The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-10-01


France 'to protect by the authority of her name III,
independence OF states, and the equilibrium of the great
political forces IN America To this declaration, have
thought II not out OF place, IN connection with the subject
under discussion, to call the attention of the Senate moi
Tor the purpose OF undertaking the formal reulaon, oil
which, think, the whole doctrine OF intervention, il
has been practically enforced in Europe, clearly
cepble bat for the purpose OF denying founded up
on any well established principles of International law,
and, II 1t had such foundation. of denying its applica
biy to the political condition OF this continent To
ter fully into the examination of this important subject
would require more time than il would be proper for
to devote 10 It. propose only 10 pass rapidly over
lew OF the principal considerations it suggests.
The declaration OF NJ Gulzot the first public and
official inmaon by European government OF inten-
hoA to interfere with the political condition of the indie
pendent communities the continent of America and TO
influence by moral, if not by physical agencies their rea-
tons TO each other; and if had been presented any
other form than that of abstract decaraon
sary 10 be followed by any overt act II would have be-
hooved US to inquire IN the most formal manner whether
tins asserted right OF neTposon derived any justification
RON the usages of nations or from the recognised prnci-
pies OF International law, or whether il was not an as
SUMPTION wholly unsupported by authority, and an t.
croachmen on the independence OF sovereign States,
which II would have been their duty to themselves and
the civilized world to resent as an injury, wrong
Am IN error in supposing this subject derives i'm
Porfance from our existing relations with Mexico, of
the States OF Spanish origin, which M. Guizot grouped
together as constituting OF the great political forces of
this continent, among which the equilibrium to
be mantaned Sir, more than once in the progress OF
the war; the governments of Europe have been invoked,
BY leading organs OF public opinion abroad, TO nerpose
between us and Mexico Is it not, then, appropriate
briefly to state what this right of Intervention is ii has
been asserted IN Europe, what il has been practice and
what II would be likely to become If applied to the States
OF this continent | trust it will be considered
The doctrine OF intervention TO maintain the balance OF
power rs essentially oil modern origin From the earliest
ages, 1t s true, occasional combinations have been form
ed by particular States for mutual protection against the
aggresslons OF powerful neghbor History is full OF
these examples. Such cooperation is dictated by the
panest principles of sefpeservaon for the purpose of
guarding against the danger OF being destroyed in detail
and 1t is founded upon such obvious maxims common
sense, that would have been remarkable il it had not
been resoed to from the moment human society assumed
regular form OF organization These defensive ALI
ances deficient in the permanence and metbodical
arrangements which distinguish the modern system of
intervention. Hume saw, fanced he saw in them the
principle OF the right of intervention to preserve the bal
ance OF power which is asserted at the present day But
could only have been the principle which develop
ed; they certainly attained the maturity the eff
Gent force OF a regular system.
The modern doctrine of intervention in the affairs Of
other States, which has sprung up within the last two
centuries, is lar more comprehensive in its scope 1t has
grown INTO practical system OF supervision the part Of
the principal European powers over their relative
forces and those OF the other States of Europe and though
II may IN some instances have been productive of benet
cla effects IN maintaining the public tranquility it has
frequently been an instrument of the grosses injustice and
tyranny From the first extensive coalition of this nature
which was formed during the long series of erm
mated by the peace OF Westphaa in 16is, down the
interference of Great Britain Prussia Austria and France
IN the contest between the Saan and Mehemet Ali, in
Sl0 period of nearly two centuriesan interference
designed IN some degree to prevent what was regarded
as dangerous proectorae over the affairs of the Porte
by Russa-the exercise of the right has been placed
Theoretically, on the high ground of regard for the
tranquility of Europe and the independence of States
Practically, it has often been perverted to the worst pun
poses oil ACKNOWLEDGEMENT and cupdity
If we look into the writers on International law,
think we shall find sufficient ground for the right
intervention. Grotus, who wrote in the early part of
the seventeenth century, denied lis existence Fenelon
who wrote about half century later denied it, except
means of elf-preservaton, and then only when the
danger and imminent Nattel, who wrote
nearly century after Feneon, and century before
own times. regarded the States of Europe as forming
political system, and he restricted the right of entering
into confedeaces and alliances for the purpose OF inter
venon in the affairs of each other, TO in which
such combinations were necessary to curb the ambition
of any power which, from its superiority in physical
strength and It's designs OF oppression conquest threat
ened to become dangerous to its neghbors DE Martens
who wrote hall century ago, acknowledges, with Vat
tel the existence OF the right under certain conditions
though he hardly admits it to be well settled rule OF
international law and he limits its exercise 10 neghbor
globe. But according to the two last writers, who
have, perhaps gone far any other public uriss, OF
equal emInence towards formal recognition of the
right, II only justies union of inferior States within
the same immediate sphere of action, to prevent
mutation OF power in the hands of single sovereign,
which would be too great for the common liberty
am confident. Mr., President, that no one can rise
IRON review OF the history OF modern Europe, and from
an examination OF the writings of her public urss with
out being satisfied that the right of intervention as reco
missed by civilized nations, is what have stated it TO be
mere right, on the part OF weaker States, TO combine
Tor the purpose OF preventing the subverson of their
dependence and the alienation of their territories by de
sIgnlrg and powerful neighbour right to be exercised
only in of urgent and immediate danger 1t is sim
ply right OF self-preservaon, underlined, undehnable
having no settled or permanent foundation public law
to be asserted only in extreme necessy and when abi
arly applied TO practice most fruitful source of abuse
injustice, and oppression One clear and certain mita
ton 1t happily possesses-n limitation which, amid all lis
upon the independence of sovereign States
has never until day been overpassed. BY universal
consent by the unvaryng testimony of abuse ITSELF il
not to be exercised beyond the immediate sphere of the
nations concerned pertains rgdly and exclusively
States within the circle OF political action Ii is
only by neghbors, for the protection of neghbors against
neghbors, that upon the broadcast principles
be rghtfuy employed When it traverses oceans and
looks to the regulation of the political concerns OF other
continents IT becomes gigantic assumption which, for
the Independence of nations for the interests of hnmaa
y, for the tranquility of the Old World and the New
should be significantly Tepeed
Mr. President, review of the history of Europe during
the last two centuries will bring with it another
ton in respect TO the right OF Intervention that no ro
ance can be placed its restriction III practice to the OBJ
Jecs TO which it is limited by every public jurst who
admits its existence al all and that nothing could be so
dscouagng to the friends of free government
tension OF the system to this continent, the power OK.
listed 10 introduce it here Though the combinations it is
claimed to authorize may in some instances have pro-
tected the coalescng parties from the danger OF being
overrun by conquering armies the perhaps
numerous in which their nteposIton has been lent to
break down the Independence OF States, and to throw
whole communities of men into the arms OF governments
TO which their feelings and principles alike
The right, has been SEEM (and be often
repeatedly with the utmost latitude claimed Tor by any
pubic Jurls no further than to authorize league
the part of two weaker States to protect themselves
against the designs of ambitious and powerful neigh