Delaware gazette and state journal., 1895-12-26
MR.. OLNEY VS.. PRESIDENT MONROE.

in ~ notnlng IN the CONSTITUTION
o. the United States nor in the nature
OIL our representative institutions 10
prevent each successive administration
OF the general government from formu-
latlng It's own views as to what should
ne the proper policy of the country,
elther generally or in particular case,
or the conduct Of it's relations with
foreign countries. President Washing
Ton bequeathed his views upon the
subject as a farewell legacy to his
countirymen. President Monroe, in his
gay, In message to Congress- laid
down certain principles which he
deemed applicable to u then existing
state OF affairs, and which then and
since havo met with general popular
approval, although never formally adopt
ed by any other department OF the gov
eminent, and never assented to by any
OF the other nations of the earth in
such sense as to have become part Of
International law. Other Presidents
adams, Folk and Grant among others
have done the same thing.
There is nothing, therefore, TO pre-
vent the present administration from
formulating its views in regard to the
foreign policy of the United States,
and being governed by them so far as
they may require and secure the con-
curronce of Congress and the approval
Of the people. 1t is due, however,
alike to proper understanding of the
subject itself and 10 the truth of bis
tory that each fresh PRONUNCIATION and
application Of particular policy or
mode of dealing with foreign nations.
especially il digniiied by the name of
doctrine" and based upon supposed
general principles, should be carefully
considered and weighed upon its own
merits and with reference TO the espe.
cial question or state of facts that may
call for its application. There can he
no objection, therefore to a "Cleveland
doctrine" or an "Olney doctrine, -
provided it be a sound and safe doc
trine, in 1893 any moro than to
Monroe doctrine" in 1929.
There should be, however, no CON
fusion of names or dates in tho matter.
The doctrine of to-day should not pass
uncballenged, if open to criticism,
simply because it usurps or masquer-
AIDES under the name of the Monroe
doctrine" of 70 odd years ago. 1t
should be judged upon its own merits
strictly in point of principle and expo
diency, as well as its application 10 ex-
listing facts and circumstances. Any
body who applies tho test will quickly
discover that the doctrine sought 10 be
applied by Secretary Olney to the pend
ing Guiana-Veneauela boundary dis
pute is a long advance upon the doc
trine set forth in President Monroe's
message of December, 1923. The differ.
ence in the claims advanced in behalf
OF this country is not less marked than
that which is apparent between the
moderate and guarded utterances of
James Monroe and the harsh and noed-
lessly offensive language of Richard
Olney.
Take, for example, this declaration
OF Mr.. Olney in his dispatch of July
10th: To-day the United States is
practically sovereign upon this conti-
nenJ and its fiat is law upon the sub
lects to which it confines its interposi-
tion. Certainly no such language or
anything like it is to be found in any
writing of President Monroe. No such
language has ever before been adj
dressed by our government TO any ma
tion in the world, least of all TO Great
Brltlan, whose successors in title upon
this continent we are, and which owns
to day geographically more than half of
North America, and owned it before
the United States came into existence.
1t is bold assertion of paramount
lordship, a feudal sovereignty over the
whole of the two Americas, which has
its warrant neither in existing cir
cumstances nor in the facts Of history.
We doubt whether Mexico or any Of
the States of Central or South America
u NiplI 30 hi .,s
The spirited littlo republic of Chilli,
with lively remembrance, doubtless,
of President Harrison and Minister
Egan, it is understood, through all the
ordinary organs of public opinion has
already expressed her indignant and
unqualified dissent.
Nor are the reasons which MIR. Olney
assigns for this startling proposition
calculated to make his "doctrine'
more acceptable TO any independent and
self respecting State, European or
American. "why?" continues the
Secretary, anxious to Justify his state
ment, 1t is not because OF the pure
friendship or goodwill felt for ii. It
is not simply by reason of its high
character as a civilized State, nor he
cause wisdom and justice and equity
are the invariable characteristics Of the
dealings of the United States. 1t is
because, in addition to all other
grounds, its infinite resources, com
bined with it's isolated position. rem
der il master of the situation and prac-
tically invulnerable as against any or
all other powers. This is not and
never could have been the language Of
the wise and temperate Monroe, the
friend and companion of Washington
Apart from its unparalleled arrogance
and braggadoclo what is it but the
bold assertion of superior brute force?
Tho United States is stronger on this
than any other power. There
fore its fiat is laws" what it says goes
Again, Mr.. Oney says 10 Great
Britain, owner of Nova Scotia, New
Brunswick, Canada and tho vast regions
of British America and British Colum-
bia, 'that distance and 1900 miles of
intervening ocean make any permanent
political union between an European
and an American State unnatural and
inexpedient will hardly be denied. "
What is this but serving notice upon
Great Britain, France. Spain, Den
mark, Holland all European States
having American colonies and de-
pendencies that they arc merely ten.
ants at will, thoir permanent" pres
ence here being unnatural ana mex.
pedienti" When did ever any Ameri-
can statesman before the present CON
breed of Lodges, Chambers.
&C., express such views, at least in
formal communication to foreign
powerS Certainly not James Monroe.
In his famous message he says e2-
pressly: "With the existing colonies or
of any European power
We have not interfered and shall not
=