The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-10-16
SEATTLE. FRIDAY. ocr. 10.
SER rurunE roREIas POLICY.

9th FUTURE roREIGs POLICY.
4 Port Townsend dispatch recently
quoted Hugh A. Dinsmore, ex-United
States minister to Korea, as saying that
the Hawaiian islands should be annexed
70 the United States, and that 'the Mon
roe doctrine should extend to these
islands, and other nations should not be
permitted to interfere" Mr.. Dinsmore
seems not to know what the Monroe
doctrine was, for he evidently labors under
the false impression that President Mon
roe by his message Of December I'd, 1928,
contemplated - complete prohibition
against acquisition by any European
power OF any territory upon either Ameri-
can continent BY any means whatsoever.
be 1t by conquest, voluntary cession,
treaty stipulation, purchase, or even by
succession through family alliances"
John Quincy Adams, secretary of state
10 President Monroe, Henry Clay, secre-
tary of state to President Adams, both de-
clared that II was not intended to proclaim
% the world that the United States held
that no rights BY purchase or other legiti-
mate proceedings could be acquired by
European nations on this continent.
Professor Theodore D. Woolsey, in his
ssInternstional Law" sustains this view,
denies that our government has ever laid
down the principle that no political sys-
TENS unlike our own, no change from
republican forms to those of monarchy can
- endured in the Americas, and says of
Tie limitation Of the original Monroe
doctfinss
Hut 70 resist attempt of European powers to
altar the constitutions of states on this side of
ne water isa wise and just opposition to In
1orfsrsnce. Anything beyond this iustifes the
eystem which ahsolute governments have in
ll1ated for tbs suppression OF revolutions by
main forcA
11wis Cass, secretary of state to Presi-
1ont Buchanan, sustained the views of
~ great Wing statesman, Clay, already
quoted. II il clear that the United States
never adopted BY congress even the orig
1na Monroe doctrine as a policy, and even
4 + had, under that doctrine the United
otates would have no more business to
1ntsrfers with the win of the people of
the Hawaiian islands, If they prefer an
English alliance, than we would have to
lnterfers with the action of Chile, so long
- all treaty and other obligations
70 the United States are fulfilled.
Until Hawaii asks to become part of the
United States We have no more business to
nnnex these islands on the score of self-in-
&erest or to prevent the execution of their
preference for any other power than we
have to interfere with the wishes of the
Dominion Of Canada on the score of self
Interest. Wrought not to do this if we could
but We certainly could not if we would.
The Sandwich Islands, it is true, are in
debted to rs rather than to England for
their civilization, and we offer to-day the
principal market for their products, and
neither England, France or Germany would
oppose International assent to our annex
alton OF the Sandwich Islands, should
the qualified electors declare in favor of
political union with this country, Only
- this way win the Sandwich Islands
ever ne annexed; only in this way ought
shey to be annexed, and only in this way
can they DO annexed. for the independence
Of these islands was guaranteed by France.
england and the United States in 1874.
While there is no such thing as a Mon
roe doctrine, as defined by ex-Minister
unsmore, included in our foreign policy.
nevertheless 1t Is true that the completion
Of the Nicaragua canal viii compel us to a
new departure, which is sound
doctrine. but does not rest
TOT It's defense on the Monroe doc
trine. which is as obsolete. If not
ss absolutely extinct, as the Holy Alliance
whose action forced its original announces
ment. Undoubtedly the completion of
the Nicaragua canal will compel us to i'm
itate the action of England in the matter
OF the suez canal by placing the Nicaragua
canal under our protection, and this ne
cessity will compel us to become great
naval power, and TO further initiate Eng
land by losing no fair opportunity of ao-
quiring naval and coalinv stations in the
West indies and the Gulf of Mexico. and
IN the Pacific ocean from the Isthmus of
uarien to the Sandwich Islands. Bet
while We shall do this il would not be done
because Of the Monroe doctrine: it would
only be affirming on the part of the United
states the wisdom of England's foreign
pohey. which has encircled the earth with
ehain OF naval stations and coaling de-
fots. We could once have bought the
Danish island of ST. Thomas for 1880 600.
ana today We could not buy it for less
IMAM 100000; We shall ultimately buy
probably ST. Thomas and Santa Cruz. and
secure naval and coaling station in Haiti
OF oan domingo; we already have the
concession OF fine coaling and naval sta
uon In the Sandwich Islands and the
samoan group. and on the coast of Central
America With the completion of the
Nicaragua canal We shall extend This
policy, which Is new dens-,rra
that does not. however, rest on the Mon.
roe doctrine or date back to il. Itisa
new departure, necessitated bv the ,,o-
sFess of events, and the change Of the no
htioai situation which has led both Fns-
land and America 10 tacit.y ignore ths
Bulwer~ciayton treaty.
The protection of the Nicaragua canal
viii force us 10 become a rrea. naval
s,aHer and a1rDt al. ,, :.