The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-10-02
A WRONG 1nfsrence correeted.

Wrong Inference Corrected.
The Union and the New York Tribune are
engaged in warm controversy on points which
appear to us to demonstrate their entire agree
ment in one particular, however widely they
differ on minor and collateral issues. They
are "wide as the poles asunder" on the ques-
tions of abolitionism and flibustering. and yet
their reasonings in regard to them proceed es-
sentially on the same principle. The differ
ence is, that the Tribune pleads for abolition
ism in accordance with the higher law, while,
in obedience to the same law the Union be-
comes the champion of filibusters in general,
and the LOPEZ expeditonists in particular.
With the controversy that is now going on
between these doughty advocates of separate
versions of the higher-law doctrine it is not our
desire or our intention to interfere. They are
well able to fight the matter out for themselves;
and. all that we propose now to do is to pick
out and carefully ''set" couple of the argu-
mentative jewels which shine conspicuously in
the Unions article of yesterday.
The first is as follows:
ain 1923 Great Britain did not feel herself re-
strained by her obligations the allied powers of
the continent of Europe from saying to Spain that
she could not receive aid from France, any other
foreign power to put down the efforts of the Span
ish colonies to establish their independence. Great
Britain, in fact protested against the right of any
power to interfere by force in the contest between
Spain and her revolted colonies. Lord Castereagh
and MIR. Canning, at that day, 80 far from sending
fleets to stop such expeditions those of Lopez of
this day. would have connived at their fitting out;
and Mr.. Monroe, animated by the liberal
sentiment, declared that the political systems OF
Europe could not be transplanted on this continent
without exciting the displeasure Of the United
States.'
The idea conveyed in the paragraph is
plainly this-that the policy pursued by Great
Britain in the days of CAsrLEREAGH and CAN
MING, and by the United States when under
the Presidency of Mr.. MONROE, was one which
would not permit the interference of foreign
powers as between the Spanish colonies and
Spain herself.
We are ready to concede that, if Cuba were
now in revolt against Spain, this would still
be the true policy of the United States Gov
ernment-that we should be bound, by re-
gard for the rights of humanity, and just in
depreciation of international law, to protest
against the right Of any power to interfere by
force in the contest" But the same princi-
pie which would justify our protest against
foreign interference on behalf of Spain, would
also justify the protest of other nations against
our interference in behalf of Cuba. The doc
trine Of non-intervention is binding on both
sides, or it Is of no avail whatever We should
have as much right to step in to aid revolving
subjects as any other power would have to aid
the country revoted against; but no more.
And justice and expediency conspire to insist
on abstinence from interference on either side
Nothing but the "higher law" can warrant
any other policy; and that is weapon which
cuts both ways.
The mistake of the Union is that Its subse-
quent reasoning rests on the unwarrantable as
sumption that Cuba is, or has been, in state
of revolt. Our contemporary says: whether
the Cubans were actually in revolt or not, is
not material" But it is material, for on this
the whole issue depends; and the Union evnces
it's consciousness of the fact by conveying
throughout an implied idea that the European
powers are about to step in to aid Spain as
against her own revolted subjects.
The other gem which we desire to place in
our cabinet of curiosities is equally precious.
Here it Isl
els Great Britain to treat she has treated
Spain, or as she has recently treated China? She
has robbed Spain Of all her wealth-she has made
war China in order TO profit by the trade in
opium. Is she to rob us Of our negroes, under
the flag of abolition, and declare all the time that
she lie respecting the law of nations and the same
principle Of noninterfence intervention that
she appealed to in 1929"
To enable our readers TO discover the force of
these terrible interrogatories, we may remark
that they are based upon our announcement of
the formation in Canada of ''Fedus Apricul-
tural Union," whose object we described to be
the affording of facilities Of escape and the
means of subsistence" to runaway negroes. We
were content TO sit under our contemporaries
ungenerous misrepresentation at the time; and
after some days cogitation, he has conjured up
the dreadful supposition that Great Britain is at
the bottom of this Union, and that her design is
to "rob us Of our negroes" He is unable TO
perceive the difference that exists between the
action Of handful of colored individuals and
the movements Of a powerful government;
or, il he perceive the difference, he hides
il for momentary purposes We are willing
to believe that the Union, while penning
these queries, was perfectly aware that