due regulation of combinations of capital which are or may become
injurious to the public, I recommended a special appropriation for
the better enforcement of the anti-trust law as it now stands, to be
expended under the direction of the Attorney-General. Accordingly (by
the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation act of February
25, 1903, 32 Stat., 854, 904), the Congress appropriated, for the
purpose of enforcing the various Federal trust and interstate commerce
laws, the sum of five hundred thousand dollars, to be expended under
the direction of the Attorney-General in the employment of special
counsel and agents in the Department of Justice to conduct proceedings
and prosecutions under said laws in the courts of the United States.
I now recommend, as a matter of the utmost importance and urgency,
the extension of the purposes of this appropriation, so that it may
be available, under the direction of the Attorney-General, and until
used, for the due enforcement of the laws of the United States in
general and especially of the civil and criminal laws relating to
public lands and the laws relating to postal crimes and offences and
the subject of naturalization. Recent investigations have shown a
deplorable state of affairs in these three matters of vital concern.
By various frauds and by forgeries and perjuries, thousands of
acres of the public domain, embracing lands of different character
and extending through various sections of the country, have been
dishonestly acquired. It is hardly necessary to urge the importance of
recovering these dishonest acquisitions, stolen from the people, and
of promptly and duly punishing the offenders. I speak in another part
of this Message of the widespread crimes by which the sacred right
of citizenship is falsely asserted and that “inestimable heritage”
perverted to base ends. By similar means—that is, through frauds,
forgeries, and perjuries, and by shameless briberies—the laws relating
to the proper conduct of the public service in general and to the due
administration of the Post-Office Department have been notoriously
violated, and many indictments have been found, and the consequent
prosecutions are in course of hearing or on the eve thereof. For the
reasons thus indicated, and so that the government may be prepared
to enforce promptly and with the greatest effect the due penalties
for such violations of law, and to this end may be furnished with
sufficient instrumentalities and competent legal assistance for the
investigations and trials which will be necessary at many different
points of the country, I urge upon the Congress the necessity of
making the said appropriation available for immediate use for all such
purposes, to be expended under the direction of the Attorney-General.
Steps have been taken by the State Department looking to the making
of bribery an extraditable offence with foreign powers. The need of
more effective treaties covering this crime is manifest. The exposures
and prosecutions of official corruption in St. Louis, Mo., and other
cities and States have resulted in a number of givers and takers of
bribes becoming fugitives in foreign lands. Bribery has not been
included in extradition treaties heretofore, as the necessity for it
has not arisen. While there may have been as much official corruption
in former years, there has been more developed and brought to light
in the immediate past than in the preceding century of our country’s
history. It should be the policy of the United States to leave no
place on earth where a corrupt man fleeing from this country can rest
in peace. There is no reason why bribery should not be included in
all treaties as extraditable. The recent amended treaty with Mexico,
whereby this crime was put in the list of extraditable offences, has
established a salutary precedent in this regard. Under this treaty the
State Department has asked, and Mexico has granted, the extradition
of one of the St. Louis bribe givers.
There can be no crime more serious than bribery. Other offences
violate one law while corruption strikes at the foundation of all
law. Under our form of government all authority is vested in the
people and by them delegated to those who represent them in official
capacity. There can be no offence heavier than that of him in whom
such a sacred trust has been reposed, who sells it for his own gain
and enrichment; and no less heavy is the offence of the bribe giver.
He is worse than the thief, for the thief robs the individual, while
the corrupt official plunders an entire city or State. He is as wicked
as the murderer, for the murderer may only take one life against the
law, while the corrupt official and the man who corrupts the official
alike aim at the assassination of the commonwealth itself. Government
of the people, by the people, for the people will perish from the face
of the earth if bribery is tolerated. The givers and takers of bribes
stand on an evil pre-eminence of infamy. The exposure and punishment
of public corruption is an honor to a nation, not a disgrace. The
shame lies in toleration, not in correction. No city or State, still
less the Nation, can be injured by the enforcement of law. As long
as public plunderers when detected can find a haven of refuge in any
foreign land and avoid punishment, just so long encouragement is given
them to continue their practices. If we fail to do all that in us lies
to stamp out corruption we can not escape our share of responsibility
for the guilt. The first requisite of successful self-government is
unflinching enforcement of the law and the cutting out of corruption.
* * * * *
For several years past the rapid development of Alaska and the
establishment of growing American interests in regions theretofore
unsurveyed and imperfectly known brought into prominence the urgent
necessity of a practical demarcation of the boundaries between the
jurisdictions of the United States and Great Britain. Although the
treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia, the provisions of
which were copied in the treaty of 1867, whereby Russia conveyed
Alaska to the United States, was positive as to the control, first by
Russia and later by the United States, of a strip of territory along
the continental mainland from the western shore of Portland Canal
to Mount St. Elias, following and surrounding the indentations of
the coast and including the islands to the westward, its description
of the landward margin of the strip was indefinite, resting on the
supposed existence of a continuous ridge or range of mountains
skirting the coast, as figured in the charts of the early navigators.
It had at no time been possible for either party in interest to lay
down, under the authority of the treaty, a line so obviously exact
according to its provisions as to command the assent of the other.
For nearly three-fourths of a century the absence of tangible local
interests demanding the exercise of positive jurisdiction on either
side of the border left the question dormant. In 1878, questions of
revenue administration on the Stikine River led to the establishment
of a provisional demarcation, crossing the channel between two high
peaks on either side about twenty-four miles above the river mouth. In
1899, similar questions growing out of the extraordinary development
of mining interests in the region about the head of Lynn Canal brought
about a temporary _modus vivendi_, by which a convenient separation
was made at the watershed divides of the White and Chilkoot passes
and to the north of Klukwan, on the Klehini River. These partial and
tentative adjustments could not, in the very nature of things, be
satisfactory or lasting. A permanent disposition of the matter became
imperative.
After unavailing attempts to reach an understanding through a Joint
High Commission, followed by prolonged negotiations, conducted in an
amicable spirit, a convention between the United States and Great
Britain was signed, January 24, 1903, providing for an examination
of the subject by a mixed tribunal of six members, three on a side,
with a view to its final disposition. Ratifications were exchanged on
March 3 last, whereupon the two governments appointed their respective
members. Those on behalf of the United States were Elihu Root,
Secretary of War; Henry Cabot Lodge, a Senator of the United States,
and George Turner, an ex-Senator of the United States, while Great
Britain named the Right Honorable Lord Alverstone, Lord Chief Justice
of England; Sir Louis Amable Jetté, K.C.M.G., retired judge of the
Supreme Court of Quebec, and A. B. Aylesworth, K.C., of Toronto. This
Tribunal met in London on September 3, under the Presidency of Lord
Alverstone. The proceedings were expeditious, and marked by a friendly
and conscientious spirit. The respective cases, counter cases, and
arguments presented the issues clearly and fully. On the 20th of
October a majority of the Tribunal reached and signed an agreement on
all the questions submitted by the terms of the Convention. By this
award the right of the United States to the control of a continuous
strip or border of the mainland shore, skirting all the tide-water
inlets and sinuosities of the coast, is confirmed; the entrance to
Portland Canal (concerning which legitimate doubt appeared) is defined
as passing by Tongass Inlet and to the northwestward of Wales and
Pearse Islands; a line is drawn from the head of Portland Canal to
the fifty-sixth degree of north latitude; and the interior border
line of the strip is fixed by lines connecting certain mountain
summits lying between Portland Canal and Mount St. Elias, and running
along the crest of the divide separating the coast slope from the
inland watershed at the only part of the frontier where the drainage
ridge approaches the coast within the distance of ten marine leagues
stipulated by the treaty as the extreme width of the strip around the
heads of Lynn Canal and its branches.
While the line so traced follows the provisional demarcation of 1878
at the crossing of the Stikine River, and that of 1899 at the summits
of the White and Chilkoot passes, it runs much further inland from
the Klehini than the temporary line of the later _modus vivendi_, and
leaves the entire mining district of the Porcupine River and Glacier
Creek within the jurisdiction of the United States.
The result is satisfactory in every way. It is of great material
advantage to our people in the Far Northwest. It has removed from the
field of discussion and possible danger a question liable to become
more acutely accentuated with each passing year. Finally, it has
furnished a signal proof of the fairness and good-will with which two
friendly nations can approach and determine issues involving national
sovereignty and by their nature incapable of submission to a third
power for adjudication.
The award is self-executing on the vital points. To make it effective
as regards the others it only remains for the two governments to
appoint, each on its own behalf, one or more scientific experts, who
shall, with all convenient speed, proceed together to lay down the
boundary line in accordance with the decision of the majority of the
Tribunal. I recommend that the Congress make adequate provision for
the appointment, compensation, and expenses of the members to serve on
this joint boundary commission on the part of the United States.
* * * * *
It will be remembered that during the second session of the last
Congress Great Britain, Germany, and Italy formed an alliance for
the purpose of blockading the ports of Venezuela and using such other
means of pressure as would secure a settlement of claims due, as they
alleged, to certain of their subjects. Their employment of force for
the collection of these claims was terminated by an agreement brought
about through the offices of the diplomatic representatives of the
United States at Caracas and the Government at Washington, thereby
ending a situation which was bound to cause increasing friction, and
which jeoparded the peace of the continent. Under this agreement
Venezuela agreed to set apart a certain percentage of the customs
receipts of two of her ports to be applied to the payment of whatever
obligations might be ascertained by mixed commissions appointed for
that purpose to be due from her, not only to the three powers already
mentioned, whose proceedings against her had resulted in a state
of war, but also to the United States, France, Spain, Belgium, the
Netherlands, Sweden and Norway, and Mexico, who had not employed force
for the collection of the claims alleged to be due to certain of their
citizens.
A demand was then made by the so-called blockading powers that the
sums ascertained to be due to their citizens by such mixed commissions
should be accorded payment in full before anything was paid upon the
claims of any of the so-called peace powers. Venezuela, on the other
hand, insisted that all her creditors should be paid upon a basis of
exact equality. During the efforts to adjust this dispute it was
suggested by the powers in interest that it should be referred to me
for decision, but I was clearly of the opinion that a far wiser course
would be to submit the question to the Permanent Court of Arbitration
at The Hague. It seemed to me to offer an admirable opportunity to
advance the practice of the peaceful settlement of disputes between
nations and to secure for The Hague Tribunal a memorable increase of
its practical importance. The nations interested in the controversy
were so numerous, and in many instances so powerful, as to make it
evident that beneficent results would follow from their appearance at
the same time before the bar of that august tribunal of peace.
Our hopes in that regard have been realized. Russia and Austria are
represented in the persons of the learned and distinguished jurists
who compose the Tribunal, while Great Britain, Germany, France,
Spain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway, Mexico,
the United States, and Venezuela are represented by their respective
agents and counsel. Such an imposing concourse of nations presenting
their arguments to and invoking the decision of that high court of
international justice and international peace can hardly fail to
secure a like submission of many future controversies. The nations
now appearing there will find it far easier to appear there a second
time, while no nation can imagine its just pride will be lessened by
following the example now presented. This triumph of the principle of
international arbitration is a subject of warm congratulation and
offers a happy augury for the peace of the world.
There seems good ground for the belief that there has been a real
growth among the civilized nations of a sentiment which will permit a
gradual substitution of other methods than the method of war in the
settlement of disputes. It is not pretended that as yet we are near a
position in which it will be possible wholly to prevent war, or that a
just regard for national interest and honor will in all cases permit
of the settlement of international disputes by arbitration; but by a
mixture of prudence and firmness with wisdom we think it is possible
to do away with much of the provocation and excuse for war, and at
least in many cases to substitute some other and more rational method
for the settlement of disputes. The Hague Court offers so good an
example of what can be done in the direction of such settlement that
it should be encouraged in every way.
Further steps should be taken. In President McKinley’s annual Message
of December 5, 1898, he made the following recommendation:
“The experiences of the last year bring forcibly home to us a sense
of the burdens and the waste of war. We desire, in common with most
civilized nations, to reduce to the lowest possible point the damage
sustained in time of war by peaceable trade and commerce. It is
true we may suffer in such cases less than other communities, but
all nations are damaged more or less by the state of uneasiness and
apprehension into which an outbreak of hostilities throws the entire
commercial world. It should be our object, therefore, to minimize, so
far as practicable, this inevitable loss and disturbance. This purpose
can probably best be accomplished by an international agreement
to regard all private property at sea as exempt from capture or
destruction by the forces of belligerent powers. The United States
Government has for many years advocated this humane and beneficent
principle, and is now in a position to recommend it to other powers
without the imputation of selfish motives. I therefore suggest for
your consideration that the Executive be authorized to correspond
with the governments of the principal maritime powers with a view
of incorporating into the permanent law of civilized nations the
principle of the exemption of all private property at sea, not
contraband of war, from capture or destruction by belligerent powers.”
I cordially renew this recommendation.
The Supreme Court, speaking on December 11, 1899, through Peckham, J.,
said:
“It is, we think, historically accurate to say that this Government
has always been, in its views, among the most advanced of the
governments of the world in favor of mitigating, as to all
non-combatants, the hardships and horrors of war. To accomplish that
object it has always advocated those rules which would in most cases
do away with the right to capture the private property of an enemy on
the high seas.”
I advocate this as a matter of humanity and morals. It is
anachronistic when private property is respected on land that it
should not be respected at sea. Moreover, it should be borne in mind
that shipping represents, internationally speaking, a much more
generalized species of private property than is the case with ordinary
property on land—that is, property found at sea is much less apt than
is the case with property found on land really to belong to any one
nation. Under the modern system of corporate ownership the flag of a
vessel often differs from the flag which would mark the nationality of
the real ownership and money control of the vessel; and the cargo may
belong to individuals of yet a different nationality. Much American
capital is now invested in foreign ships; and among foreign nations
it often happens that the capital of one is largely invested in the
shipping of another. Furthermore, as a practical matter, it may be
mentioned that while commerce destroying may cause serious loss and
great annoyance, it can never be more than a subsidiary factor in
bringing to terms a resolute foe. This is now well recognized by all
of our naval experts. The fighting ship, not the commerce destroyer,
is the vessel whose feats add renown to a nation’s history, and
establish her place among the great powers of the world.
Last year the Interparliamentary Union for International Arbitration
met at Vienna, six hundred members of the different legislatures of
civilized countries attending. It was provided that the next meeting
should be in 1904 at St. Louis, subject to our Congress extending an
invitation. Like The Hague Tribunal, this Interparliamentary Union
is one of the forces tending toward peace among the nations of the
earth, and it is entitled to our support. I trust the invitation can
be extended.
* * * * *
Early in July, having received intelligence, which happily turned
out to be erroneous, of the assassination of our vice-consul at
Beirut, I despatched a small squadron to that port for such service
as might be found necessary on arrival. Although the attempt on the
life of our vice-consul had not been successful, yet the outrage was
symptomatic of a state of excitement and disorder which demanded
immediate attention. The arrival of the vessels had the happiest
result. A feeling of security at once took the place of the former
alarm and disquiet; our officers were cordially welcomed by the
consular body and the leading merchants, and ordinary business resumed
its activity. The government of the Sultan gave a considerate hearing
to the representations of our minister; the official who was regarded
as responsible for the disturbed condition of affairs was removed.
Our relations with the Turkish Government remain friendly; our claims
founded on inequitable treatment of some of our schools and missions
appear to be in process of amicable adjustment.
* * * * *
The signing of a new commercial treaty with China, which took place
at Shanghai on the 8th of October, is a cause for satisfaction.
This act, the result of long discussion and negotiation, places
our commercial relations with the great Oriental Empire on a more
satisfactory footing than they have ever heretofore enjoyed. It
provides not only for the ordinary rights and privileges of diplomatic
and consular officers, but also for an important extension of our
commerce by increased facility of access to Chinese ports, and for
the relief of trade by the removal of some of the obstacles which
have embarrassed it in the past. The Chinese Government engages, on
fair and equitable conditions, which will probably be accepted by the
principal commercial nations, to abandon the levy of “liken” and other
transit dues throughout the Empire, and to introduce other desirable
administrative reforms. Larger facilities are to be given to our
citizens who desire to carry on mining enterprises in China. We have
secured for our missionaries a valuable privilege, the recognition of
their right to rent and lease in perpetuity such property as their
religious societies may need in all parts of the Empire. And, what
was an indispensable condition for the advance and development of
our commerce in Manchuria, China, by treaty with us, has opened to
foreign commerce the cities of Mukden, the capital of the province of
Manchuria, and Antung, an important port on the Yalu River, on the
road to Korea. The full measure of development which our commerce may
rightfully expect can hardly be looked for until the settlement of the
present abnormal state of things in the Empire; but the foundation
for such development has at last been laid.
* * * * *
I call your attention to the reduced cost in maintaining the consular
service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1903, as shown in the
annual report of the Auditor for the State and other Departments, as
compared with the year previous. For the year under consideration
the excess of expenditures over receipts on account of the consular
service amounted to $26,125.12, as against $96,972.50 for the year
ending June 30, 1902, and $147,040.16 for the year ending June 30,
1901. This is the best showing in this respect for the consular
service for the past fourteen years, and the reduction in the cost
of the service to the Government has been made in spite of the fact
that the expenditures for the year in question were more than $20,000
greater than for the previous year.
* * * * *
The rural free-delivery service has been steadily extended. The
attention of the Congress is asked to the question of the compensation
of the letter carriers and clerks engaged in the postal service,
especially on the new rural free-delivery routes. More routes have
been installed since the first of July last than in any like period
in the Department’s history. While a due regard to economy must be
kept in mind in the establishment of new routes, yet the extension
of the rural free-delivery system must be continued, for reasons
of sound public policy. No governmental movement of recent years
has resulted in greater immediate benefit to the people of the
country districts. Rural free-delivery, taken in connection with the
telephone, the bicycle, and the trolley, accomplishes much toward
lessening the isolation of farm life and making it brighter and more
attractive. In the immediate past the lack of just such facilities as
these has driven many of the more active and restless young men and
women from the farms to the cities; for they rebelled at loneliness
and lack of mental companionship. It is unhealthy and undesirable
for the cities to grow at the expense of the country; and rural
free-delivery is not only a good thing in itself, but is good because
it is one of the causes which check this unwholesome tendency toward
the urban concentration of our population at the expense of the
country districts. It is for the same reason that we sympathize with
and approve of the policy of building good roads. The movement for
good roads is one fraught with the greatest benefit to the country
districts.
* * * * *