The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1865-07-07

Rritish, InteFvemaOme
During the progress Of the recent rebellion,
.,a snb;ect Of British Intervention elic'eeo
,nucb remark, and somewhat Of angry discus
s;on. Looking at the law Of nations as de,
ve,oned and illustrated in the history ana
nractice of our own country, as wen as IN
Great Britain, It appears to me England
oo,;d not have interviewed without violating
hsr own solemn declarations, and repudiating
her ayowed principles in regard to the exer-
c;se of this right, under given state OF facts.
A few remarks on this subject, as evidenced
he writers on international law, by the utter
woo. &C onr own statesmen, and by the ac-
ZION If Great Britain herself toward our own
country. will, think. not be out OF place at
this time.
Chancellor Kent says: ''The right OF inter
nos;tion must depend upon the special CIR
runs,arcas of the case. 1t is not susceptible
&c ,orec;se limitations, and is extremely dell-
cote IN the apnlication.'' Kent Com, 25.)
Wheaton afirms .sthat non-interference is the
general rule, and cases OF lusnhapie ih'eiiei
ance form exceptions, limited by the necessity
of the case -kWheaton Com. 1901 Mr..
Wehstar IN his letter to Lord Ashburton,
hearing date the 2lst aay of April, 1871, goes
avon further. and announce s'that the saluta-
~ doctrine of ndn.interyention by one nation
with the affairs of others, is liable to be
essentially impaired. if. while the govern
mont refrains from interference, interference
,,J.x-;1ua llv or
in masses.n And President jackson, in his
message of December. 1885. thus clearly sets
forth the American views on this matter:
ssThe uniform policy and practice OF the Uni
ted States is to avoid all interference in dis.
mites which merely relate to the international
government of the nations. and eventually to
recognize the authority of the prevailing par
tv. without reference to the merits OF the
original controversy
A very forcible exemplifcation of this doc
trine is seen in the early history of our own
country, and it illustrates IN an extraordinary
manner the peculiar sensiuveness existing IN
the American mind at that time, concerning
British intervention. In 1892, General Wash
ington addressed letter to Governor Nor
ris, in reference to the reported mediation OF
England between the United States and the
Indians, with whom We were at war. Com
ing from such a source, the language is IN
usually strong and emphatic. He says:
s.You may be fully assured, Sir, that such
mediation neUer tUtIS asked that the asking OF
it Rerer ,cas IN contemplation, and | think
might 60 further and say that it not only Her-
er srU be asked but would be rejected II Of
.fered TIE United States viii never have oc-
easion, hope. to ask for the interposition q
that po,uer, or dity other, 10 establish peace
,cithia their olc@ territory." 90 Wash.
Works, 239.)
This, then. is the true American doctrine
il svmpathizes with the American heart and
is announced in a language, and with an au-
thority, not to be questioned or disregarded.
England, contend has steadily and firmly
sustained the same views so far as these are
proven by her public acts and diplomatic cor.
respoudence. As an evidence of this, Iwoud
refer to the circular of LoRD CAsTIEREAGH s
dated January Ia, 1921, and addressed to tie
allied power i'll vFndication of his conduct
when she declined becoming party to ths
doctrines asserted ily the allied sovereigns a
Laybach and Verona in their famous declara
ton of rights. Pardon me if make liberia
extract from this cISeular, it is replete, witt
sound instruction, and KENT SAYS it defined
the doctrine on this subject with uncommon
precision.
1t proceeds to say that England was prepar
ed ito uphold the rights of any State or State:
'.to interfere, where their oirn security or es
''SeRtill interests wefe seriously endangered by
'.the internal transactions of another State
s'that the assumption of the right was to be
Justified by the strongest necessity and to be-
1.pointed and regulated thereby; that it conld
mot receive general and indiscriminate APP
"plica.ion, TO all evolutionary movements eith
''ota reference 10 that immediate bearing upor
s'sonle particular State or States that its exer
''cise lrds an exception n equal principles o
.'the ereltest value and importance, and a
lone, that only properly grolrs ont Of the ci,.
''cumSt0Rces otute Stieciol case and exception
''of this description could nerer. without tn,
''utBlost danger. be 50 far reduced to rule a
''to be in. orpordted into the ordinary diploma
''cy of States or into the institutes Of the LA
sol nations See Annual Register. Vol
e5.1
out the most incontroyertible proof of tn
English doctrine, and establishing the mos
authoritatiyely. that she could not have inter
fered without violating her own teachings an,
running counter TO her own example is con
tanned in part Of her diplomatic history fc
1880, during she existence of our revolution
At that period she was at war with France
Spain, and the now United Italy. Russi:
and Germany rendered their services as me
diator. So far as France and Spain were
ConceTheu, sue ulu not decline their kln6
Offices, but so far as the United Statees. q,
rather the then American colonies. were con
cerned, she peremptorily declined all inter
vention. Those colonies had not vet estab-
hshed their independence, and the following
Is the hlgh-toned and emphatic language O
the British King on that occasion in answer
to any interference in his domestic concern,
by foreign powers
ssHe could not. in any manner or form what
ever, admit the interference of any foreign
power between him and his rebel subjects
He would not consent to any measure which
might limit or suspend the exercise of tn.
right every sovereign had to employ the mean.
in his power to put an end to rebellion il
has own dominlons, and that the mediation o
the two Imperial Courts must be limited to {
peace between the European belligerents. ant
not to a peace nth his rerolted subjects. ~ He
further declared ''that in all points to b.
agitated in future Congress, England viii
behave with great equity and condescension
but the dependence of his rebel subjects mus
be pre- established; and that this matter mus
be left entirely TO the care of Great Britain.
r. Pitkins I. S., 115, and Sd vol. Secret Jour
nal of Congress, IS.
1t would appear that these sentiments har
monized with the views of the Imperial Cont,
of Russia and Germany, as no remonstra,o;