The New Orleans Democrat. (New Orleans, La.) 1875-1876, 1876-02-09

FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS NOT IN Aocohp
ANCE wITH HIS CUBAN POLICY.

roprtau GOVERNMENTS NOT IN ACCORD
ANcE wrrH HIS CUBAN POLICY.
Especial Dispatch to tho Herald by Cablel
I,oNpoN. Feb. 1, 187G.-There Is an inn
portant lender in the Times to-day CON
trndictiug Secretary Fish's assertion
TINT his action In the Cuban affair Is In
accordance with the Monroe doctrine.
THE british PRESS OPINION
After referring to the American note
to the E,Irol,eat powers the Times says
s"rbc note is generally interpreted. rs o
deliberate attenuation, IL not Greet
surrender Of the famous pOlltlcal
Dogma The writer then proceeE 10
say: "While Mr.. Fish Is 50 carelul 10
cut away oil the modern ana popnlar
Developments. accretions and extensions
of the principles laid down by Monroe
in 1923. which have been SO long pro-
claimed ms tho keystone Of American
liberties. he yet labors to show that ne
holds to traditional policy to prove. his
case and depends for this on departure
from what is supposed to be y tradition
OF American policy. Mr.. Fish adroltly
opens u curious historical controversy
BY boldly asserting that the real author
Of the principle enunciated In Presldent
Monroes message was, Of oil men, Mr..
Canning.
"rhe revelations arc astounding.
Looking ut the evidence on which Mr.
Fish bnsed this assertion, we are aston
isbed ut the intellectual audacity with
which he attempts to give to the irrele..
want the weight OF relevancy by dint Of
stout affirmation. Monroe's idea be-.
came corrupted until it degenerated
into barren cry OF America Tor the
mitigated in practice by the good sense
Of American statesmen, although It's
pretensions have hampered their free
dom OF action and kept many perilotls
questions open which might have been
useftlly closed by diplomacy. Many
| Americans had come TO believe that the
existence Of foreign colonies upon the
soil of the continent was nm insupport-
able outrage. From such exaggerations
of an originally foolish claim we are
glad to soc that Mr.. Fish has with
drawn and that he shapes his policy
rather by the precedents of Monroe s
administration than by the principles oil
Monroe's message.
"Mf. Fish 5 arguments are much what
we would expect from an astute states
man feeling bound to respect popular
prejudices while receding from IN I'M
| tenable position and minimizing obso-
lete principles. His admission that he
has invited European governments to
| cktIUIIC bIlt Sttbe VI III OuDt
would be quite sufficient to raise popular
clalnor If the Monroe doctrine had kept
its hold upon the imagination Of the
American people.
Turning to Mr.. Fish's citations from
Mr.. Rush S conversation with Canning
we discover that the English statesman
gave no single word to justify the pre-
tensions of President Monroe's message
"Mr. Fish declares that the American
invitation addressed to the European
Powers falls outside the scope of the
doctrine, because Cuba is still u colony
but that tho spirit Of tho Monroe Mes
sage clearly excludes interference with
Cuba by any European Power, except
Spain for no other can claim u locus
sfdudi by nm existing possessory interest
This spirit Mr.. Fish now utterly casts
out, and IL he Is willing to read the Mon
roe doctrine backward, and to interpret
it according TO the councils Of Mr.. Can
ming, which the original dogma directly
traversed, we do not grudge him success
in his efforts to preserve the appearance
Of consistency"