New-York tribune., 1885-01-31
Mr. FRELlNGHUYSENS DEFENCE.

Mr.. Frelinghuysen begs the question in his
report on the Congo Conference. He has been
| criticised for violating the oldest and safest
traditions of American diplomacy in sending
delegates to a European council. He replies
that he has not departed from traditional policy,
but has followed good precedents. "The ven
acrated doctrine" he remarks, "put forth by
sNIonroe was simply that the time had passed
I" for obtaining fresh footholds on the American
"continent. since the whole of it was subject to
recognized sovereignties, whose rights of pos
SECESSION must be recognized and respected"
The Secretary then contrasts the condition OF the
| two American continents in President Monroe's
| tine, when not foot OF land was subject to
alienation by native tribes, and that of Central
| Africa at present, when vast territory Is to be
opened to the occupancy of civilization. But
what has this to do with the question at issue 7
The Monroe Doctrine not only excludes
| European Powers from acquiring territory and
interfering in the affairs of North or South
| America, but defines the policy of the United
States with reference to Europe. 1t was de-
scribed by Mr.. Adams, the real author of this ia
| nous diplomatic canon, "as the general extra
European policy of the United States" In
any European combinations" he remarked,
& in which the United States should become
"member, it must soon become an important
| "power and must always be, III many respects,
:" an uncongena one" 1t was best therefore,
| in his Judgment, that the United States should
keep wholly out of European politics Mr..
| Monroe repeated the same idea when he eau
toned the country against being drawn into
foreign alliances on into the bros of Europe.
| This is the sveneratcd doctrine which Mr..
| Frelnghuysen has virtually repudiatcd by
sending delegates to the Berlin Congress. And
not the Monroe Doctrine alone, but the oldest
traditions of American diplomacy has he
abandoned. Europe said Washington in his
| Farewell Address, has q set of primary in
tcrests which to us hav, none or very remote
"relation. Hence, she must be engaged IN ire
"oucnt controversies, the causes of which are
foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore, 1t
"musi be unwisc in us to implicatc ourselves
aby artificial ties in the ordinary vicisstudes
" of her politics, or the ordinary combinations
And collisions of her friendships or enmitles.'
Mr.. Frelnghuyscn has succeeded in violating
one of the cardinal principles of Washington's
political testament to the Republic.
1t matters little whether the conclusions ot
this international council are or are not binding
| upon the Governments represented; or whether
| it be called conference or a congress, or
whether It's object is to open two great rivers to
the commerce of the world. 1t is n European
combination in which the United States ought
not to have participated. The invitation OF the
German Government showed that the chief
purpose was to make arrangements for new
occupations of territory and for reconciling the
claims of European Governments. The United
States was directly excluded, not only by the
Monroe Doctrine but by the entire historic
course of its diplomacy, from any share in these
deliberations. If no better argument than Mr.
Frelinghuyscn's can be offered in defence of
this grave departure from traditional methods
and principles, the American delegates ought to
be speedily recalled.