Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-08-04
The DRAG0 DOCTRINE
Which Win Be Discussed at the
Rio Conference.
AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.
Attitude Of the American Republics
Toward It.
DOCTRINE BRIEFLY STATED
No Nation Has Right Forcibly to Col
lsct Debts Owing Its Citizens
by Another Nation.
BRIEFLY STATED

at ftlO - SET DOWN lu0 DTa80 uOCtf1n8-SO
named after its exponent. Doctor Luis NJ.
Drago, learned publicist of Argentina.
Yet In Its bearing upon the future, not only
Of the little republics OF the southern hemi-
sphere. but of the nations of the world,
even the greatest. in their time OF nisfor-
tune and distress. 1t should command first
place. For according to the ideas Of the
originator OF the doctrine It should mean
the very perpetuation of their independent
national existence.
Reduced to Its simplest terms this doc
trine is a declaration that no nation has a
right forcibly to undertake to collect debts
owing to its citizens by another nation.
And the proposition before the Pan-Ameri-
can conference, which It Is asked 60 submit
to the great Hague tribunal. Is to what ex-
tent, II at all. the use Of force is justifiabIe
In the collection Of such debts. Naturally,
the question thus propounded Is OF the most
vital interest to every debtor nation. and
most Of all to the practically defenseless
republics OF South and Central America.
Reason for the Declaration.
The three Americas were wrought up to
a pitch Of intense excitement In 1902 when
the allied fleets Of three great European
nations, Great Britain. Germany and Italy,
appeared of the coast Of Venezuela with
declared intent to collect by force debts
owing by that republic to their citizens. A
few United States warships were there.
| too, but merely as passive spectators.
| American citizens were large creditors OF
Castro's government. but the United States
ships had not come as debt-collectors they
| we're there to guard against any lnfractions
Of the rights Of heutrals: to prevent bonn
bardIhents Of helpless and defenseless
| ports; to restrain exceases, and. above all.
to look after American interests, including
the Monroe doctrine.
| Argentine was the first of the southern
rspubs t. 5ass note Fl ts protest and
Draso doctrine. Directed by Doctor Draso,
| then minister Of foreign relations of Ar
| gentina. to the government OF the United
lister Of the Argentine republic In Washing
| ton, 1t aroused all of South and Central
America. It even excited sympathetic re-
Spouse from e considerable portion OF the
press Of the United Statess and so strong
| was the sentiment aroused that In dread
Of hemispherical consolidation against
| them the allied blockading powers gladly
awaited OF the good Offices OF the United
States to submit the issues between them
I selves and Venezuela to the arbitration OF
| The Hague tribunal
But profound impression has been made
upon, the South and Central American re-
publics by the blockade, and DR.. Dragos
protest and the feeling of resentment en-
gendered had not been lessened by the de-
1
packed court as they called 1t, on the
ground that the judges represented only
the great creditor nations-adverse to Ven
ezuela.
Protected Against Annexation.
| The United States had returned only
most cautious and discomferting reply to
DR.. Drago's note in the shape of a re-
| minder to her sister republics that the Mon
roe doctrine shielded their territories
ers. but would not protect them against
any lesser action by their creditors. The
president of the Argentine republic refused
| to accept that construction of international
relations, and made DR.. Drago's declaration
the subject OF special Endorsement In an
annual message to the Argentine congress,
and since 1902 that doctrine has been dis
cussed in every South and Central Amer
lean capital
There was no lack Of opposition, and
notably Brazil. through her semt-of1cfal
newspaper press. combatted the Argentine
proposition. being herself on good terms
with her European creditors, but profess
eddy anxious to avoid the submission to a
European tribunal of doctrine essentially
American In application. The Washington
government also was not willing at the
time to commit itself to the Drago doc
trine. There were many citizens Of tho
United States owning concessions In South
and Central America and the West Indian
republics, and possessing bonds of those
f6puD3lCS, whose lClQ1ngS might De can
celled at the within of any revolutionary
president were forcibfe collection made an
impossibility
The discussion of this important ques-
ton was academic and without special Sig
nificance until 1t was suddenly last winter
thrust upon the committee on program,
composed of representatives OF the princi-
pal American republics then In session at
the State Department considering the SUBJ
jects to be submitted to the Rio confer
ence. The first proposition was embodied
In article Nv of the program in these words:
"A resolution recommending that the Sec
ord peace conference at The Hague be re-
quested to consider the extent to which the
use of force forthe collection or public
debts Is admissible
Bitter Contest Ensued.
But not all of the republics represented
were willing to admit that 1t was right to
use any degree of force. A bitter contest
ensued in the secrecy Of the diplomatic
room at the State Department, and finally
compromise was reached by the insertion
of the words whether, and IL at ALL just
after the word consider" In the original
article
But some OF the South Americans are still
OF the opinion that this question should not
De permitted to go before The Hague tri-
bunal In any shape. SO g spirited contest
Is probable as the Rio conference discusses |
this proposition In fact. DR.. Drago, the
putative author OF the doctrine bearing his
In the conference. because 1t was pro-
posed to submit this American doctrine to
The Hague tribunal
The I>rago doctrine Is said by publicists
to be merely an expansion OF the Calv0
doctrine. dear to the hearts of Iatin-Anaeri-
cans. but never engrafted upon internation-
al law. In its essence that doctrine was a
declaration that any claim against nation
BY a foreign citizen, or even foreign gov
eminent, must be adjudicated by its own
courts. and under no circumstances was 1t
proper subject of diplomatic representa-
ton or negotiation. That doctrine has often
been asserted In opposition to the presenta-
ti0n OF such claims. but 50 far without sue
cess when the claim was advanced by a
nation OF superior strength. Even the
United States government has disreEarded
Il. notably in forcing settlement OF the
Claims OF the Salvador Improvement Com
psny against Salvador, and is again pur-
suing q somewhat similar course as 10
fsn'szuela IN the matter OF the asphalt and
other United States claims.
tsut the principal basis of the action Of
the United States up to this point has been
found In two reasons.41rst an assertion on
the part of the United States that no
American citizen by the mere signature of
e contract or concession In terms submls-
sable for construction only to the courts
OF the granters. can cancel the right OF his
oiKn government to protect him In his
rights, and. second. 5uaiefal.<.o ,.r&.,.