Chile, at the beginning of the war, declared its neutrality. Its President, on 1 June 1917, in a message to the Chilean Congress, referred to the common enemy's declared intention to es tablish a submarine blockade and then said CFor our part, being advised of hostile plans against neutral merchant vessels that would af fect well-established maritime routes utilized as of old by countries foreign to the present armed conflict, we have found ourselves obliged to re serve the right to take measures against acts which we cannot tolerate." But at the same time he expressed unwillingness to deviate from the line of strict neutrality. It is cer tainly more important to note that on 29 June 1917 the government of Chile endorsed Uru guay's declaration of 18 June that °no American country, which in defense of its own rights should find itself in a state of war with nations of other continents, will be treated as a bellig erent.° In his message to Congress 1 June 1918, the President of Chile upheld the neu trality of his country.
Colombia at an early period declared its neutrality, and its government consistently maintained that original position. Neverthe less the Colombian Senate, in October 1917, passed a resolution of protest against the bar barous submarine warfare conducted by the common enemy.
Mexico's attitude was defined by President Carranza in his message to the Congress on 15 April 1917 as follows: °Having in view com pliance with the high duty of preserving and defending the national interests, and inspired always by the most altruistic and humanitarian motives, I shall guide the conduct of the Gov ernment under my charge by all possible and dignified means in the direction of a most strict and rigorous neutrality' At the beginning of a Congressional session, 1 Sept. 1917, President Carranza reviewed certain efforts that had been made by the Mexican government, the object of which was to render prosecution of the war extremely difficult. In this connection he men tioned a note in which the Mexican govern ment had proposed that all neutrals should cease shipping supplies to the belligerents. But according to his own admission the efforts of his government to bring about a premature peace had not called forth, in other Latin-Amer ican countries, such full approval as he de sired. And it is a pleasure to add that when the new Belgian Minister was presented the Mexican chief executive, in his address of wel come, himself emphasized the duty of resisting the common enemy to the saying: 'zit is a great pleasure for me to express to Your Excellency on this solemn occasion, that Belgium in taking up arms as Your Excellency affirms, in defense of her neutrality, her honor and her independence, has fulfilled the most heroic act of modern times for the glory and example of weak nations. The countries which are not ready to shed the last drop of blood in defense of their autonomy and their institu tions have no right to be counted in the con cert of free nations, and those which do not measure dangers or curtail sacrifices to pre serve them, 'although they may be defeated and chained, may rest assured of the advent of the bright day of their liberty, because they are worthy of it, because they live for it and were born to enjoy it. The wholly exceptional' po sition of Mexico was due to the circumstance that in April 1914, when American forces oc cupied the seaport of Vera Cruz, and for a long time afterward, the United States and Mexico were on the brink of war. It is proper to ad vert also to the following circumstance: Tice recognition of the government of Don Venus tiario Carranza, on 19 Oct. 1915, was brought about in an exceptional manner, namely, through co-operative action of the American countries which, after careful investigation of Mexican conditions, granted together the offi cial recognition to the de facto Carranza gov ernment.
Paraguay, geographically so remote from all scenes of the great war, gave evidence, nev ertheless, of the feeling of her people when, on 11 July 1917, an important meeting held at Asun cion was attended by the most prominent citi zens, by the leaders of thought and representa tives of the masses. The meeting offered am ple tribute of admiration to the United States for her entrance into the conflict in defense of the principles of humanity and democracy, ac claiming her as the champion of human rights, and particularly of those of the New World. The suggestion was brought forward that Para guay's duty was to intervene in the conflict against the common enemy, but the government has continued to profess neutrality.
Salvador's Foreign Office, in its note of 4 Dec. 1914, observed: aThe use of neutrality proclamations seems to have been customary before international law clearly defined the principles which should govern the rights and obligations between belligerents and neutrals during a state of war. Later, these proclama tions have been used in cases where neutrals maintain an active commerce with belligerents; have adjoining frontiers across which they might supply each other with armament; or when a neutral nation has a commercial fleet that might be affected in its traffic with bellig erents. Our country in the present war is not affected by any of the above-mentioned con tingencies; and as a state of neutrality and the regulations established for the same are juridic conditions emanating from the war itself and from the international principles which govern it, Salvador as a neutral is obliged to observe strictly the principles of war-neutrality. These principles must not necessarily be promulgated by this country in the form of a proclamation, as they.are amply set forth in the fourteen diplomatic instruments subscribed to at the Sec ond Conference of the Hague in 1907 and in the Declaration of London dated 26 Feb. 1909.* The Minister of Foreign Affairs also stated that notice had .been given to the military com manders under his control to see to it that bel ligerent vessels should observe strict neutrality in the employment of their wireless apparatus. The government of El Salvador declined to take sides openly against the common enemy, but in a note dated 3 Oct. 1917 the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that °El Salvador, as an American nation, could not fail to recognize, in the conflict between the United States and Germany the solidarity which binds it to the great Republic of the North, in view of the spirit of Pan-Americanism which• should pre vail.x' Venezuela, non-committal from the begin ning of the war, announced its policy on 3 May 1917 through the message of the Provisional President, who stated that there had been no act of German submarines by which Venezuela had been directly affected, and, therefore, Vene zuela had not been involved in the coMplica *ions which had drawn the United States into war with the common enemy: °Notwithstand ing this,* the chief executive added, °Venezu ela reserves intact its right to defend the lives and the properties of its nationals. It follows the course of events with natural interest and identified with the principle in defense of which the United States has entered into the war; [moved also by] the traditional friendship which unites it to that nation and those general interests which are common to the Republics of this continent.* Again, in the message of 1 May 1918,•the Venezuelan executive declared that his nation was in full sympathy with the principles for the defense of which the United States had gone to war.