Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1851-11-28
The Policy of Non-Intervention.

The non-interferencc of our government in the at
fairs Of foreign nations has always been recognized
principle of American policy. But there is conside
rabe conraricty OF opinion i'll regard to the extent
to which this policy should be carried and the du-
ties incumbent upon US in pursuance of the non-ln-
t4rventon principle upon which it is founded. 1t
could never have been contemplated that we should
carry the practice so far to forget the princpe-or
that the observance of our own neutrality should
compel us to stand quiet and unmoved spectators of
the violation of neutral rights by others Indeed, the
celebrated Monroe declaration, that the United
States would permit farther European colonization
on the American continent proves conclusvey that
no such doctrine can obtain in the United States
AS nation we have rights and duties of which we
cannot divest ourselves We contend for and insist
upon the doctrine of total on-intervention APP
piled to ourselves, and by assent to the decla
ration of Mr. Monroe, have constituted ourselves
the champions and defenders Of that right behalf
of the nations in this hemisphere. Do rights as
a nation, or our feelings men. stop here? Do we
adopt different code of international law in Anne
RIGA and another in Europe, or can what is right in
one hemisphere be wrong in another! We think
not. We should never constitute ourselves a popu
lation of propagandists, but nation, subject in
foreign inter course to the laws Of nations we
have perfect right to protest gains and resist any
fragrant violation of these laws. for although the par
ties may be Indifferent to us, the principle is not mas
much it may at some future day be sought to be
applied to ourselves Every government is interest
ed in the maintenance of proper principles of inter-
national law in the same way that every citizen is
interested in maintaining the laws of the land.
MIR. Walker, late Secretary of the Treasury, in a
speech recently made by him in En- gland, announced
two principles with which cordially agree. The
first is, that government has right to interfere
with the domestic concerns of another country and
the second is, that should the desposms of Europe
combine to force other nations desiring to be free,
to adopt despotc governments. the United States
would have q right to interfere to prevent such a
fragrant violation Of principle upon which her own
policy is founded For instance, should the people
o. England choose to subvert their present govern
ment, and establish perfect absolutsm like that o
Russia. it would be their own affair and not
but should the continental governments undertake t.
interfere with the domestic affairs of England, anC
compel her people to do so, then it would also be
affair, because if We remained quiet and saw thu
principle of non-nterventon fagrantly viola ted
VIC could not say how soon the poisoned chalic
might be applied to own lips nor would we hav
any right to complain, but would deserve fate
because, having seen brother in similar distres
we refused to succor him. 1t is certainly our polio
TO keep as clear of such things as possible but t.
contend that fidelity to the practice of non-inserven
tion requires to abandon the principle, seems t.
us absurd in the extreme