families are really bought and sold, passing from hand to hand under a system that bears a striking resemblance to actual slavery." (Report of Oct. 28, 1912, Foreign Relations 1913, pp. 1251-2.)

The Indians are, according to Consul Fuller's report, "..mild, docile, inoffensive, and childlike, just as they are reported to have been by Robuchon the explorer, by Consul Eberhardt, and by Sir Roger Casement." (Foreign Relations, 1913, p. 1269.) He remarks, "I doubt whether they know the difference between proper treatment at the hands of the whites and maltreatment, for the simple reason that the first idea of the white man they had was bad usage. In case of any trouble they would not be likely to appeal to the authorities. They would not understand how, and they have no conception of government. The only way to protect them is to watch over them and their interests." (Ibid, p. 1269-1270.)

In his report of October 28, 1912, Consul Fuller remarks: "As to the past, the truth is that the district was the ash barrel of both Peru and Colombia, and the concessionaires, though cognizant of this, were so anxious to make money that they took into their employ without investigation any of the ashes who professed a willingness to work. The deplorable result is already known to the Department. It was due to the criminal negligence of the Peruvian and British concerns, who in turn controlled the district, and the total absence of Government supervision. The British directors who entrusted the conduct of their business here entirely to Peruvian hands cannot rely on that as relieving them from responsibility in the matter." (Foreign Relations, 1913, p. 1278).

After it was evident that the Peruvian Government would not undertake any adequate measures of reform from sentiments of humanity, the hope seems to have

been entertained that the fear of losing the territory in question might stimulate the zeal of the Government, and check the gross outrages committed by the agents of the companies upon the aborigines. (Ibid, p. 1245, p. 1273-4.)

Peru was given to understand that her claim to the sovereignty of the regions in question might be impeached with success by the other claimant governments if it were admitted that Peru could not police the territory to which she laid claim. (Ibid, p. 1245.)

For the purpose of bringing the pressure of public opinion to bear upon Peru, the British Government had proposed to publish the Casement report containing evidence of the atrocities committed in the Putumayo district, and after the American Government withdrew its objections, a blue book was issued, July, 1912.1 The

91This blue book is reproduced in House Document 1366 on "Slavery in Peru," 62nd Congress, 3rd Session. It contains a note which Secretary Knox addressed May 24, 1912, to the British Chargé in which, at the last moment, the Secretary suggested that the publication of the evidence be deferred in view of the new legislation promised by Peru.

Secretary Knox wrote: "In view of this positive manifes tation of the purposes of the Government of Peru, I have the honor to inquire whether His British Majesty's Government might not be of the opinion that it would be most conducive to the attainment of the ends desired to postpone for the present the publication of the correspondence transmitted with your note under acknowledgment. (Slavery in Peru, House Docu

ment No. 1366, 62nd Congress, 3rd Session, p. 441.)

In consideration of the evidence of the bad faith and procrastination of the Peruvian Government then before Secretary Knox, it is hard to understand what good purpose could have been served by this delay.

Sir Edward Grey, in his reply, June 27, 1912, said: “I am unable to fall in with Mr. Knox's view that publication might with advantage be deferred, as I am convinced that an authoritative account of the facts of the case cannot but assist the Peruvian Government in their reforming efforts and direct them to the proper channels.” (Ibid, p. 442.)

London Times, in an editorial of July 15, 1912, commented severely upon the atrocities revealed in this publication (Foreign Relations, 1913, p. 1240).

The House of Representatives took notice of this statement, and in a resolution of August 1, 1912, directed the Secretary of State, "if not incompatible with the public interest, to transmit to the House of Representatives all information in the possession of his Department concerning the alleged existence of slavery in Peru, and especially all information tending to show the truth or falsity of the following statement made in an editorial in the London Times of July fifteenth, nineteen hundred and twelve: "The bluebook shows that in an immense territory which Peru professes to govern the worst evils of the plantation slavery which our forefathers labored to suppress are at this moment equaled or surpassed. They are so horrible that they might seem incredible were their existence supported by less trustworthy evidence.'" (Foreign Relations, 1913, p. 1240.)

In response to this resolution, Secretary Knox transmitted the correspondence and documents from which we have been quoting in the preceding pages.

February 6, 1913, Ambassador Bryce addressed the following note to the Secretary of State:

"Sir: With reference to previous correspondence relative to the Putumayo atrocities, I have the honor to transmit to you, herewith, two copies of a dispatch from His Majesty's Consul at Iquitos reporting on the recent visit to the Putumayo district, which he carried out in the company of the United States Consul, Mr. James Fuller.

"In communicating this report to you I am to ask you to be so good as to furnish His Majesty's Government with a copy of Mr. Fuller's report on the visit and to favor me with the expression of your views on the

general question and on the action which the two Governments should or can now take.

"I am also to inform you that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the Peruvian Government should be given an opportunity of offering any observations they may desire to make on the reports of the two Consuls before these reports are published." (Foreign Relations, 1913, pp. 1287-8.)

In his reply, Secretary Knox said:

"Before transmitting this correspondence to the President, the Department of State conferred with the Peruvian Minister, apprizing him of the general tone of Mr. Fuller's findings. Mr. Pezet thereafter described the measures recently adopted by the Peruvian Government with a view towards ending the mistreatment of the Putumayo Indians and made renewed assurances, on behalf of his Government, to the effect that it would henceforth rigorously inforce law and order throughout the rubber-producing district of Peru.

"In your excellency's note under acknowledgment you were good enough to ask for an expression of my views regarding the Putumayo question and the action now called for thereon. In reply I may say that, in view of the rigorous policy apparently animating the present administration in Peru, the remoteness of the district and the attendant obstacles in the way of effective reform I am of the opinion that any further action on the part of His Majesty's Government or of the American Government would appear inopportune, at least at the time being, inasmuch as it might be instrumental in stirring up public sentiment in Peru to such an extent as to hinder whatever real desire now exists there for bettering the conditions under which the Indians labor." (Foreign Relations, 1913, p. 1288.)

Again on September 10, 1913, the British Ambassador, Sir Cecil Spring Rice, wrote the Secretary of State:

"On February 25 Mr. Knox forwarded to my predecessor a Congressional document containing, among other correspondence regarding the Putumayo question, the report of the American Consul at Iquitos, Mr. Fuller, on conditions in that region of Peru.

"I need not recall to your mind the particulars of this question which has engrossed the attention of our two governments for the last two years, but I have now been instructed by Sir E. Gray to inquire what conclusions you have arrived at in regard to Mr. Fuller's report.

"I should therefore be much obliged if you could give me your views on the question and could indicate to me the policy which you think it best to adopt in the present position of affairs." (Foreign Relations, 1913, p. 1289.)

No further action is disclosed in the correspondence published in Foreign Relations for 1913, recently published by the Government. For some reason not stated in the correspondence, the Department of State at that time was unwilling to coöperate with Great Britain in undertaking a humanitarian intervention which would have had a salutary effect upon Peru and other countries which, in violation of international law, condone and protect the perpetrators of atrocities upon defenseless aborigines.

$ 8(e). SUPPRESSION OF THE SLAVE TRADE

Several decades before slavery itself was recognized as contrary to international law, the slave trade was held to be illegal by a consensus of opinion on the part