356 AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC QUESTIONS 



delegates. These men, with bulky instructions in their 

 pockets, found themselves alone at the appointed time and 

 place. Their sense of humor was no doubt severely taxed. 

 In fact, the South and Central American states had already 

 begun their careers of civil strife; they had neither the time 

 nor inclination to deliberate over matters relating to the 

 common welfare. 



As the Panama Congress proved to be a hopeless failure, 

 chief interest in the event, as previously suggested, is to be 

 found solely in the numerous interpretations of the Monroe 

 Doctrine, which it elicited. The many opinions coming 

 directly from President Adams and his Secretary of State, 

 Mr. Clay, from the most prominent statesmen of the country, 

 and as embodied in the resolutions of both Houses of Con- 

 gress throw a flood of light upon the contemporaneous 

 construction of the doctrine. 



Although in these Panama debates the principles, enun- 

 ciated by President Monroe, were more or less overshadowed 

 by other political considerations, yet enough was said bearing 

 directly upon the interpretation of the doctrine to illustrate 

 the views of the statesmen of the period on the subject. 



First and foremost, Adams, no doubt the actual author 

 of that part of the doctrine bearing upon future colonization 

 by European powers in the Western Hemisphere, and prob- 

 ably a joint author of the rest of the message included in 

 the " Doctrine," was the one who, of all others, could speak 

 most authoritatively upon the subject. In reference to the 

 enunciations of his predecessor in office, he said : " Our 

 views would extend no further than to a mutual pledge of 

 the parties to the compact to maintain the principle in appli- 

 cation to its own territory, and to permit no colonial lodge- 

 ments or establishments of European jurisdiction upon its 

 own soil." The hesitation of the President to accept the 

 invitation of the South Americans, and afterward his insis- 

 tence that the functions of the plenipotentiaries should be 

 diplomatic only, and in no sense legislative or binding upon 

 the government, shows definitely that he was not of a mind 

 to pledge the country to execute a policy which he had him- 



