New-York tribune., 1906-04-02
THE CALVO DOCTRINE.

1t is still a mOoted point whether the so
called Calvo doctrine shall he formally dis
cussed at the approaching Pan-American Con-
gress or shall be RENTED to the second Uni
verSal Peace Congress at The Hague, though in
dicatons increase that the latter course will be
adopted. Perhaps it is as well that it should be
so. The question is a somewhat complex one
and needs to be regarded from the point of view
of creditors as well as of debtors If the con-
clusion is TO have force in international law
The doctrine relates to the collection of indivd-
ual claims by governments, and it involves
number of different phases, TO wit: Whether q
state shall undertake the collection of claims
whether it shall do so in case of contractual
claims and whether 1t shall employ force or a
show Of force in doing So 1t is quite obvious
that the views of nations upon these points will
vary according to whether they are debtor or
creditor nations. and it is equally obvious that
the interests of both must be consulted and the
assent of both be secured before any declaration
can have the effect of international law
The policy of the United States toward this
matter has been pretty clearly and consistently
defined. This government has ever been ready
TO secure by whatever means were necessary re-
dress for wrongs done TO its citizens. 1t has
however, sharply distinguished between torts
and contractual claims holding as set forth by
Calhoun, Marcy, Seward, Fish, FreIinghuvsen
contractual disputes, and should not do so. not
even automatically, except when a gross failure
denial or discrimination of justice is clearly
shown; and, pursuing that policy where the
claims of its own citizens were involved it has
with perfect consistency and propriety regarded
with grave anxiety as Mr.. Frelinghuysen
tactfuly put it. the attempts Of European gov
ernments TO compel by force the payment of
mere contract debts due TO their subjects from
Of claims arising from torts is according to
American policy and practice. to be sought first
through ordinary channels of litigation, and then
through discreet diplomatic representatives. and
through force or show of force only as a last re-
sort and only In cases Of which the magnitude
Justifies so extreme action. AS Mr.. Gallatin
forcibly said, the proposition that in every case
of a claim clearly founded in justice, If justice
be denied, resort must be had to war for redress
is wholly untenable and is supported neither by
the practice of nations nor by common sense
If the magnitude of the case warrants it, the
right Of resorting TO force, if necessary, is not
10 be denied, but the compusion to do so in all
cases, great and small. SIS a doctrine which, if
generally adopted would keep the world in per-
'petual warfare"
1t is interesting 10 recall in connection with
this matter the opinion formally expressed by
one Of the most strenuous upholders of the
rights OF subjects and citizens, Lord Palmerston,
who never hesitated TO make the boast "Civis
| Brtannicus sum" good at its face value the
/ world around In official diplomatic circular,
| referring TO unsatlsfed claims OF British sub
| jects who were holders of public bonds and
money securities Of foreign states he said: at
/ rs for the British government entirely a ques-
! "uon Of discretion. and by no means a question
/ 'of international right whether they should or
| should not make this matter the subject Of
/ diplomatic negotiation He added that the
/ British government had generally thought it
good policy 10 abstain from taking up such
claims international questions, though uns
doubtedly there might be cases in which the
magnitude OF the interests involved would make
II desirable 10 do SO, and even, in some extreme
! cases, 10 90 far 10 use force. This doc