The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-09-24
SHED AT DRAGO DOCTRINE.
.,.v. AMERICAN CONFERENCE
IDOPTs WILD RESOLUTION.
su.,..,. That 60, Consider Quos-
lion or inviting the HIgue Conference
"a Take Up COlIectlOn % Debts by
Eorce-I nited states Led the way.

p,o NJ JANErRo, Aug. 72.-The Pam
..nsr;can Conference to-day disposed OF
49, famous "Drago doctrine" by the passage
-. resolution recommending to the various
co,ernment- that they consider the point
Itr,;tin0 the second Peace Conference at
T.a a 10 10 consider the question OF the
iau,rrIsory collection Of public debts
I'D in general. means tending to diminish
s.,raen nations conflicts having an ex-
.,rsivelv pecuniary origin" Those who
I..;r.d ar expected a definite declaration
- ,be prago doctrine by the conference,
.arv,b,pg IN the nature Of a resolution OF
odhesion To the principle ~expounded by
,hs Minister Of Foreign Affairs OF the Argen-
,ne Republic. were disappointed.
That the resolution which was finally
.dop,od. after several days Of strife within
,bo committee which had the question IN
hand is So general and indefinite IL hue
90 rho stand taken by Mr.. Buchanan, chair
man Of The American delegation and also
chairman oc the committee. Mr.. Buchanan
Al NOT believe that the defining OF the
,,eatio1 Of collection OF debts by force,
;nyolying many delicate points and prin-
crlos Of International law, came within
,bo SCOPE Of the Pan-American Conference.
composed. to a great extent, OF debtor
nations. The American point OF view was
that il would be unseemly and uncalled for
n this conference Of debt owing nations
should attempt to lay down a policy on
cernins the collection Of debts for adoption
nv The Hague, the preponderating power
ri which is that Of European creditor ma
tons.
III L.... ALAN A. k-.1 -
the American delegation took up the ques-
,ion, and he had a hard time carrying his
point. There was a wide difference Of
oninion among the dele cations as TO what
should he done, a condition which.brought
about many warm discussions. For in
stance. the Argentine delegation wanted
~ have the doctrine more explicitly de-
fined. and the delegate from Uruguay in
ssted upon the resolution Incorporating
che doctrine as it stands in Senior Drago's
original declaration. Strange to say, the
Unguayans were stronger in their support
Of the doctrine than the Argentines.
For a time it seemed hat the question
would he thrown out Of the programme
Altogether. there being a very strong senti-
ment developed that it had nc place in the
conference and that it would 70 better to
take no action. This feeling was supported
by the fact that it became informally Known
that, whether or not the conference acted
on the question. the United States delegation
TO the next Hague conference would place
It before that gathering. As the main object
OF the presence Of the question on the Pam
American Conference programme was to get
II before the conference at The Hague. It
seemed that much discussion which showed
every possibility Of leading to violent dis
agreement might be eliminated by simply
setting the whole matter aside. However,
Mr.. Buchanan was not in a position to make
any promise that the United States will put
the question before the Hague conference,
although such is certainly the intention Of
the State Department at this time. The
Hague conference is still months away and
conditions might so change as to make 1t
inadvisable for the American Government
toproceed. In view Of all this the committee
determined to present a resolution to the
COME. ence.
The resolution above quoted was the re-
suit. 1t is considered as exceedingly
general and indefinite, and IL the commit
tee had had a month more in which to
formulate an agreement which would go
far from treading on the toes Of any n it
could scarcely have. succeeded better.
From an American point Of view the result
was IDEAL. The question is still alive and
will go to The Hague. No Government is
bound to instruct its delegates to The
Hague TO bring the question up, as the reso-
luton is only a recommendation that the
Governments consider the point of in
vting The Hague's consideration.
The clause OF the resolution recommend
ing that Governments consider the point Of
inviting The Hague 10 consider also means
tending to diminish between nations con-
ficts having an exclusively pecuniary
origin was something Of an innovation.
II came out Of the attitude of the committee
In disreGarding TO a certain extent the
question Of forcible collection and in con-
sidering the whole question Of public debts.
The report Of the committee which con
Euered the question, az submitted 10 the
conference, follows:
The fourth topic OF the programme
10 wit, a resolution recommending h a
the second Peace Conference at The Hague
he requested to consider whether, and II at
all TO what extent, the use Of force for the
collection Of public debts Is admissible
was referred to this committee for its o n
sideration.
As clearly established at the session or
the governing board Of the Bureau OF the
American Republics, held on April II OF
this year, the scope OF this draft was con-
tned to public debts and was not In any
manner intended to be an acceptance OF the
legitimacy Of their compulsory collection.
The committee believes IL preferable to
base the question at issue on broader and
more comprehensive grounds, so that Il
shall comprise not only public debts, but
other cases Of an exclusively pecuniary
nature, often the cause OF d~eplorable con-
hicts.
1t was not proposed that definite con-
illusions should be reached at this con-
ference, composed exclusively Of American
nations, but that the true principles that
should govern such cases should be left
70 be fixed by an international assembly
composed Of all the nations Of the world.
The committee has not overlooked the
TACT that the subject matter not only In
wolves the application OF principles OF
International law, but those which affect
the Internal sovereign riRhta OF nations,