The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-11-02
THE UNITED STATES AND BRAZIL.

would have been a rebel
THE UNITED STATES AND BRAZIL.
Official circles in London seem deter
mined to believe that the government of the
United States is doing a good deal of under
hand scheming in connection with the Bra
lillian revolution. \ cablegram a few days
ago stated. as coming from Rio de Janeiro.
that a secret treaty had been entered into
between the United States and Brazil
pledging this government to support that of
Brazil against the effort being made to es-
tablish a monarchy. This statement was
promptly denied at the State Department,
and the denial was cabled to London. Yes
terday brought the following from London:
The Brazilian minister in this city, in an
interview regarding the alleged secret
treaty said to have been arranged between
the United States and Brazil in view of
certain eventualities. is quoted as saying:
81 received a dispatch from my govern
ment dated Rio de Janeiro yesterday max
ing statement similar to the one cabled to
the Associated Press. While IL is possible
that such treaty, in the general concep-
ton OF the word, does not exist, you can
depend upon il that there is a good under
standing between the two republics, and
that the United States will not permit
restoration of the monarchy If il can pre-
vent il. The American war ships have not
gone to Rio de Janeiro for nothing"
This indicates that the original Informal
ton came from the Brazilian minister in
London, and that he was trying to bolster
it up by further statements on the same
line The second dispatch, like the first, re-
ceived a prompt and fat denial at the State
Department.
The Brazilian minister at London is talk
ing too much. He, of course, represents the
existing government in Brazil and is anxious
to serve it to the utmost 1t is his interest
to decry all efforts to overthrow the gov
eminent and to give the impression that it
cannot be overthrown. No doubt that was
his object in stating that the United States
had entered into a secret treaty, or at
least a tacit understanding with the
Peixoto administration, pledging it support
The minister has drawn too largely on his
imagination for his facts. 1t is doubtless
true that there is a good understanding
and friendly feeling between this govern
ment and that of Brazil, but that is very
far from constituting secret treaty or
tacit alliance.
No doubt the minister based his statement
partly on his construction Of the Monroe
doctrine, but he seems to have had a con-
fused idea of it. That doctrine cannot be
construed as justifying che United States
IN interfering to prevent the people of Bra
I'll from establishing any kind Of govern
ment they want. The sympathies of the
American people are, of course, with re-
publican ideas and republican government
everywhere, but it does not follow that this
government is to become the Don Quixote
of nations, going up and down the earth
establishing republics. If a majority of the
people of Brazil prefer monarchy to a
republic, and so declare, either by the bal
lot or by revolution, the United States
would have no right to interfere, and there
is nothing in the Monroe doctrine requiring
it to do so. We recognized the republic il
Brazil because it was the de facto estab-
lshed government, and as long as it con-
tinues such it is our duty to maintain friend
ly relations with it. But if the present
revolution should succeed and end in the
re-establshment of monarchy by the ac-
ton or with the consent of the Brazilian
people, the United States government would
have no just ground of interference. 1t is
only in the event of European interference
that we would have a right. under the Mon
roe doctrine, to protest and perhaps to in
terfere. The sense of that doctrine is Amer
lea for Americans. Brazil for Brazilians;
every American state for it's own people
If the people of any South American state
wish to establish a monarchy this govern
ment has no right to say they shall not
90 so, and it would be arrogant on its part
to assert such right. But if any European
power should attempt, either by diplomacy
or by arms, to force monarchy on the peo-
pie of Brazil or any other South American
state against their will that would be a
very different case. Active interference by
any European power in the affairs of Brazil
might justify active interference on the part
of the United States, but that is the only
thing that would.