New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-04-09
DIR FOREIGN POLICY.

III there be one topic on which our country may be
supposed to have definite and established policy, 1t
is that of Foreign Affairs. This policy was adopted
and establish ed by Washington and the great men
who surrounded, counseled, and sustained him, and,
though sometimes departed from, has never been
discarded. Its essence is Non-InterventiOn-a total
abstinence from intermeddlDg lin the intestine or
other quarrels of foreign nations. The reasons
which commend and Justify this policy are so obvious,
and 30 forciby set forth in Wasbington's Farewell
Address, that we need not restate them. This pol
icy requires us to accept the Government in fact of
any foreign country as the Government of right, and
to deal with it as such, whatever we may think of
its legitimacy, its benefcence, or its stability. In
case of subsisting struggle between two rival fac
TONS we are to teach rghtuly domin ant over
the region which owns its sway, or we may wait
until one or the other shall have gained the mastery
All "entangtng alliances"-all engagements to help
one party or the other to achieve such mastery are
at war with our fundamental ideas Of international
rights and duties "Why quit our own to stand on
|" foreign ground Z" is Washingtons forcble inqu-
~ Let ia trade with oil nations, all factions, and
fight with none, unless they assal or grossly wrong
u.s. If the people of any foreign country 'riH fight
among themselves, we cannot help it, but we
should maintain toward the contestants such posi-
ton of impartial good will as may enable us to in
terpose our good offices at any time for the restora
ton of peace. Such was the foreign policy of the
founders of this Republic; and, though our age is
unquestionably fast one, we do not believe it has
improved upon this plan Of the sages who sat
around the council board of George Washington.
The Senate at its present session. has been
called to pass upon Treaties recently negotiated
with Nicaragua and with the Juarez or Liberal
party in Mexico, and has rejected them both. 1t is
understood that nearly all of the Republican Sena
tors voted in the negative on each. Thereupon
The ~ Y. Times-which has been a thick-and. thin
champion of those treaties, especially the Mexican
says:
ain the Senate the Republican leaders have contented them
selves with defeating all the sss T a foreign Pow
gotiated with good deal Of diligently and calculated protect
peace and prosperity OF both counris,was reesed The
Mexican Treaty has experienced the atehough there
nsh nNs Ss god
action Of the Republican have any information
e as s. "'''
just consider, for one moment, the facts in the
case: The Senate considers treaties in secret seq
sion, and no reports of its debates in such session
are ever published. The Democratic majority Of
the Senate could easily have removed the injunction
of secrecy from these debates but it has not seen
fit to do 80. Even the Treaties themselves have
not been legitimately given to the public; though
what purpoIt TO be copies of them have been sur
reptile usly and most disreputably printed. Au.
thentically, we OILY know that such Treaties have
been negotiated; but as to their provisions, good,
bad, and Indifferent, we are left entirely 10 the
dark, all power over them being in Democratic
hands. Such is the state Of facts in view of which
The Times complains that no good reason has
been offered for the action of the Republican
Senators, nor have we any information as to the
principles or policy on which they would have
" our relations with these States conducted" OF
course not. Suppose, then, you urge the Demo-
cratic majority of the Senate to remove the seal Of
secresy from everything pertaining to these Trea-
ties, and let us see what reasons" the Republic
cans assign for their course and on what "princi-
"ples" they would have our foreign relations con-
Quoted.
The two Treaties in question, in certain Of their
well-understood provisions, stand out in fragrant
antagonism to the policy Of Washington. Tina
with Nicaragua authorizes our Government to send
troops into that country, and defend the Transit
Route against all dsturbers. OF course, this could
hardly fail 10 involve US in any future confusion
that anarcbica State, since one the other of the
beEgerents parties ia almost certain to trouble the
Transit The Times, indeed, argues that the Treaty
wisely gives us right thus to protect the Transit,
imposing on US no corresponding duty. But even
if this be 80, President intent on intermeddling
could not fail to interpret the Treaty as authorizing
him 10 send an armed force to the Isthmus TO re-