The herald., 1895-12-18

statesmen however eminent. and no
nation however powerful, is competent
to insert into the code of international
law. novel principle which was never
recognized before and which has not since
been accepted by the government of any
other country. The United states have q
right interpOse in any controversy by
which their own interests are affected. and
they are the judges whether those interests
are touched, and in what measure they
should be sustained. But their rights are
in no way strengthened or extended by the
fact that the controversy affects some
territory which is called American.
THE CASE OF CHILE
Mr.. Olney quotes the case of the recent
Chilean war, in which the United States
declined to join with France and England
in an effort to bring hostilities to close on
account of the Monroe doctrine. The
United States were entirely in the right in
declining to join in an atlempt at pacfica-
ton if they saw fiji, but Mr.. Olney's princi-
pie, "that American questions are for
American decision,' even il it received any
cnuntenance from the language of Presi-
dent Monroe (Which it does not) cannot be
sust ,ined by any reasoning drawn from
the law of nations.
The government of the United States is
not entitled to afiirm as a universal prOpo-
sition, with reference to a number OF indie
pendent states for whose conduct it as
sumes no responsibility, that its interests
are necessarily concerned in whatever may
befall those states simply because they are
situated in the western hemisphere. 1t
may well he said that the interests of the
United States are affected by something
that happens to Chile or to Peru and the
circumstances may give them the right of
interference, but such contingency may
equally happen in the case of China or
Japan, and the right of interference Is not
more extensive or more assured in the one
case than in the other.
NOT ACCEPTED DOCTRINE.
Though the language of President Mon
roe is directed to the attainment of objects
which most Enalishmen would agree to be
salutary, it is inn ossible to admit that
they have been inscribed by any adequate
authority in the code of International law,
aud he danger which such would involve
is sufficiently exhibited both by the strange
development which the doctrine has re-
ceived at Mr.. Olney's hands, and the
arguments from which il is supported In
the despatch under reply In de.
Tense of it he said: "Distance and
5000 miles of intervening ocean
make any permanent poiitcai union
between an European and an American
state unnatural and inexpedient, Will
hardly be denied But physical and geo.
graphical considerations are the least OF
the objections to such a union. Europe has
a set of primary interests which are pecu-
liar 10 herself; America is not interested
in Them and ought not to be vexed or COM
plicated with Them"
And again: thus far in our history we
have been spared the burdens and evils or
immense standing armies and all tne
other accessories of huge warlike estab-
lishments, and the exemption has nighly
contributed to our national greatness ana
wealth, as well as to The happiness or
| every citizen. But with the powers or
| Europe permanently encamped on Ameri-
can soil, the ideal conditions we have thus
far enjoyed cannot be expected to con-
| tinue."
| The necessary meaning of these words is
| that the union between Great Britain and
| Canada; bsween Groat Britain and Ja-
maica and Trinidad; between Great
| Britain and British Honduras and Bri ish
Guiana are "inexpedient and unnatural"
THE DEVELOPED d CTRINE.
President Monroe disclaims any such in
! ference from his doctrine, but in this, as in
other respec,s, Mr.. Olney develops it. He
lays down that the inexpedient and unnat-
! urai union petween q European and an
Amer III state is 80 obvious that lit will
hardly be denied"
| Her majesty's government is prepared
! emphatically to deny it on behalf of both
| the Blush and American people who are
subject to her crown. They maintain that
! the union between Great Britain and her