The daily union., 1852-05-15
UNION WASHINGTON, SATURDAY MORNING. MAY Is, 1852.

for the protection OF bur own interests is a very
dlnerent ihlng irom an interference between two bel
lgerent powers, with neither OF whom we are con-
nected by any other ties than those OF the common re-
latlonship OF nations For the same purpose the dis
senator quotes the instructions OF the SecIeia
y OF Stale 10 Mr. Monroe then minister 10 France This
was 10 lI94 These instructions were TO The elect that
washington was friendly TO the French revolution and
desirous oi us success and contained clause IN which
was slated that he "was incapable OF asserting TO the
right ol any fofegn prince 10 medde with ITS interior
Iangemenls-that Is, with the interior arrangements OF
France. What does this amount tor Not surely to a
declaration on The part OF the government that II would
intervene 10 prevent intervention, even that would
be judiclous TO do Much as owed TO France for
her Intervention in our behalf but with view to hum
BILE her ancient rival we nevertheless stood neutral in the
contest IN which she engaged with the whole OF Eu
rope. II ever Intervention had been duty, even
UNSUITABLE II would have been in that case, in behalf Of
our ancient ally struggling with world In arms. Bat
Washington carefully absained from it, and the decar
alton which has been referred to is NO annunc
alton Of his own TO the rights OF
nauon 10 NEEDLE In the domestic concerns OF another.
The opponents OF Intervention recognise fully its
friends the principle embraced in this declaration They
hnk wrong for one nation to interfere in the internal
arrangements OF another but this is very different from
protesting or going TO war 10 prevent it.
The next argument OF the senator is drawn from the
correspondence OF General Hamilton with General Mi
randi 10 relation 10 expedition for the liberation OF the
Spanish colonies in South America This liberation
TO be accomplished by the joint intervention Of the United
States and Great Britan and the senator nfers from
the friendship and confidential relations which had al
ways existed between Washington and Hamilton, that
the former must have been acquainted with the design
and approved H. This inference is illogical: II Wash
ngton had been previously silent the subject OF
policy in relation to intercourse with other nations.
the inference might have been just But surely it Is
going too far to infer that he had changed his views
often and solemnly expressed both in his official
communications and private correspondence from his
friendly relations with the author of the projected enter
prise And these views were expressed both before and
if Washngton's sanction Of this enterprise could be
proved, think can see in the object of it that
which distinguishes essentially from modern nterven
ceased
free government, unless England may be regarded
and II might not conflict in the estimation OF many with
the general policy OF non Intervention 10 form league
Tor sepeservation To unite therefore, with England
to establish republican governments on conti-
nent with view to our own preservation and interest
no necessary departure from the policy OF Washington
has never been contended 10 my knowledge by the OPP
Ponents OF intervention, that it might not be proper to
form alliances Tor our own security And in doing so,
are not compelled to wait until danger menaces us
nearyuDil It Is present al our doosbefore we make
preparation TO meet it ward it off Ii would be folly
to do So But sir, is there not great difference between
entering into alliances for our own benefit and preseva.
uon, and OF interesting in behalf Of others at the risk of
our security and peace, if not OF our existence,
The strongest argument OF the friends OF intervention
the one on which they rely with most confdences that
which they derive from the policy announced by Mr.
Monroe and which has received the sanction of most OF
our statesmen refer TO this declaration that any inter.
Terence by European governments with republican Span.
peace and safety, and the manifestation of unendly
disposition towards the United States" AT this period
the Holy Alliance"-the alliance of European despos
against liberty and liberal nsttuonswas still existing
lis mission the restoration of thrones, and there sub
Jugaon OF Ievolled peoples. 1t had turned its eyes 10
South America, and talked OF for Spain her
revoed colonies. In this state of things, and with
view, was distinctly expressed, to the peace and
safety OF the United States, the declaration OF Mr.. Mon
roe was made that we would regard any interference
OF The European governments with the republican
nYnu nj Nah fha fact tinn
OF an unfrendy disposition towards us. Here il will
be perceived that the object OF interference the part
OF our government was the preservation of peace Of
our own safety, which might be endangered by the
toraton OF despotc power on our own continent was
step taken TO avert danger while danger yet al
distance Bu, such interference as this is very different
from the kind OF interference now proposed. III MIR.
Monroe did not consider it, why did he not interfere
in behalf of Geecel Why did be protest against the
despo,ic rgo exercised towards poo despoed and dis
membered Poland Will it be said that because her
fate fixed, interference her behalf would have
been Of no avail Why not If il would avail in pre-
venting ihe aggression OF one nation against another,
why should not avail 10 mitigating the rgor with which
one nation exercises the power over another
can why should not be efficient in
the one case as in the other. do not believe it would
avail in either; and therefore il is that opposed to
Interference except in cases where own interest and
security demand it.
To show, further. that about this period the policy
which the distinguished senator denominaes "the policy
OF mpassveness had ceased TO govern in our inter-
course with other nations he quotes number of pas
from the conversations and correspondence OF Mr.
Canning, the British Prime Minister, and MIR Rush, our
ambassador at london These conversations referred to
design then supposed TO exist on the part OF the Hoy
Alliance" of attempting the reconques OF the Spanish
American colonies, lately become independents and the
senator 10 think these conversations very clearly
indicate that the policy Of the Farewell Address as II is
understood by the opponents OF Intervention, had been
abandoned previously TO that time. In this think he
was mistaken and short quotation from despatch of
Mr Rush himself 10 the American Secretary OF State,
dated few days after the conversations referred to, will
prove il. Ii says, speaking OF uniting with England in
protest against the contemplated movement In relation
10 the Spanish American provinces:
Would such step the appearance OF the Uni
ted States duplicating themselves In the political connex.
has been essentially bouomed the great arm Of pre-
serving peace and harmony with all nations, without
offending any, or forming entangng alliances with any
Upon the Institutions the
states m ght form, and their
euons but X has been part of their past conduct In
erere with the one being unmoested themselves
become parties 10 the other"
concusvey, think, that MIR Rush still held TO the old
w Washngtonian doctrine OF non-intervenion.
Before quitting this branch OF the subject 4 desire to
examine how FAR IL rs correct as is alleged by the advo
Gates OF Intervention, that Washington had abandoned
the precepts Of the Farewell Address in relation to the
policy which should govern in our intercourse with
toreign nations ! have had occasion in my brief and
hurried review OF the argument of the eloquent senator
from Louisiana, (Mr SoULE TO refer to the construc-
ton put upon tho language used by Washington in his
instructions TO ministers and in other communications
and endeavor TO show that such construction was erro
series OF communications commencing at point of time
anterior TO the Farewell Address, and coming down
nearly TO the period OF his death These communications
will leave no doubt The mind Of any that he