New-York tribune., 1880-03-07

The meaning Of the doctrine then no, that the
United States should prevent any State on this
Continent from ccding territory 70 a European
State for colonization but that In point of fact th
whole continent was occupied By States whose
territories touched This was not true. The coun.
try west Of the Rocky Mountains was then stiIl
fair ground for colonization the part Of Russia,
England, or the United States, for each had con-
tguous territory. But had IL been true. this doctrine
was evidently announced to meet this partculat
exgency. II was no general declaration, but sim,
ply special warning. Even as such 10 was au
individual opinion only. and never received any
legislative sanction. When II was proposed to units
with the South American Republics In the Panama
Congress, the House voted down the proposition,
declaring "that the United States ought not 10
become parties with any of the South American
Republics 70 any compact for the purpose
OF preventing colonization upon the Continent %
AMERICA
Turn to the second prop 0stion. j have not
space to repeat It's exact languages but the
gist of 10 was thisi When the allied powers Ia
Europe proposed TO interfere with the Spansh
colonies In America, aud hand them over bound
to tho mother country, from whom they had snc-
cessfuy reyolted at English suggestion, Monroe
said II you try your principle OF interference In
favor OF absolutism on this side Of the wafer. We
shall not sit by quietly. We shall meet you with
contrary spirit of anu-lntcrference. And this was
put uoon the ground of our own safety as well az
the right of " our Southern brethren TO choose
their own form of government freely. This again
was merely an individual opinion, without any
sanction of law. But il was a word spoken at tho
right time. and accomplished It's end without the
need Of such sanction. The Spanish American Ie-
publIcs wcTs let alone forthwith. Now. does thls
doctrine claim for Ms the prOtect0rate over every
weaker State on tins continent Does lt even blnd
n % m a
mliau's rule In Mexico Neither the one nor the
other We expressly declined T. assume such a
protectorate and bound ourselves % nothing. We
merely warned of foreign interference with tho
form of government of neighbur S.ates, un0h.
cally. and IN tnat one instance Notice. also thit
this interference was political one, aud against
the will of the maj GRITTY. aAd You have far iHeA
OF wlat the Monroe Doctrine was. when it could
fairly 10 applied, aud what % was intended To ac-
D5c- the building Of a canal across any state on
thi- continent, with its express PERMISSION, bl
of the principles of the Monroe Doctrine SuCh
pian In the first place. Is commercial, n0t pohtlcal.
Again, II Is proposed To be done "0t against Dut
with he consent # the state thiou4 IL passes
And again. no foreign power or alliance of powers IS
forcing the concession. The scheme n private
contrn,rcf1l one The charter f. voluntarily
granted. There j. not nc present then, single
point oi similarity between VI. dc Lc'acpsr canal
enterprise and the state 0f ahdlr. Mhl'h crew
forth the declaration of President Monroe. IT, IS
some fear, tie canal company should outsloW 10
state which charters It. and through the comfy
auc, of the French Government should begin I'd
rule that state then DO may Doe necessary for as 20
step DID,. tnul then whatever assurances NAV 10
Obtained aipi.mati,Ily from France, from mo
United states oi Colombia, or rom tHe ct""i a. ~
pautI .Ao Monroe Docune. a. least, has abs0iuiciy
u.iiilC 90 do with tLc matter. M.rovcr, aiiHW
me to remind your readers tHat NlcaragNai ITO
United STATES Ol Colombia. or whatever state the
canal u4y finally pass through, i- "a sovereign anu
independent power upon whose rght 10 chaIrr
m.rruli ~cuDm-s cd Improvement tne ouiA i'hl-
tat ou Is th.s: That they slau nHt Interfere Ni
,,f..r -I.-.flraf- 90 us More than that We sAou Il
get Hv might. not hr rtsI r.
Aiv uulrt. then. j. fl'>: lN0t uHt'l the If''
Golr,imcnt rf.,-. i.Iou4n ruc canal, t0 'nu-fIan
tine people of Colombia .u thrr choice of GOVERNS
meuf The Monroe Doctrine has u0 apputaninif IA
tirua,Ier a.u -.Duil uof Doe fc.,ffrh in Iu 0Inn''
tior witt r. Whether that is lk.'v fo haHp." |
Will NOT Try to .orrt~l bat simply point Co tHs
u.atIl waters oi 90. ~u.L Lautl cu1 tnt.r ihr i.'
ii.e ANA to t.r rot u-Nr chira'te' oi the present
lio..iuueui ,u France. Ns have "a canal to,c.f-
Sion bv frr.fr win Nicar.gl7. proper NaI -
c1Ltr5. am iuiolocc4u.c canal in my opinion, is 10
ll..I Do ourselves, auA not any l'I.' io l.N tis
d...-Y. r.... .....p r. 1II.lU.IE -. WOOL-lN.
..r.iI.c,t. fc..2l. J, 80.