Ladies and gentlemen, let us fill our gla.s.ses with the most generous wine, with the wine which most gladdens and cheers the heart of man--with the wine of hope--and let us drink to the health of our ill.u.s.trious guest and messenger who represents here the intelligence and the thought of the heart, and to the health of his wife and daughter, who are the amiable symbol thereof; to the greater brilliancy of the stars of his country, our glorious friend; to the realization, on the American continent and throughout the world, of his exalted ideas of peace, fraternity, and justice.

REPLY OF MR. ROOT

I am deeply sensible of the honor you confer upon me and upon my family by this bounteous, hospitable, and graceful festival. It is a special honor that the banquet to which we are invited should be presided over by a gentleman who has such high esteem in the public life of your own country; that the flattering, the too flattering words which have been addressed to my poor self--words of just and kindly esteem regarding my great and n.o.ble country, should be spoken by a poet who breathes in his verses the spirit of Uruguay wherever his own world-known literature is found.

It is a cause of happiness to receive this distinguished consideration here in this temple devoted to science, to literature, to the arts, to those pursuits which dignify, enn.o.ble, and delight mankind, which give the charm and grace to life, which make possible the continuance of mankind in the paths of civilization. Here in this Atheneum, in this atmosphere of scientific and literary discussion and thought, already exists that world-wide republic which knows no divisions of territorial boundary, of races, or of creed. Upon the platform you have erected here, the men of North and the men of South America can stand in fraternal embrace.

I have been preaching for the past few weeks in many places and before many audiences the gospel of international fraternization. I know there are many incredulous; there are many who think practical considerations alone rule the efforts of men--profit in trade, the almighty dollar, the balance of bookkeeping, or the checks in the counting house. There are many who think that this is all there is to life, and that he is an idle dreamer and an insincere orator who talks of the constancy of international friendship, who talks of love of country rising above the love of material things, who talks of sentiment as controlling the affairs of men. That may be true so far as their own short and narrow lives are concerned; but it is not an idle dream that the world through the course of ages is growing up from material to spiritual, to moral, and to intellectual life. It is not an idle dream that moral influences are gradually, steadily in the course of centuries taking the place of brute force in the control of the affairs of men. Sentiment rules the world today--the feelings of the great ma.s.ses of mankind; the attractions and repulsions that move the millions rule the world today; and as generation succeeds generation progress is ever from the material to the moral. We cannot see it in a day; we cannot see it in a single lifetime, as we cannot see the movements of the tide. We see the waves, but the tide moves on imperceptibly. The progress, the steady and irresistible progress of civilization is ever onwards.

Mr. Chairman, and you, Senor Zorrilla de San Martin, in your eloquent, your more than eloquent, your poetic words, do honor to the idea of peace and justice and friendship and the rule of moral qualities in the relations of nations. When you do honor to the representative of that idea you are doing your work in your day and generation to advance the great cause that proceeds through the ages to the better and higher life of mankind. We are nothing; our lives are but as moments; our personal work is inappreciable in this world; but slowly, imperceptibly, we, each individually, add a little to or detract a little from human rights, human liberty, human justice.

I do not know how sufficiently to thank you, to thank the people of Montevideo, for all that you and they have done for me and my family during our brief--our all too brief--visit here. I believe that your kindness, your generous hospitality, will find response in the b.r.e.a.s.t.s of my countrymen; I believe that it will be an example to the people of South America and of North America; I believe that it will be evidence to the whole world that the ideas of friendship--of international friendship and courtesy--rule here in Uruguay; that Uruguay is a part of the great brotherhood of man, not selfish, but heart open to the best and brightest influences of humanity, doing her part in her time to advance the cause of civilization. I know that when tomorrow morning we sail away from Montevideo we shall all carry with us the most delightful visions of a fair and bright land, of a white city and a beautiful bay; memories of hospitality and friendship, and memories of the most beautiful women. We can never repay you, for your hospitality has been of the kind that asks for no payment; it has been true hospitality. We can only thank you, and thank you we do now and thank you we shall continue to do as long as we live.

ARGENTINA

BUENOS AYRES

ADDRESS OF HONORABLE EMILIO MITRE

In Reference to the Visit of Mr. Root, in the Chamber of Deputies July 4, 1906

This speech, delivered before Mr. Root reached Buenos Ayres, had an intimate relation to his reception.

Within a few weeks, Mr. President, Buenos Ayres will receive the visit of an eminent personality of the United States, Mr. Elihu Root, who is discharging in that country the duties of Secretary of State.

The Executive of the nation, having official knowledge of the visit of Mr. Root, has already taken measures to entertain him and to make his sojourn in the Argentine Republic agreeable; but it has appeared to me, Mr. President, that the Chamber of Deputies should itself spontaneously take an initiative in this manifestation, in view of the personality of the man and the country he represents.

The United States are for us, as is well known, the cradle of our democratic inst.i.tutions; we are bound to them by those ties of friendship and of interest that are known to all and which it would be superfluous to enumerate; but apart from this, there exists between that country and ours historic bonds that secure our profound sympathies.

It is beneficial from time to time to ascend the currents of history in order to gather the lessons of the past which may serve us as a guide in our constant march into the future. When we study in its annals the action of the Government of the United States in the epoch of Argentine independence, we encounter demonstrations of a solicitude, of an affection, of a solidarity, of a partic.i.p.ation in the struggles of those heroic times, so marked that the Argentine spirit necessarily feels itself impressed with the sentiment of intense grat.i.tude and the necessity of repaying in some way those manifestations now somewhat forgotten.

It is of importance, Mr. President, that our people should know well the other peoples with whom they exchange products, manufactures, and ideas, especially when, in respect to the latter, those that they receive surpa.s.s in quant.i.ty those they give. And if there is any country that the Argentine people need to know well, any people, in its history, in its methods, in its sentiments, and in its intentions, it is the United States of America, the elder sister, the forerunner, and the model.

In the epoch of our independence, Mr. President, the public life of the United States was constantly interested in the vicissitudes of the struggle that these peoples waged for their independence on both slopes of the Andes and in the regions of Venezuela. If you read the messages of the Presidents of the United States you find in them, year after year, words that prove the interest of that country in the destiny of these countries. At a date as early as 1811, a message of President Madison contained phrases full of sympathy for the great communities which were struggling for their liberty in this part of the world; and the attention of Congress was called to the necessity of being prepared to enter into relations of government to government with them, as soon as their independence should be sanctioned.

From the time in which Monroe, the author of the famous doctrine, a.s.sumed the presidency of the republic, in all the messages at the opening of Congress, there is a distinct reference to the struggle of these nations for their independence, and in particular to the conflict that developed in the Rio de la Plata and the victorious progress of the arms of Buenos Ayres on this and on the other side of the mountains and on the plateau of Bolivia.

In all these doc.u.ments reference is made to independence as a probable fact, which must necessarily at that time have exerted an influence in favor of the cause of the patriots; and often the declaration was repeated that, the colonies being emanc.i.p.ated, the United States did not seek and would not accept from them any commercial advantage that was not also offered to all other nations.

These manifestations which emanated from the Government and reflected the movement of public opinion, found eloquent exponents in Congress also.

In the records of the American Congress of 1817, one year after the declaration of independence by the Congress of Tuc.u.man, a famous debate is recorded, begun by Henry Clay, the celebrated orator, who pleaded the cause of Argentine independence in the most enthusiastic terms. In this debate a Representative from New York also took a prominent part; this Representative bore the same name as the envoy whom we are to receive from the United States of America, Mr. Root.

Spain had complained of the expeditions that were fitted out in ports of the United States to foment American revolution. The Government was tolerant with these infractions of neutrality; popular sympathy made the condemnation of such conspirators impossible. Spain, with whom the United States had relations of great importance, and with whom they were negotiating the cession of Florida, had protested to the Government against these expeditions of its rebellious subjects. The President, forced to do so, had sent to Congress a message requesting the enactment of a law of neutrality. Clay and Root opposed it; and the latter said that it was worth while to go to war with Spain if a demonstration in favor of the liberty and independence of those countries could be made.

Later, during the administration of John Quincy Adams, these manifestations of the American Government in favor of Argentine independence are met with on every page of the records of Congress. In 1818, the first discussion took place in the American Congress--a concrete discussion on the necessity of recognizing Argentine independence. Henry Clay was, as always, the leader of this discussion, following up the movements which, with extraordinary zeal, he had made at reunions, in the press, and in Congress. He delivered a speech that it is impossible for one to read without feeling his spirit moved on observing the solicitude, the interest, with which at that early date this apostle of democracy expressed himself in regard to the struggle of these peoples to gain their independence.

All, without exception, p.r.o.nounced themselves in favor of the independence of these peoples, which they recognized in principle. But a parliamentary question of privilege was raised, as to the prerogative of the Executive, it being alleged that the initiative, proposed by Clay, of naming a minister to these countries, encroached upon the functions of the Executive when the latter believed it wise to send simply agents.

On this question opinion was divided, but not a single vote was cast that did not express the warmest sympathy with the cause of the patriots.

While such was the att.i.tude of the American Congress, in the press and in popular meetings manifestations of adhesion to the cause of the South American independence appeared at every moment. But above all, the place where traces of this determined action of the Government of the United States in favor of Argentine independence are to be found is in the records of the State Department at Washington, in which reference is made to the activity of its representative in London, at that time the famous statesman, Richard Rush. Rush was the minister of the United States in London from the end of 1817, when he left the post of Secretary of State. He began negotiations immediately with Lord Castlereagh, Prime Minister of England, to induce the British Foreign Office to enter upon a policy of frank adhesion to the emanc.i.p.ation of these countries from the dominion of Spain. There we see, Mr. President, how united the action of the United States was in this movement, inspired by the most sincere democratic desires, by a true love of liberty.

The Prime Minister of England received Mr. Rush's proposals coldly.

England had been appealed to by Spain to mediate between her and the Holy Alliance, in order to obtain the submission of the rebellious provinces; and England had indicated the advisability of acceding to this reintegration of Spanish dominion, on the basis of the return of these countries to a state of dependence, with the condition of a general amnesty.

In the conference between Lord Castlereagh and Minister Rush, the latter positively declared that the United States could never contribute to such retrogression, and that the aims of their Government favored the recognition of the complete independence of America. This was in 1818.

It would occupy much time, Mr. President, but would not be without interest, to review in detail all the negotiations entered into by the North American representative in London, from the time of Lord Castlereagh to that of Canning, who succeeded him.

In February, 1819, Rush notified Castlereagh that the Washington Government considered that the new South American states had established the position obtained by the victory of their arms, and that President Monroe had given an _exequatur_ to a consul from Buenos Ayres, and was resolved at all hazards to recognize Argentine independence. Lord Castlereagh declared himself openly at variance with the views of the Government of the United States, and said that Great Britain had done all that was possible to terminate the strife between Spain and her colonies, but always on the basis of the restoration of the dominion of the former. In 1819, then, the United States were the only nation that insisted upon a.s.serting the independence of our country.

Thanks to their att.i.tude, all the attempts begun by the Holy Alliance to suppress the movement for emanc.i.p.ation failed.

The death of Lord Castlereagh did not change the situation. Even the acts of Canning, if examined, and if the negotiations of the then American minister are a.n.a.lyzed, leave an impression of opposition, because that great British Minister, who, according to history, clinched as it were the independence of this country with his celebrated declaration, was not always of the same way of thinking; and it was necessary for the minister of the United States to inculcate in him the policy of his country in order that he should decide to adopt a policy openly favorable to South American independence. Such is the finding of the most accurate of Argentine historians.

On March 8, 1882, President Monroe sent to the Congress of the United States his celebrated message proposing the recognition of the Argentine independence. In that message the President renewed his a.s.surances of sympathy for the cause of Buenos Ayres, and confirmed the entire disinterestedness with which his Government espoused the cause of the political integrity of the youthful nation. The House of Representatives voted the recognition of Argentine independence unanimously, except for one vote--that of Representative Garnett, who declared that he did not object to the recognition, but that he considered it unnecessary, and he cited in support of his view an opinion of Rivadavia. The United States was, then, the first country after Portugal (which through motives of special interest had recognized our independence), to make a similar recognition; and England, which followed the United States, did not do so until three years later, January 1, 1825.

Even after the recognition of Argentine independence by the United States, conferences continued to be held in Europe to establish the regime of the dominion of the mother country over the already independent colonies. Then new conferences took place with Canning, in which the minister of the United States confirmed anew the policy of his country in the matter of the final recognition of the independence of this republic. During that period, a doc.u.ment appeared that emanated from John Quincy Adams, addressed to Rush, in which he declined to enter into the plan for convoking a congress intended to treat of the questions of South America, and stated that the United States would never attend such a congress unless the South American republics were first invited.

To accentuate the att.i.tude of his Government, Mr. Adams adds that if the congress were to take place, with intent hostile to the new republics, the United States would solemnly protest against it and its calamitous consequences.

The systematic and persistent action of the United States ended by determining in Canning a policy favorable to South American independence, and opposed to the intervention of any foreign power in the destinies of the new republics.

Great Britain and the United States once in accord, after negotiations in which Jefferson and Madison united their counsel to that of President Monroe, these two patriots expressing themselves in terms of moving eloquence in favor of the cause of emanc.i.p.ation, the question was settled forever.

Some months afterward, December 2, 1823, President Monroe consummated his action by sending to Congress the message that contains the enunciation of his famous doctrine. "America for the Americans", Mr.

President, was a formula that, as I understand it, meant the final consecration of the independence of the American nations; it was the voice of the most powerful of them all, proclaiming to the world that conquest in the domain of this America was at an end; it was notification to the conquering powers of Europe that they should not extend themselves to these continents because this extensive territory was all occupied by free nations, outside of whose sovereignty not an inch was vacant.

The independence of these republics having been settled on the field of battle by the sole force of the republics, the declaration of the American President was the culminating act of that grand epic. For the United States it is a record of honor; for Europe it is an ultimatum.

The Monroe Doctrine exists today with all the force of a law of nations, and no country of Europe has dared to dispute it.

It is fitting, Mr. President, to appreciate exactly the meaning of this great act, of the splendid att.i.tude, more fertile for the peace of the earth and for its progress than all the conventions that European nations have arranged from time to time in order to determine their quarrels. The American President, in formulating this doctrine, decreed peace between Europe and America, which seemed destined, the former to a.s.sault always for conquest, the latter to fight always to defend its frontiers. In short, the Monroe Doctrine has been the veto on war between Europe and America; in its shadow these youthful nations have grown until today they are sufficiently strong to proclaim the same doctrine as the emblem on their shield. And the most glorious characteristic of this doctrine is that it is a dictate of civilization, in the nature of a magnificent hymn of peace, which can be chanted at the same time by the European and the American nations, because it avoided that permanent contention which would have subvened if the system of conquest that Europe has developed in regard to certain nations had been implanted here in the territory of South America.

Well, Mr. President, he who is coming to visit us is a conspicuous citizen of that nation, and brings, as it is said--and I believe the Foreign Office already is informed in regard thereto--a message of peace and fraternity of utmost interest to our progress. We ought to take advantage of this opportunity to give this envoy a reception worthy of his people and worthy of himself.

I have privately communicated to the Minister for Foreign Affairs the idea of this project, and I have had the pleasure to hear from his lips the most complete adherence to my declaration that in addition to a bill authorizing the expenses, there was the intention of preparing for Mr.

Root a manifestation emanating spontaneously from the Argentine Congress. The Minister believes this demonstration to be the necessary complement of the demonstration the national government is preparing for this envoy from the great republic.

The historic facts I have recalled are a brief synthesis of an epoch sufficient to warrant the Argentine people in a.s.sociating themselves with the Government and lending to the event their warm interest. I am doubly pleased to have recalled this n.o.ble history on the Fourth of July, the anniversary of the independence of the great republic of the North.

I believe that for these reasons, gentlemen, you will lend your support to this idea and fulfill the purpose for which it is presented.