New-York tribune., 1880-03-09

THE CANAL AND THE MONROE DOCTRINE.
The question whether the Monroe Doctrine
apples exactly to the project OF the Panama
Canal is not Of vital Importance. There is e
DrevaleDt habit of talking about Mr.. MOnroe'S
declaration as if it were rule OF international
low by which our own and other Governments
should be required to square their policy, and
beyond which we might not 60 without
violation of some clearly defined duty. The
Monroe Doctrine. however. was nothing but
an announcement Of the policy which the
United States intended to pursue under
specified circumstances. If the present con
tingoncy differs from that to which President
Monroe referred, then of course his declara-
tion does not apply; but we have the same
right to define our position in 1880 that we
had in 1928. A new state of facts calls TOR
q new definition OF the National policy, such
as that which the President has given III his
admirable Message.
II is urged that the independent Govern
ment of Colombia has perfect right TO grant
privileges for the construction OF French
canal across it's territory. SO it might have
been said In 1929 that any of the independ-
cpt States on this continent had a right to in
yjte colonization and control from the European
movers if they saw fit, and that we had no
business to interfere with them. The instances
in which nation may justifably invade the
iudependence of another for the sake of pro-
tecting itself are hard to define. The only
principle which bears upon such exceptional
cases is the right of self preservation, and
| every power assumes the Interpretation of that
| for itself. By no other law could the United
1 4. !, fln oxfo
| sion of the political system of Europe to any
part of this continents or to say that
foreign interference with the concerns of
other States " for the purpose Of depressing
them or controlling in any manner their
| DESTINY" would he regarded as the mani
| festation of ian unfriendly disposition to-
ward the United States" 1t is quite clear
that the Intervention to which Mr.. Monroe re-
ferred was hostile Intervention by Euro
pean monarchical powers with the affairs OF
American republics but the principle which
justified the prohibition in that case obviously
might Justify it just as well il England or
France or Spain had undertaken to establish
protectorate or kingdom in Central America
with the consent of majority of the inhabi-
tants.
Great Britain and France, at all events
have distinctly recognized the right of pro-
| hibiting just that species Of interference which
il anticipated as a result Of NJ. de Lesscps'
canal. In 1852 those two powers proposed to
the United States a tripartie convention TO
preyent the transfer of Cuba TO ANY power
cor individuals whatever" Mr. Webster. in
declining the proposal, disclaimed any design
upon Cuba on the part of this country "At
the same time" he continued. " it has always
"becn declared to Spain that the Govern
"ment Of the United States could not be eX-
pected 10 acquesce in the cessiOn Of Cuba to
"any European power" The French and
English ministers urged the right of iuterven-
ton by their Governments on the ground
of their commercial interests, and especially
in connection with the routes of IN
teroceanic communication by the 18TH
mus. They pointed out that a naval power,
holding Cuba, might Obsruct the isthmus
passage for all others and they argued II
% the maritime powers are, on the one hand,
"Out of respect to the rights of Spain and from
ga sense of their international duty, bound
"to dismiss all intention of obtaining posses
(" sion of Cuba so. on the other hand, are they
Obliged, out of consideration for the inter
" ests of their own subjects or citizens and the
protection Of the commerce OF other nations.
rwhn are entitled TO the use Of the great high
ways of commerce on equal terms, to pro-
| "caim and assure as faT>as IN them lies. the
present and future neutrality of the Island
"Of Cuba" The transfer winch the twn
powers wished to forbid wac not merely, ii