Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1848-02-24

disposition shall be shown 10 come TO an amlcaoe
arrangement with US on reasonable terms.
The objection have stated TO the proposition OF
Withdrawing our forces from Mexico, concerns only
the relations which exist, or may exist hereafter
between the two countries. If there were no other
objection the question might be decided upon consd-
erutions touching only their domestic interests and
their mutual rights
But come to the second obection-one perhaps OF
gaver import than the first, because 1t supposes the
possibility, if not the probability, of TN interference
in her affairs by other countries if were TO retire
without a treaty aud without commercial arrange
mens which it would be in our power TO enforce
The President alluded to the subject In his annual
message at the opening of Congress, and expressed
an apprehension Of danger from that source. par
tcipae in it. shall assign the grounds on which it
rests and only regret That, in stating them with the
minuteness necessary to make them fully understood.
shall be compelled to draw much more largely than
desire on the patience of the Senate.
Senators doubtless aware that the right of IN
tervehtion in the affairs Of this continent was formally
asserted in the French Chamber of Deputies IN the
year 1915, by NJ Guizot Minister of Foreign Affairs,
as the organ of the Government Of France. He re-
garded the great powers this continent divided
into three groups, namely Great Brlttian the United
States. and the States of Spanish origin; and he de-
clared that belonged to France to protect, by the
authority OF her nane the independence OF States,
and the equilibrium of the great political forces In
Il
out of place, in connection with the subject under dis
cussion, call the attention of the Senate; not for
the purpose of undertaking the formal refutaOn, of
which think the whole doctrine of Intervention, as
has been practically enforced in Europe Is clearly
susceptible, but for the purpose of denying as found
ed upon any well established principle of internatlon
al law, and, if it had such foundation, of denying
its applicability to the political condition of this cont
nent. To enter fully into the examination OF this
important subject, would require more time than 1t
would be proper for me to devote TO it. propose only
to pass rapidly few of the principal cOnsdera-
tons it suggests.
| The declaration of M. Guizot was the first public
and official intimation, by European government. of
an intention TO interfere with the political condition
of the Independent communities the continent of
America, and influence by moral, If not by physc-
al agencies, their relations to each other. And II 1t
had been presented any other form than that OF an
abstract declaration necessarily 10 be followed by
any overt act it would have behoOved US TO inquire,
in the most formal manner, whether this asserted
right of nerposition derived any justification from
the usages of nations from the recognized prncl
pies of international law or whether 1t was not an
assumption wholly unsupported by authority, and an
encrOachment the independence of sovereign States,
which it would have been their duty to themselves
and the civilized world to resent as an injury, a
wrong.
Am in in supposing this subject derives new
of the states of Spanish origin, which NJ Gulzot
grouped together as constituting one Of the great po-
litical forces of this continent, among which the
equilibrium" to pc maintained! Sir, more than
once the progress of the war, the governments OF
Europe have been invoked by leading organs of public
opinion abroad, TO interpose between US and Mexico
Is it not then, appropriate briefly TO state what this
right of intervention is, it has been asserted In
in Europe what it has been in Practice and what it
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 bal
ance of power is essentially Of modern origin From
the earliest ages, it is true, occasional combinations
have been formed by particular States for mutual pro-
lection against the aggressions of powerful neigh
Dor. History is full of these examples. Such CO.
operation is dictated by the panes principles of self
preservation. for the purpose of guarding against the
danger of being destroyed in detail; and it is found
ed upon such obvious maxims of common sense, that
it would have been remarkable if it had not been re-
sorted to from the moment human society assumed a
regular form of organization. These defensive alli-
ances were deficient IN the permanence and methodi-
cal arrangements which distinguish the modern sys-
TEN of intervention Hume saw, or fancied he saw,
in them the principle of the right of intervention to
preserve the balance of power which is asserted at
the present day. But it could only have been the
principle which was developed; they certainly never
attained the maturity the efficient force Of regu-
lar system
The modern doctrine of Intervention in the affairs
of other States, which has sprung up within the last
two centuries is far comprehensive In It's scope.
1t has grown into practical system OF supervision
on the part of the principal European powers over
their relative forces and those of the other States
of Europe; and though it may, in some instances,
have been productive of beneficial effects in maintain.
ing the public tranquility, it has frequently been
an instrument of The grossest injustice and tyranny
From the first extensive coalition of this nature,
which formed during the long series of wars
terminated by the peace of Westphalia, in 1913,
down to the interference of Great Britain, Prussia,
Austria and France, in the contest between the Sui
tan and Mehemet Ali, in 1910, period of nearly
two centures-an interference designed, in some de-
gree, to prevent what regarded as a dangerous
proectorate the affairs of the Porte BY Russia
the exercise of the right has been placed theoretical
ly, on the same high ground of regard for the tran
GUILTY. of Europe and the independence of States
Practically 1T has often been perverted the worst
purposes of aggrandIzement and cupidity.
If we look into the writers on international law,
think shall find sufficient ground for the right
of intervention. Grotus, who wrote in the early
part of the seventeenth century, denied its existence
Fenelon who wrote about half century later, denied
1t, except as means of se-preservation, and then
only when the danger real and imminent Vat
tel, who wrote nearly century after Fenelon, and
century before our own times regarded the States
of Europe as forming political system. and he re.
srlcted the right OF entering into confederacies and
alliances for the purpose Of Intervention in the affairs
of each other. to cases in which such combinations
were necessary to curb the ambition of any power
which, from its superiority in physical strength, and
its designs of oppression conquest, threatened to
become dangerous its neig hbors. De Martens who
wrote half century ago, acknowledges, with Vatte
the existence OF the right under certain conditions