The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-04-24

the United States have assumed has nothinx neon.
bic with the existence OF monac chial insttu ions
IN Mexico. He draws TO his sup ort on tins point
the fact that the President OF tine United states as
well as the secretary cf state, III official papers,
disclaim all thought of pi piOpagandism on the Ame-
rcan continent in iavol OF republican institutions.
M Dfouyn de Lhuys draws in also the fact that
the United states holds tnendly relations with the
Emperor OF Brazil, as they held similar lelatOns
with ltulbjde, the Mexican Emperor, in 1922
From these positions, Nj DrOu de Lhuys makes
The deduction that neither any fundamental maxim
nor anv precedent III tue diplomatic history OF this
country creates anv necessary antagonism between
ne united States and the form OF government over
which the Prince Maxlmiian presldes in the ancient
capita OF Mexico
DO not thiuk 1t won d be profitable and therefore
am not dosirous 20 engage IN the DISCUSSIONS winch
M. DtOuyn de Lhuys has thus raised, IL will be
Cuficent for my purpose on the present occasion to
assert and to give reinsurance of our desire o faci
tate the withdrawal of the French troops from
Mexico and for that purpose to do whatsoever shall
lie COmpatlb @ with The positions have heretofore
taken upon the subject and with our lust regard to
the sovereign rights Of The republic OF NJ xico Far.
ther or Otherwise than this France could not expect
us to 90.
Having thus reassured France, it seems necessary
TO stare anew the position OF this Government as It
was set forth IN my etter of the 9Th OF December as
follows :-"Republlcan and domestic institutions on
tins continent are ueemed most congenlal with and
most Ienehcial to the United States. Where the
peope OF any country, IKE Brazil now, or Mexico
1922 have voluntarily established an0 acuuesc,
in archical shutions of their own choice free
from all tOrelpn cOnrOl intervention the United
Stats do not refuse to n alntain relations with
sucn Governments or seek through propaCandism,
-
"On the contrary. where q nation has established
institutions republican ana domestic similar TO our
own the United States assert, their behalf, that
no iortlgn laon can ughttully intervene ny force to
subYert iepubhcan institutions and establish those
OF an antagonisncal character"
M. Drou' n de Lhuys, seems to think that | have
MADE double reprOach against the Prince Maxi
millans alleged government, OF the difficulty IL en-
counters and OF the assistance bOrrows from for
eiGn powers. IN that respect VI. Drouyn de Lbuys
contends that the OF staces and the resistance which
Macmillan has cen Obliged 70 wrestle with nave in
ha thn Mt
ins ltutlOns which he is supposed by NJ Drown de
Lbbys to have esta blished.
M. BTOuyn de Lhuys maintains that MaXimilians
Z government is UNDERGOING The lot quite common to
new powers, while a. owe ali it has the misfortune to
nave 70 bear the consequences OF dlscords which
nave Leeh produced under previous Government.
NJ. lrouyn de Lhuys represents this misfortune and
his lot to be in effect the misfortune and lot of tIov.
e1nments winch have not found armed competitors,
and which have enjoyed IN peace an uncontrolled
authority. NJ. Drouyn de Lhuvs alleges that revolts
and intestine wars are the normal condition of
eXco, and he further insists that the opposition
mace by some military chiefs to the establishment
OF an empire under MaXimihan is only the natural
sequence OF the same want OF di, cipline and the
same preva ence OF anarch of which his predeces.
sOrs in power in Mexico have been victims.
IL is not he purpose, nor would 1t be consistent
with the character OF the United States. to DENY
that Mexico ha6 been Tor long time the Iheaire of
factions and intestine war 1 he United Sta,es con-
ess this tact with regret anO all me more sincerely
LecaIse the experience OF mexico has been not only
painful or her own people, but Las been also of un-
fortunate evil lntuo nee on other nations. On the
u
nor consistent with their fr endIv disposition
towards Mexico TO rcproach the people of that coun-
Ly WIN her past cSIamlties much less to invoke or
approve OF the lphlcllon of punishment when in
ncted upon them by strangers for their polite al
The Mexican population have and their situation
has, some pecul ariles which are doubtless well
derstoOd by France Early in the present century
they were forced, by convictions which mankind
cannot but respect to cast off foreign monarchcal
lule which they deemed incompatible with their wei
lare ana aggrandlZement. lhey were forced at the
,soIn
spect 10 attempt the establishment OF republican in
stutlons without the tull experience and practical
education and habits which would render these in.
sUtutions all at once trm ana satisfactory. Mexico
was a theatre OF conflict between European, COM
me1cial ecclesiastical, and political institutions and
dCgmas, and noyel American ideas. She had African
slavery colonial restrictions and ecclesiastical mono
poIes.
In the chief one of these particulars she had a
misfortune which she shared by the United States
while the latter were happily exempted from the
other mstortunes We cannot deny that ali fhe
anarchy IN Mexico, OF which NJ DrOuyn de Lhuys
complains, was necessarily and even wisely endured
IN the attempts TO lay sure foundations of broad
publican liberty
i do not know whether France can rightfully be
expected TO concur in this view, which al evlates IN
our mind, the errors msfOrtunes, and calamltes of
Mexico. However this may be, we fall back upon
the principle that no 1orelgn State rghtuly
terVene IN such trlas as those OF Mexico and the
ground OF desire to correct those errors, deprive
the people thereof OF their natural right of domestic
and republican freedom
All The injuries and wrongs which Mexico can
haY committed against any ofher state have fonnd
a severe pun Ishmt mt III consequences which IegIt
mately followed their CO commission Nations are not
au horZed TO correct each others errors except so
iaT as is necessary TO prevent or redress injuries
affecting themselves
II one State has right to intervene in anv other
State to establish discipline constituting itself a
judge OF the OCCASION then every State has the same
neht to intervene the affairs every other nation
being itself alone the arbiter both in regard to
the time and the occasion. The princIOe of inter-
ventlon thus practically carried out wOud seem to
render all sovereignty and independence, and even
a Of finn oil md
tal aClous.
M DrOuyn de Lhuys proceeds to lremark that as
for the support which MaXmIan receives from the
tTench army as well, also as TOR the support which
has been lent to hIm by Belgian and Austrian vo un.
teeIs, those supports cause NO hindrance to the
freedom OF his resolutions in the affairs of his Gov
ernment M. Drouy de LhuYs asks, What State
there that does not need allies either to form
detendW
As to the great powers such as France and Eng
lan0 do they not constantly MAINTAIN foreign
troops in their arrnesI When the United States
fought for their independence did the aid given by
France cause that movement to cease to be truly
national? Shall it be said that the contest between
the United States and the recent insurgents was not
in like manner national war because thousands
of lrshmen and Germans were found fighting unuer
the flag OF the Cmonr Arguing from Anticipated
answers to these questions, nj. DrOuYn de Hhuys
reaches conclusion that the character or Maxi
mlian's Government cannot De contested, nor can
ITS efforts to consolidate itself be contested on the
ground OF the employment OF foreign troops.
NJ Drouyn de L'huYs, IN this argument, seems to
us 10 have overlooked two important facts, namely:
-tlTst, lnaG the Ullteu states, IN THIS cOrrespOn
dence, have ASSIGNED definite limits to the right or
alliance, incompatible with assent to his argu-
ment and secondly, the tact that the United States
have not al any time accepted the supposed Govern
ment OF the Prince MaXlmllian as a constitutional
or legitimate form OF government IN Mexico, capa.
bic or fitted TO form an alliance.
M Drouyn de Lhuys, at the end of his very Ella
borate and able review, recapitUlates his Oxposi-
ton IN the following words: =" The United
States acknowledge The rightiwe had to make war
IN Mexico. On the other part we admit, as
they 90, the principle OF non-intervenhOn. Ghis
double postUlate includes, it seems TO me, the
elements Of an agreement The light TO make
war which belongs, as Mr.. Seward declares, to