New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-11-16

49, oo,r, 7, v,s oor,ended bv James Monroe that
the territory OF civilized nations covered 'e "o''
surface. -
Again Mr. Moore says: while the a""o'
men; to future colonization was MAJ - ar,
era terms applicable to the whole oil '"e
can continents IT related in the message oil r'es'-
dent Monroe solely to our territorial GAINS Oh '"e
northwest coast"
MONROE'S LANGUAGE CAREFULLY "Gi"'i'"
II II related "soley to our territorial claims Oh Wv
northwest" why did the President use '"e VIZ
American continents" instead of Nofth Am" "
continent? II he meant one thing why uIu "
deliberately say another? The language oi " 49,
dents message is always carefully weighed p"' IL
this case the negotiations themselves clearly P'o''
that he had in mind South America. as wei ~
North America. on July ., 1885, Secretary A'u'hH
wrote to Mr.. Rush. our Minister to England on '"V
subject OF the negotiations pending with RnsSla'
sending him copies OF the instructions when ha'
been previously forwarded to NJ. Middleton, our
Minister at st. Petersburg. at is manifestN
proper" he Rush. that the United States ana
England should come to understanding. not Only
as 10 their own rights. but TO those OF Russia.
lie discussed the principles settled between spain
and Great Britain by the Nootka Sound convention
of 1880. which related to rights OF fishing in the
South Seas of trading with the natives Of the north
west coas; of America and OF making settlements
north Of the actual settlements Of Spain. He pro-
ceeded as follows:
The exclusive rights of Spain to any portion o.
the American continents nave ceascl me l.D q.
that condition. and their territory will. Of course.
be subject to no exclusive right of navigation in
their Vicinity or Of access to them by any foreign
nation" A necessary consequence OF this state OF
things will be that the American continents hence
forth will longer be subject to colonization. Oc-
cupiei 10y civilized nations they viii be accessible
10 Europeans and each other that footing alone.
This statement used in a specific negotiation
takes the form in the Presidents message 10 Con-
gress Of "a principle in which the rights and inter-
ests Of the United States are involved \ phase OF
the negotiations with Russia thus turned to
good account in view Of the great interest felt in
this country In the struggle fer independence by the
Spanish-American States There IS evidence OF what
the message was considered 70 mean by these States
themselves in article IN the "Gaoeta De Colom-
bla" of February 81 1896 QUOTED in THE North
American Review" for January. 1890. II enumer
ates the questions which 10 come before the
protected Panama Congress. and gives as one
To take into consideration the means % making
effectual the declaration OF The Presiden, Of the
United States respecting any interior design of
foreign Power 20 coloni2e any portion OF this con-
tinent. and also the means OF resisting all inter
ference from abroad With the domestic concerns
OF the American governments.
THE BRITISH VIEW
The British view Of the meaning OF this part
Of the Monroe Doctrine has always concidei with
Ours and one searches in vain for any British
INTERPRETATION Of 1t coucidng with Mr. MOore's.
The second part OF the message. which was lev
elled at the Holy Alliance" in accord with the
sentiments OF the British Government, but the part
which pronounced against future colonization OF
America by European Powers was considered to
counterbalance f.; and was received with any
thing bu. pleasure The Annual Register G20.
in coracnting upon II. said the claim II set forth
was hardly less eXtravagent than that OF the
Russian ukase The Northern Autocrat excluded
everybody but himself; the Transatlantic republic
would fam have excluded him and every more
nd he
matte Review for September = 1865, in an article
on the subject SAYS: But the very same mes
sage Of Mr. Monroe which gave the deathblow 10
the scheme of Chateaubriand for the collective in
PREVENTION in the New World, contained the disSo-
luton of the English alliance.
But Mr. Moore says this part OF the message ala
not become the subject Of Cabinet discussion.
and that this could not have been the case If
there had been intention 10 announce a new
policy which the United States was TO maintain
in behalf Of all the Americas. II by maintaining
the new policy is meant maintaining 1t 10 the ex-
tent of war OF course the Executive could do moth
ing without Congressional sanction. but a. an
executive declaration II was rot AT all necessary
that 1t should be discussed by the Cabinet When
the President desires to take very decided stand
he often does It without the assistance OF his
Cabinet just as a general IS likely to avoid
council of war If he intends to make bold mill
tary movement. Andrew Jackson's proclamation
against the notification party in South Carolina
is case in point. There Is no evidence that the
Cabinet 1t until it appeared in print.
Did President Cleveland's Cabinet discuss MS
Hawaiian policy? Rumor says not In the
under consideration. II IL known that Adams the
Secretary Of State. was fully consulted says Mr..
Moore.
But all doubt a. to what was intended has been
precluded by Mr.. Adams himself, who was the
author OF the argument In his special messaga
to Congress of December 20, 1928. touching the
Panama Congress. n suggested as one OF The sub
hat oh he q
thai each will guard by its own means against
the establishment Of any European colony within
its borders.
What can be simpler than this? The President
of the United States had already announced the
principle and 1t highly desirable that the other
American Powers who had greater concern In Il
than even ourselves should announce Il and devise
means Of UNFOLDING il. The Panama Congress, as
is known proved abortivc. ana the announce
ment OF the principle by the President stood alone
as the bulwark that protected them. But 20 ask
them 10 say what had already been said by the
Chief Executive OF this country simply to
strengthen aad confirm his assertion
Space will not permit minute examination Of
the second half of Mr.. Moore's article and /! is
only fair to say that IL deals with the portion Of
Monroe's message which IL so simple that mis-
Interpretation Of IT is extremely difficult one
can pass over, also, the argument against Folks
position with reference TO the acquisition of the
peninsula OF Yucatan The Democratic party
which then controlled the Government desired
more Southern slave territory. and the hue OF It's
foreign policy took It's prevailing color from this
fact The arguments used. therefore. have little
permanent consequence But. in dealing with the
second part OF the Monroe Doctrine Mr.. Moore
saws that II relates to subject distinct from the
first part This Is incorrect. The parts orig
mated in two separate negotiations and two
separate declarations. but they akin 10 each
other and they relate 10 the subject. one
says: you shall gain no more foothold in Amer
lea by colonization" The other says: You shall
not interfere with the governments that are al
ready here" Protection Of America from Euro
pean aggression was the subject TO which both
lated. John A. kasson has explained their pur-
pose pithily C'North American Review" December.
lSsD.
First, that foreign Power should establish
thereafter. OF their right a colony within
the territories Of any OF the de factO Independent
-