UNITED STATES. 



813 



the United States for sympathy, if not actual 

 interference in her behalf; while Chili, with 

 her uniform success, became jealous of the 

 power to which her rival looked for aid. As 

 the war progressed adversely to Peru, holders 

 of her bonds and other creditors, real or pre- 

 tended, and speculators seeking to take advan- 

 tage of her distress, were naturally interested 

 in her affairs. It was evident that, overborne 

 by Chili, she must either lose her autonomy, 

 submit to a cession of territory, or provide for 

 the payment of a heavy war indemnity. Right- 

 ly or wrongly, it was believed that the United 

 States would have more influence than any of 

 the powers in deciding which of these results 

 should prevail. To her, therefore, the inter- 

 ested parties turned their attention, and sought 

 by various methods her intervention in their 

 behalf. We divide these into three: 1. The 

 Cochet claimants; 2. The Landreau claimants; 

 3. The Credit Industrie!." After briefly recit- 

 ing the grounds upon which each of these 

 claims was based, the report says: "These 

 three interests, the Cochet and the Landreau 

 claimants and the Credit Industriel, represent- 

 ing Peruvian bondholders, were exceedingly 

 anxious that the United States should inter- 

 fere in behalf of Peru, in order to preserve 

 her autonomy, and enable her to discharge her 

 pecuniary obligations. Their objects related 

 wholly to business or speculation. Neither 

 patriotism nor international policy had any- 

 thing to do with them. They looked upon the 

 nitrate-beds and guano deposits of Peru as the 

 place whence were to come fortunes rivaling 

 in magnificence and splendor anything Alad- 

 din ever conjured, and the intervention by the 

 United States was the magic lamp by which 

 these creations were to be evoked. 1 ' 



The Peruvian Company was an organization 

 formed for the purpose of prosecuting the Co- 

 chet claims chiefly, and its president, Jacob 

 Shipherd, had attempted to secure the inter- 

 position of the United States Government in 

 its behalf. Mr. Shipherd and ex-Secretary 

 of State Blaine were among the leading 

 witnesses before the investigating committee. 

 The conclusion of the committee, on a thor- 

 ough review of the testimony taken, was that 

 the United States Ministers were not con- 

 cerned in any improper transactions. A sepa- 

 rate report was made by Mr. Belmont, of New 

 York, who severely criticised the course of the 

 State Department, in embarrassing the position 

 and influence of the Government by giving 

 countenance to the demands of the various 

 claimants. 



The only other important subject of diplo- 

 matic correspondence was the Isthmus Canal 

 project, and the relation thereto of the Clay- 

 ton-Bulwer treaty. (See "Annual Cyclope- 

 dia," 1881, PANAMA CANAL.) On May 8th 

 Secretary Frelinghuysen addressed to Minis- 

 ter Lowell a reply to Lord Granville's letter 

 of January 7th. In this he said : 



A canal across the isthmus for vessels of all dimen- 



sions and every character, under possible conditions 

 herein after referred to, would affect this republic in 

 its trade and commerce ; would expose our Western 

 coast to attack; destroy our isolation; oblL 

 improve our defenses and to increase our navy, and 

 possibly compel us, contrary to our traditions, to take 

 an active interest in the affairs of European nations. 

 The United States, with its large and increasing pop- 

 ulation and wealth, can not be uninterested in a change 

 in the physical conformation of this hemisphere which 

 may injuriously affect either the material or political 

 interests of the republic, and naturally seek that the 

 severance of the Isthmus connecting the continents 

 shall be effected hi harmony with those intcn-N. 

 This Government, while believing that the Isthmus 

 should not be severed so as to do unnecessary injury 

 to the United States, at the same time appreciates the 

 desire of Great Britain that she should be able, by a 

 short and easy passage from ocean to ocean, to reach 

 her Eastern and American possessions on the Pacific, 

 and that other nations of the world have a similar in- 

 terest in such a passage. There is, however, no neces- 

 sary conflict between the political claims of the United 

 States in this matter and the material interests of 

 other nations. A canal across the Isthmus can be 

 created, and, under the protectorate of the United 

 States and the republic whose territory it may cross, 

 can be freely used by all nations. Thus, in some de- 

 gree, would be continued to the United States the 

 benefit of that conformation of the earth which is now 

 an element of security and defense. . . . 



The President, therefore, considers it unnecessary 

 and unwise through an invitation to the nations of 

 the earth to guarantee the neutrality of the transit of 

 the Isthmus, to give their navies a pretext for assem- 

 bling in waters contiguous to our snores, and to pos- 

 sibly involve this republic in conflicts from which its 

 natural position entitles it to be relieved. 



It will doubtless occur to Lord Granville, as it does 

 to us, that international agreements of this kind call- 

 ing for interference by force, and conferring joint 

 rights upon several independent powers, are calcu- 

 lated to breed dissension and trouble. In times of 

 peace, when there is no call for their exercise, they 

 are harmless, though useless. But, when wars and 

 trouble come, it too frequently happens that differ- 

 ences arise, and so, at the very moment when the 

 agreement should be enforced, it is impossible to en- 

 force it ; and such agreements would lead to that po- 

 litical intervention in American affairs which the tra- 

 ditional policy of the United States makes it impossi- 

 ble that the President should either consent to or look 

 upon with indifference. 



Mr. Frelinghuysen proceded to set forth the 

 history and purpose of the "Monroe doctrine," 

 and said : 



It is true that this doctrine refers to the political 

 and not to the material interest of America ; but no 

 one can deny that to place the Isthmus under the pro- 

 tection and guarantee of the powers of Europe, rather 

 than under the protection of the leading power of this 

 hemisphere, would seriously threaten and affect the 

 political interest of that power. 



It is not to be anticipated that Great Britain will 

 controvert an international doctrine which she sug- 

 gested to the United States, when looking to her o\vn 

 interest, and which, when adopted by this republic, 

 she highly approved ; and it is but frank to say that 

 the people of this country would be as unwilling that 

 the pathway of commerce between the Pacific coast 

 and our Eastern market should be under the dominion 

 of the allied European powers as would be the people 

 of Great Britain that the transit from one to another 

 part of her possessions should be under such control. 



He then recounted the history of the Clayton- 

 Bulwer Treaty, and the changed condition of 

 things since it was entered into, and concluded 

 as follows: 



