Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1853-09-17
From the Washington Unio
IISCEII,C I1ESpATCH


the United States the event of declaration of
dependence in Cuba, revolution there and conse-
quent revolt of the blacks in the island under Span
iSh authority and instigation.
We now proceed to examine the doctrine put for
ward by the British Secretary as to the interest
in the affairs of Cuba belonging respectively to Eng
land and the United States. To do this fairly,
bring together the detached portions of Lord John
Russers despatch which bear upon this point Re-
ferring to the of argument introduced with
so much preparation and urged with so much abili-
ty" in Mr. Everetts Cuban letter, the British For
eign Secretary tells us:
" It would appear that the purpose, not fully
ed but hardly concealed, is to procure the admission
of doctrine that the United States h0oe interest
IN Cuba, to achich Great Britain and France cannot
pretend In order to meet this pretension, it is
essary to set forth the character of the two powers
who made the offer in question, and the nature of
that offer"
"But if it is intended. on the part of the United
States, to maintain that Great Britain and France
hare interest in the maintenance of the present
status gao in Cuba, and that the United States hare
alone right to UOice in that NATTER her Majestys
government at once refuses to admit such claim.
Her Majestys possessions in the West Indies alone,
a0ithout insisting the Importance to Merico and
other friendly Statesof the present distribution Of
poaoer, gioe her Majesty an interest in this question
e0hich she cannot foregO."
Our readers will observe that the British Secretary
in the first place, here confronts the distinct propo
sition "that the United States have interest in
Cuba to which Great Britain and France cannot pre-
tend" This proposition, stated by himself, his
lordship does not venture to deny. He says it is
pretenSlon to be met but he does not meet 1t. On
the contrary he carefully avoids it. and contents him
self with denying the doctrine that Great Britain
and France have no interest" in the disposition OF
Cuba and that the United States have alone right
to voice in that NATTER little further on he af-
firms that her Majesty has an interest in this ques-
ton which she cannot forego"
This is the whole of the British cLd1na in the pre-
misses, as put forward by the British government.
Now, before touching the grounds upon which this
claim assumes to rest be it observed that his lordship
does not venture to pretend that the three gov
ernments stand upon an equal footing in this matter
that the interest of Great Britain of France
of both together in the question: is equal to the in
terest of the United States.
This is most important admission. 1t comedies,
in the first place. that the proposition OF the riparte
convention proposition not tit to be made; for
that proposition was plainly predicated upon an as
sumed equality of interests in the three powers. In
the second place. by this same admission his lord
ship comedies the fitness of that very line of argu
ment in Mr.. Everetts letter to which he is obectng
because that line of argument was adopted to show
and did show conclusivey, in the view both of pub
lie law and public policy, that there was nothing like
equality of interest in the between the three
powers and that therefore, the proposed joint con-
vention totally inadmissabe.
But we maintain that, in the third place, this
admission of his ordship upsets his whole despatch
and the whole claim of his government, stated in
that despatch. His lordship does not deny the SUI
perior interest of the United States in the question
compared even with his own statement of the in
terest of Great Britain and France Then upon what
grounds can those two powers, having only that mi
interest in the question: assume to dictate and
control in the question? Upon what pretext does
Great Britain, not denying the paramount interest
of the United States in Cuban revolution, assume
to prescribe to the government of the United States
the policy which, in that event. shall adopt? Again:
upon this admission how can Great Britain affirm,
in the words of the despatch, her entire liberty"
in the premises and that she is free to act in the
matter upon any occasion, either singly conoint
", I" as to her may seem ftp" We affirm that, by
liberty and freedom of action at her discretion in the
premises. Upon every principle, and by every rule
of public right, her liberty of action is constrained
and circumscribed and hedged in by the undisputed
paramount interest of the United States.
And now we go further. We that this adj
mission that the United States have, against Eng
land and France, paramount interest IN the ques-
ton considering the facts out of which that interest
arises renders inevitable the against
those two powers, the interest of the United States
is rghtfully controlling and exclusive In other
words, maintain that if, according to British adj
mission the facts of the give the United States
paramount interest in the Cuban question against
all the European powers Spain alone, then the
conclusion is irresistible that those facts bring
the Cuban question as between Spain aid the United
States fairly within the scope of the Monroe doctrine,
and render any interference in it by Great Britain
and France altogether inadmisable.
Before coming to the general argument on this
point let illustrate little Does the British gov
eminent admit the right of Spain France to inter-
fere in any question which may arise between Great
Britain and the United States to the possession
transfer of Jamaica? Lord John Russell knows that
eminent British statesmen hold that is not best for
England longer to hold Jamaica colony, 1t is
violent suppositon therefore, to suppose that
tingences might arise in which Great Britain would
think fit to cede Jamaica recognize its independ-
In such event, would England admit that
France or Spain had right to interfere? But the
right of those two powers to interfere in Jamaica
question between England and the United States is
just well founded the right of British French
interference in Cuban question between Spain and
the United States. Again: should Canada question
arise between Great Britain and the United States
would Great Britain admit the right of interference
by Russia? Would it not be, in British Judgment
monstrous thing for the Emperor Nicholas to pro-
claim that he and his trusty brother of Austria had
such an interest" in Canada that they could not
"forego" it and that in of Canadian declara-
ton of Independence himself and his imperial broth
er must really settle beforehand not only the ques
ton of American nterpositon but in fact the whole
line of policy which both the United States and Great
Britain should adopt? Would Russia help such a
pretenson any, in British eyes, by going into
Gerry special pleading in respect to the measurement
of distances? We suppose that in such an event
Lord John Russell would very probably, and very
politely tell the Gar to mind his business Yet
who fails to see that such Russian interference would
be just as legitimate the interference of Great Brit
ain and France in the question of Cuba?
These illustrations suffice to show that this British
pretenson of annterest in the Cuban question which
cher Majesty cannot forego" is not without its self