citizens.
And Lord Salisbury. when Foreign Minister,
and representative Of England al the Berlin
Congress of ISIS officially promised the
serious attention" OF his Government to II
protest of the tondholders of the Turkish
loans Of 1855 and 1862 against any alteration
of the securities pledged to them by the
Turkish Government and the result OF this
serious attention" was a stipulation in the
eleventh protocol OF the Berlin Congress
that the indemnity payable 10 Russia should
be posterior to such existing debts as were
secured by any previous hypothecation or by
the An glo- French guarantee
Your correspondent seems TO attempt
distinction between wrongs committed
by foreign Stale and failure TO pay Just
debts There is no such distinction in inter-
national law. Hall says: Fundamentally.
however. there i. no difference in principle
between wrongs inflicted by breach Of a mon
etary agreement and other wrongs for which
the state as itself the wronedoer, is imme-
diately responsible. The difference which
is made in practice is in no sensa obligatory,
and IL il open TO governments to consider
each case bysitsrlf and to act as seems well
to them on It's merits
NEW YoRK, Feb. s. WILLIAM G. DAVIS