The Portsmouth inquirer. [volume] (Portsmouth, O. [Ohio]) 1849-1855, 1851-12-19
Another Great speech of Kossuti.

H
The speech OF Gov. Kossuth at the Mu-
nicip4l dinner, in New York, on Thursday
evening, says the Tribune, will invariably
be read throughout the whole length and
breadth of our country with the deepest in
terest and heartiest admiration. It fills sew
en- columns of that paper, in small type, and
is too long for us to insert. We must,
however, direct attention to the first por-
.tion Of it where Kossuth conclusively an
swers the non-interventiol policy of
some Of our politicians.
Assuming that the doctrine Of non-inter-
ference was bequeathedto the American peo-
pie by Washington--which he denied-and
supposing that Washington impaired sucha
meaning to doctrine which was equivalent
to the words Of Cane: Gam my brothers
keeper'-he asked, is the dress which was
well suited to the child still convenient to
the full grown man; nay, to giant; and
would it not be ridiculous to lay the giant
in the cradle of the child to sing him TO sleep
by lullaby? At the time Of the founda-
tion Of the Republic the United States were
an infant people and the large dress of its
then comparatively limited territory hung
loose on its puerile limbs. We then had
nothing else to do but to grow. We have
now so far grown that there is no foreign
power on earth from which we have any
thing to fear; and this being our present
condition we have entered into second sta
dium of political existence, the destination
Of which is not only to exist for ourselves
exclusively, but 10 exist as member of the
great human family Of nations, having not
only the right to all claims which are due
from that family towards every one Of its
full-grown members, but also engaged to
every duty which thSt great family has the
right TO chim from every one OF its full
grown members. He then proceeded TO de-
monstrate that should the doctrine Of nom
interference ever have been taught by the
founders Of the Republic, that doctrine was
no! applicable now. We were then young
and weak, and what would have been con-
yenient and suitable for our infancy would
be but lily suited 10 our manhood. Having
stated the difference between our situation
then and now he would beg leave to state
that Washington never even recommended
non-interference or Indifference to the fate
OF other nations. He only recommended
neutrality. And there was mighty differ
ence between the two ideas. Neutrality is
an idea which has reference to state of
war between two bel!ignart powers, and it
was in this sense which Washington con-
templated it, when in his farewell address 10
the people Of the United States, he advised
.nem not to enter into entangfng alliances.
Neu'nlity is matter of convenience-not
Oh principle" The principle of non-interle-
renee mas reference to the sovereign right of
nations to dispose of their own concerns.
therefore, these two ideas of neutrality and
non-interierence are entirely different, hav..
ing reference to different matters. The pol |
icy which was taught by Washington was
not taught as permanent rule, but as a |
temporary convenience; not as constitu. |
tional principle-a lasting regulation for all |
future time; but only as matter of tenn |
porary policy, advisable until the United
States should progress in strength and con.
sistency, 70 which end he judged twenty
years TO be sufficient, after which he decla-
red himself to be resolved to espouse any
just cause.
President Monroe had clearly stated that
the United States would take up arms to pro-
iect the American Spanish colonies--now
Tree Republics--should the so-called Holy
(Eather unholy) Alliance make an attempt |
either p aid Spain 70 reduce Che now Amer
'can Republics 70 their ancient colonial
Stale, or 10 compel them to adopt political,
'ysisms more comfortable to the policy and |
Eisws Of that alliance. The forced intro