Page images


the correspondence between Secretary Olney and Lord Salisbury.* He vigorously supported Mr. Olney in the attitude assumed and asked that Congress authorize him to appoint a commission to determine the merits of the dispute. President Cleveland said that if the commission found that the disputed territory belonged to Venezuela, the United States should " resist by every means in its power, as a wilful aggression upon its rights and interests, the appropriation by Great Britain of any lands or the exercise of governmental jurisdiction over any territory, which, after investigation, we have determined of right belongs to Venezuela."

The message created intense excitement throughout Europe and America and there was much talk of war. A bill appropriating $100,000 for the expenses of the commission was introduced in Congress, was passed by the House December 18, by the Senate December 20, and was approved by the President on the 21st.† President Cleveland then selected the following commisssion: David J. Brewer, associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; Richard H. Alvey, chief justice of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia; Andrew D. White, formerly United States minister to Russia; F. R. Coudert, of New

Senate Ex. Doc. No. 31, 54th Congress, 1st session. Woolsey severely criticizes the President's conception of the Monroe Doctrine in his America's Foreign Policy, pp. 223-238. See also Richardson, Messages and Papers, vol. ix., pp. 655-658; Cleveland, pp. 269–272.

Statutes-at-Large, vol. xxix., p. 1.


York, and Daniel C. Gilman, of Maryland, president of Johns Hopkins University. Judge Brewer was selected as president of the Commission, and was soon hard at work.*

After much diplomatic correspondence the terms of arbitration were agreed upon, and at the Lord Mayor's dinner at London in November, 1896, Lord Salisbury announced that the dispute had been amicably settled, the American claims being substantially conceded. The commission continued its sittings until February 27, 1897, but before it had completed its task, the two disputants decided to arbitrate. The terms of arbitration were accepted by Venezuela, after protesting against certain portions of the stipulations, and on February 2, 1897, she concluded a treaty with Great Britain for the settlement of the boundary dispute before an arbitration tribunal to hold its meetings in Paris. In accordance with the terms of this treaty four arbitrators were appointed: Melville W. Fuller, chief justice and David J. Brewer, associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, on the part of the United States; and Baron Russell of Killowen, Lord chief justice of England and Sir Richard Collins, Lord justice of appeals, on the part of Great Britain. The treaty provided that the fifth jurist should be selected by the four nominated therein; and the

*An interesting account of the work of the commission is given in Andrew D. White's Autobiography, vol. ii., pp. 117–126.

Cleveland, Presidential Problems, pp. 274-276,

tribunal was completed by the selection of Professor F. Martens, professor of international law in the University of St. Petersburg, on the part of Russia. Ex-President Harrison, Benjamin F. Tracy, Secretary of the Navy in Harrison's Cabinet, the Marquis de Rajas and Severo MalletPrevost, Secretary of Cleveland's boundary commission of 1896, were the counsel for Venezuela; and Great Britain was represented by AttorneyGeneral Sir Richard Webster, Sir Robert Reid and others.

The sessions of this tribunal did not take place until 1899. Professor Martens, the Russian member of the tribunal, was chosen president, and M. Martin, an official in the French Foreign Office, was made permanent secretary.

After more than three

months of labor, the verdict, which was a compromise on the points of dispute, was rendered on October 3, Great Britain being awarded fivesixths of the territory in question and Venezuela the remaining one-sixth. The territory awarded Great Britain included the gold district, while Venezuela secured the territory embracing the mouth of the Orinoco River, but it was decided that the mouth of the

situated between the Cuyuni and Wenamu Rivers.*

While this dispute with England was in course of adjustment, events were occurring along the southern borders which required the attention of United States troops and which threatened for a time to involve us with Mexico. These border outbreaks, popularly known as the "Tin Horn War," were the last troubles of importance with which the United States had to deal prior to the War with Spain and the later insurrection of the Philippine Islanders. The "Tin Horn War" was in reality a series of outbreaks against the Mexican government, beginning in the autumn of 1891, and continuing intermittently into the early part of 1894. In each of these outbreaks the insurgents operated along the Rio Grande, and evidently relied on the contiguity of the United States for safety in case of defeat. Catarino Garza, who had conducted a number of periodicals opposed to the administration of President Diaz, inaugurated the first of this series of troubles in September of his cattle ranch in Texas, near Palito 1891. He was at that time living on Blanco, at which place he collected his band of revolutionists. Issuing a manifesto, in which he proclaimed the overthrow of Diaz, he crossed the Rio

Orinoco and both banks of a part of the Cuyuni should be kept open for the use of the British. The British practically secured the old Schom* Foster, A Century of American Diplomacy, pp. 467-476; Coolidge, The United States as a World burgk line with the exception of Power, pp. 103-106; Henderson, American DiploBarima Point at the mouth of the matic Questions, pp. 441-446; Moore, American Diplomacy, pp. 153-157; Appleton's Annual Orinoco and a small strip of territory Cyclopædia for 1895 and 1896.


Grande with less than 100 men, who were reinforced from time to time by sympathizers in the movement. There were many brushes with the Mexican troops, and, little by little, the insurrectionary spirit extended. The fact that the insurgents took refuge on American soil when worsted made it necessary for the United States authorities to act, and two companies of infantry, with two of cavalry, did effective work in preventing the violation of American neutrality. Mexican government sent a strong force to the scene of trouble and the fighting degenerated into guerilla warfare. During the latter part of 1892 there was another gathering of insurgents, under leaders named Pacheco and Perez, the scene of operation



being several hundred miles above that of Garza's war. The rebels captured Ascension and Coralitos, driving out the American settlers who crossed the Rio Grande into New Mexico. The Indians along the Yaqui River joined in this uprising, while another band of rebels, under the leadership of a man named Amalla, added to the complications. During this period General McCook had maintained a force on the American side of the Rio Grande and it was largely through his efforts that, in 1893, the insurgents were dispersed. The last outbreak occurred in January of 1894, when two filibusters named Ochoa and Lugan attempted to revive the insurrection. They were unsuccessful, however, being dispersed after two sharp engagements.






of act



Party candidates Platforms-McKinley and Hobart elected - President inaugurated— His Cabinet Dingley Tariff bill passed Reciprocity treaties - Criticism again under discussion - Their final settlement Annexation of Tutuila - The Hawaiian Dispute Its early history-Protectorate established — Disavowed - Commissioners sent to determine justice of various claims Flag ordered down by President Cleveland's commissioner - McKinley's administration reverses Cleveland's action - Hawaii annexed - Cuba's struggle against FilibusSpain Progress of insurrection Efforts to grant rights of belligerents to Cubans tering expeditions - Appalling conditions in Cuba- - Representations to Spain - De Lome episode -Destruction of the Maine Wild excitement and demands for war - President McKinley calm and conservative — Court of Inquiry — Its report.

While the events mentioned in the preceding chapter were in course of

[ocr errors]

progress the political complexion of the country had undergone a change.

In 1894 New York elected a Republican governor-Levi P. Morton. In 1895 Kentucky, Maryland, and New Jersey also swung into the Republican column and the Democratic party seemed to be demoralized. In the national campaign of 1896 the same state of affairs existed. Both parties contained an element in favor of the free coinage of silver at the ratio of 16 to 1, but whereas the Republicans repudiated this doctrine the Democrats adopted it and this was the chief cause of their defeat.

The candidates were as follows:

[blocks in formation]

The Republican platform was long. It declared that in their control of the government the Democratic party had made a "record of unparalleled incapacity, dishonor and disaster." It It emphasized "Our allegiance to the policy of protection "; denounced the Democratic tariff "as sectional, injurious to the public credit and destructive of business enterprise," and demanded" a right settlement of the tariff." It called for renewal and extension of reciprocity treaties with the nations with which this country trades, protection and reciprocity being "twin measures of Republican policy." The financial plank was as follows:

"The Republican party is unreservedly for sound money. It caused the enactment of the law providing for the resumption of specie pay. ments in 1879; since then, every dollar has been as good as gold.

"We are unalterably opposed to every measure calculated to debase our currency or impair the credit of our country. We are, therefore, opposed to the free coinage of silver, except by international agreement with the leading commercial nations of the world, which we pledge ourselves to promote, and until such agreement can be obtained the existing gold standard must be preserved. All our silver and paper currency must be maintained at parity with gold, and we favor all measures designed to maintain inviolably the obligations of the United States of all our money, whether coin or paper, at the present standard, the standard of the most enlightened nations of the earth."

The platform also condemned the Democratic administration of the pension bureau, declared for a vigorous and dignified foreign policy, the control of the Hawaiian Islands by the United States, demanded that the Nicaragua canal be" built, owned and operated by the United States," and that the Danish Isles be purchased for a naval station in the West Indies. The platform declared that the United States should exercise all proper influence to bring the Armenian atrocities to an end. The Monroe Doctrine was reaffirmed with a declaration that "we have not interfered, and shall not interfere, with the existing possessions of any European power in this hemisphere, but those possessions must not, on any pretext, be extended. We hopefully took forward to the eventual withdrawal of the European powers from this hemisphere, to the ultimate union of all the English-speaking part of the continent by the free consent of its inhabitants."

[graphic][merged small][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »