Southern Republics.

New York Times 100 years ago today, August 7, 1913:
Indirect Taxes and Dictatorships Account for Their Unrest.
    [From a resident of San Jose. Costa Rica, who is exceptionally well informed concerning the affairs of that republic and the other republics of Central America, The times has received the following letter:]

To the Editor of The New York Times:
    It may interest you to know that the cable of The New York Times to the President of Costa Rica, asking for his views on the Nicaragua Treaty, has inadvertently started a strong anti-American demonstration in this country.
    It so happens that two nights ago a press dispatch was received reporting President Wilson as having declared himself in favor of a protectorate for Central America. Night before last there was a large mass meeting in one of the public squares, in which violent anti-American speeches were made, the crowd stoned the United Fruit Company's office, and only the energetic action of the police prevented a demonstration in front of the President's Palace and the American Legation.
    While I do not think that the press dispatch received two nights ago justified the apprehension felt by the people for the possible loss of their autonomy, at the same time the dollar diplomacy of the Roosevelt and Taft Administrations tended to undermine their confidence in the alms and purposes of the United States with regard to Central America.
    The victory of the Democratic Party was received with enthusiasm in Central America. The people felt that the day of dollar diplomacy was over, that the spirit of Metternich would no longer masquerade under the cloak of the Monroe Doctrine, and that the Monroe Doctrine would again be understood in the terms of its original import — namely, the reiteration of the principles of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin on which the American Republic was founded, and a protest against privilege and absolutism.
    Thirty years' residence in Spanish America has convinced me that a large part of the political unrest in Central America is due to the fiscal system by which the revenue of these republics is collected from the Custom House, liquor and other monopolies. The oppressive incidence of indirect taxation, falling, as it does, upon the poor, is a constant incentive for the masses of the people to revolt in the hope of bettering their condition. Pledges of reformers are as easily broken in Central America as they have been broken in our own country in the past with regard to downward revision of the tariff.
    The existence of the Central American dictator is also largely a consequence of an economic condition, and, like our captains of industry in the United States, some are better or worse than others. The revolutionary struggles of Central America are not as aimless as the average American imagines. Beneath the struggle there is the demand for the principle of rotation in office. By this means principally can Central America rise in social order and prosperity. The influence of a new Executive brings with it new ideas and introduction of new enterprises and liberties. One stands for the extension of public instruction; another for public highways and means of communication; another for industrial development — and, as a general rule, each man leaves office with the country on a higher plane of development than he found it. The evil of continuation in office is apparent in the chaos existing in Mexico, where we have been deceived into confusing material prosperity with social progress.
    In Central America, Costa Rica and Salvador have reached the highest expression of republican Government by adhering to the principle of rotation in office. Social conditions in the rest of Central America are more complex than in either of these two countries, and their development must necessarily be slower. The revival of the post-bellum reconstruction policy and its application to Central America can only repeat the failure of carpet-bag government in the Southern States and bring our Government into discredit.
    The default of part of Central America on its foreign debt is to its discredit, but it would be difficult to find a statesman in all Central America who does not deplore the fact and earnestly desire to place his country on a firmer financial basis. In extenuation of Central American debts, it is only just to state that the history of some of them is analogous to those of some of our defaulting Southern States, the non-payment of which does not seem to trouble the public conscience in the United States.
    As I mentioned above, the fiscal system is largely to blame for the troubles of Central America. It was contended by the Republican Administration that the control of the Custom Houses would establish peace in Central America and that it would deprive the people of the sinews of war with which to fight. This is far from being the case, and I can recall no instance in which the Custom House supplied the sinews of war except the recent revolution in Nicaragua. The control of the Custom House, with its forced collection of duties for the payment of loans, claims and other charges, only increases the burdens of the people and provokes further unrest and a greater danger of trouble.
    Rather than condemning the Central American for his shortcomings and inferring that he is incapable of self-government, it would be more just to take into account his great achievement in establishing a civilization in spite of inadequate revenues, almost unconquerable natural forces, and, in many instances, an insalubrious climate, with the health of the people undermined by the ravages of the hookworm.
    The economic and social effects of isothermal zones can best be understood by Americans by comparing the social and economic development of the rural districts of, say, Alabama. Mississippi, and Louisiana with those of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, or States further north. We ourselves were unable to shake off the incubus of slavery for nearly a century after our declaration of independence, largely because of the economic and social conditions which seem to be peculiar to the soil and climate of the South. Central America also bears its cross.
    The States in Central America have undoubtedly been equipped with misfit Constitutions — never, perhaps, more unfortunate than when they have copied some of our own institutions. While we ourselves possess perhaps the most perfect Constitution devised to protect the individual liberty and equality of man, yet our so-called "democratic'' Federal Government must derive its revenue by undemocratic indirect taxation, the weight of which falls most heavily on the weaker members of our body politic.
    I can only hope there is no foundation in the rumors that the United States proposes to establish a protectorate. Should the Nicaraguan Treaty compromise the autonomy of that country, the logical effect of such an action on the part of Nicaragua would be for the rest of Central America to declare war on that republic for their own self-preservation. The spirit of 1856 which united Central America against the filibuster William Walker is being rapidly revived, and there is no doubt in my mind that Central Americans will go almost any length in defense of their sovereignty.
        San Jose, Costa Rica, July 26, 1913.