Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1865-12-21


the two countries, from which
those for the depredations before
mentioned should be excluded
The proposition. in that very un-
satisfactory form, has been de-
clined. ~ 4stH
The United States did not pre-
sent the subject as an impeach-
ment of the good faith of Power
which was protesting the most
friendly dispositions, but as involv-
ing questions of public law, Of
which the settlement is essential
to the peace of nations; and,
though peeuniary reparation to
their injured citizens would have
followed incidentally on decision
against Great Britain. such COM
pensation was not their primary
object. They had a higher mo-
tive, and it was in the interests of
peace and Justice to establish inn
portant principles of international
law. The correspondence will be
placed before you. The ground
on which the British Minister
rests his justification is, substan-
TALLY, that the municipal law of
a nation, and the domestic inter-
pretations of that law, are the
measure of its duty as a neutral !;
and | feel bound to declare my
opinion, before you and before the
world, that that justification can
not be sustained before the tribu-
nal of nations. At the same
time / do not advise to any pres
ent attempt at redress by acts of
legislation. For the future,
friendship between the two coun-
tries must rest on the basis Of mu-
tual justice.
From the moment of the estab-
lishment of our Constitution, the
civilized world has been convulsed
by revolutions in the interest of
democracy or of monarchy; but
through all these revolutions the
United States have wisely and
firmly refused to become propa-
gandists Of republicanism. 1t is
the only government suited to our
condition; but we have never
sought to impose it on others !;
and we have consistently followed
the advice of Washington to rec
ommend it only by the careful
preservation and prudent use of
the Blessing During all the inter-
vening period the policy of Euro
pean Powers and of the United
States has, on the whole, been
harmonious. Twice, indeed, ru-
mors of the invasion of some
parts of America, III the interests
of monarchy, have prevailed !;
twice my predecessors have had
occasion 10 announce the views of
this ration III respect to such inter-
ference.
On both occasions the remon-
STRANGE of the United States was
respected, from a deep conviction,
on the part of European Govern
ments, that the system of non-in-
reference and mutual abstinence
from propagandism was the true
rule for the two hemispheres.-
Since those times we have ad-
vanced in wealth and power; but
we retain the same purpose to
leave the nations of Europe to
choose their own dynasties and
form their own systems of govern
ment. This consistent modera-
ton may justly demand a cores
ponding moderation. We should
regard it as a great calamity to our
selves, to the cause of good gov
ernment, and to the peace of the
world, should any European power
challenge the American people, as
it were, to tue defence OF republi-
canism against foreign interference.
We cannUt foresee and are unwil-
ling to consider what opportuni-
ties might present themselves,
what combinations might offer TO
protect ourselves against designs
inimical to our form Ct govern
ment. The United States desire
to act. in the future as they have
ever acted heretofore; they never
will be driven from that course but
By the aggression of European
powers; and we rely ON the wis
dom and justice of those powers
to respect the system Of norl-inter-
ference which has so long been
sanctioned by time; and which, by