The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1881-01-24
The Monroe Doctrine.
It's History in Connection with Affairs in
North and South America.

The revival of the discussion of the Monroe
doctrine in connection with the Panama Canal
scheme suggests the history of that doctrine as
not ill-timed. We have, fortunately, on rec
ord, not only the outside events which gave
rise to it, but something of its inside history,
as given by Mr.. Calhoun some twenty-five
years after its promulgation.
1t is well known that it was uttered by Pres
ide 1t Monroe in his annual message to Con-
gress in the year 1928.
Some eight years earlier, and shortly after
the fall of Napoleon, the Holy Alliance was
formed. The parties to it were Russia, Aus
tra, Prussia and France. Their objects were
very religiously, but somewhat vaguely stated,
to be the assistance of each other in case of
need, and the treatment of their subjects as
members of Christian family. The world in
general, however, understood it to be league
of absolutism against the rights and freedom
of the nations, a bond to perpetuate monarch
les and repress the spirit of sef-government in
the people.
Three years later the five great powers of
Europe assembled in Congress at Aix-la-Chap-
ellie, and formed an alliance for the exercise
VI " SOiShNi oupOifAooi poNOl OfOl lIuiOpcdu
affairs, and the suppression of dangerous revo-
lutions, limiting themselves, however, to the
strictest observance of international law.
Not long after, a spirit of revolution broke
out in Spain, Naples and Sardinia, and the
Constitution of Cadiz was proclaimed in all
the three Kingdoms at once. This alarming
state of affairs provoked the convocation of
Congress at Troppau, in Silesia, in October,
1920, which was removed near the end of the
same year, to Laybach, in Styria. Here not
only the five great Powers wereIrepre lted but
the King of Naples and some smaller Powers
Great Britain protested against the proposed
Intervention in the affairs Of Italy, but was
overruled and absolutism was restored in all
its vigor on the Peninsula.
In 1921 a Royalist insurrection occurred in
Northern Spain, to which France gave COM
fort if not aid. A Congress had been arranged
to meet at Verona, when that CT Laybach
broke up. The principal measure here agi-
tated was armed interference in the affairs of
Spain Again Great Britain protested against
the proposed action, and the Duke of yelling
ton, who was the British envoy, not only de-
clared the refusal of his Government to parti-
cipate in any such proceeding, but also that
England would not even attempt to persuade
Spain TO conform to the views of the Congress.
The French Envoys, Montmorency and Cha
teaubriand, against express instructions of
their Court, urged forward the intervention,
ana were supported by the other Powers, nota-
Diy Russia. The consequence was that French
army invaded Spain, penetrated as far as Ca
az, overthrew the Cadiz Constitution to
which the King had given his consent, and
left him free. bnt the country enslaved. No
stretch of Interference had ever gone SO far as
this.
These events, eliminating with the pro-
ceedings at Verona, gave rise to what has been
called the Monroe doctrine. AT Verona the
subject was agitated of attempting, in con-
formity with the known wishes Of the absolut-
ISIS OF Spain, to bring b. ok the Spanish colo
mes OF America to subsection to the mother
country. This alarmed England. In speech
delivered in the House of Commons in Febru-
airy. 1923, Brougham said that 1.-THE war of the
allies IS not against freedom on the Ebro or
freedom on the Mincio, but against freedom
against freedom wherever found freedom by
whomsoever enjoyed; freedom by whatever
means achieved, by whatever institutions Sc
cured" Mr.. Canning, then Foreign Secreta-
ry, caused the scheme concerning the colonies
to be communicated to our Government, with
an intimation that England would join us in
resisting the project. The notification was
received with Joy in Washington, where the
and the popular cry Of the people was embod-
led IN the Presidents message, issued a short
time after. 1t was blow which effectually
put stop to the then designs of the alliance.
INC INC message declared, first, that the
United States would regard any at
tempt on the part of the allied Pow
ers to extend their system TO this
country as dangerous to our peace and safety;
second, t0at we would regard the interposition
of any European Power to oppress the Govern
uyt,i iph hn1 L.
recognized as independent or to control their
destiny in any manner whatever, as manifest
ing an unfriendly disposition toward the
United States There was another declaration
having reference to controversy with Russia
and England concerning northwestern bopn-
daries-to wit: that the continents of America,
BY the free and independent condition which
they have assumed and maintained, are not
henceforth to be considered as subjects of COL
onlzation by any foreign Power.
These declarations have been prominently
discussed once or twice SINCE The Govern
ment OF Yucatan, in 1S4S, offered the United
States the sovereignty OF that country if we
would undertake to suppress the rebellion of
the Indians against the whites. If we declined
Great Britain and Spain we're each in turn to
be offered dominion upon the same conditions
President Polk strongly recommended the ac-
ceptance of the offer and the occupation of the
country lest some foreign Power should get it
in contravention of the Monroe doctrine which
sustained. A bill was introduced for the pur-
pose, in the discussion of which Mr. Calhoun
analyZed the doctrine in his plain, logical
style, reviewing its origin, defining its terms,
and maintaining that it did not apply at all to
the case before the Senate. Mr.. Monroe had
in contemplation oppression and Interference
on the part of the allied Powers. The decla-
ration with reference to colonization, Mr.. Cal
houn asserts, was never submitted to Mr.. Mum
roe's Cabinet (of which he was member) but
-,
Secretary of State, on his own responsibility,
and thereby caused GOODNESS on the part Of
England.
The question more nearly arose at tbs time
OF the Macmillan tascO in Mexico. That was
at time when we had all we could attend to at
home. but Secretary Seward protested with
France against her part in the matter until
our war closed and then the French troops
were withdrawn leaving Macmillan to his
fate.
The doctrine, indeed, has never been any
thing more than declar ition. 1t has not ac-
quired the force of policy, and has never been
maintained by arms or indorsed by Congress
The House of Representatives once by resolu-
tion repudiated the second and third divisions
OF it. To conform to the popular interpreta-
tion of it would involve us in all the quarrels
of the republics of Central and South America
provided they formed or threatened to form
alliances with any foreign Power.
The suggestion that we should prevent by
any means the IorelSn corporation OF a compa-
ny for the construction of a ship canal from
the Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean, is a
most extreme and unwarranted Interpretation
of the Monroe doctrine, even viewed In its
most patriotic light.
We fear no foreign power, and if we ever
get so weak that we do, the ownership of the
Panama Canal will not save u.s.
One thing more. 1t is said 0hough / cannot
now lay my hand on the authority that the
United States of Colombia, in it's grant of priv
ileges to the proposed Company, provides for
forfeiture in the event of any foreign Govern
ment obtaining control of the franchises. A
great Power may override those provisions of
course, and when that occurs will be time, if
ever to interfere. Meanwhile we need not
t emble.
John Quincy Adams and the Right
of Petition.
l.John L. Morse in International Review.l