Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-12-17

is made is not exempt from difficulty. 1t
is mode Of settlement of which the value
varies much, according to the nature of the
controversy to which 1t is applied and the
character of the litigants who appeal to 1t.
Whether, in any particular case, 1t Is a
suitable method of procedure is generally
delicate and difficult question. The only
parties who are competent to decide that
question are the two parties whose rival
contentious are in issue. The claim OF
third nation which is unaffected by the
controversy to impose this particular pro-
cedur. on either of the two others cannot
be reasonably justified. and has no founoa-
ton In the law of nations.
Tn the remarks which I have made L
have argued on the theory that the Monroe
doctrine in Itself is sound. 1 must not
however be understood as expressing any
acceptance of 1t on the part of her mai
estys government 1t must always pe
mentioned with respect. on account Oh tiie
distinguished statesman to whom IL Is "ue
and the great nation who have generally
adopted it. But international Ia" rs
founded on the general consent OF naliohS'
and no statesman, however eminent anu
no nation however powerful, are conpe-
tent to insert into the code of interhauorial
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
r,eb+ Ike anv other nation, to interpose
in any controversy by which their own IN
forests are affected; and they are the judge
whether those interests are touched, ana
IN what measure they should be sustained
Rut their rights are in no way strengthened
or extended by the fact that the contro-
yersy affects some territory whlch Is caiieu
American. Mr.. Olney quotes the case Oh
the recent Chilean war, In Whlch the ohf'eu
States declined to join with FRANCE anu
England in an effort to bring hostlhties ~
a close on account of the Monroe doctfliie'
The United States were entirely III tie
right in declining to join in an attempt dt
modification if they thought fit; but MT.
Olnev's principle that american questChs
are for American decision" even II II re-
ceiyed' any countenance from the lahsudse
of President Monroe (Which 1t does hot''
cannot be sustained by any reasoning
drawn from the law of nations.
uha Government of the United States Is
of entitled to affirm as a universal propo-
sition. with reference to number OF lnde-
repdent states for whose conduct II as
sumAs no responsibility, that its interests
ara necessarily concerned in whatever may
tefall those states simply because they are
situated in the western hemisphere 1t may
we'll be that the interests OF the Ihi'e"
States are affected by something thdl map
mems to Chile or to Peru, and that lhat CIT
cumstance may give them the right Oh IN
terfererce; but such contingency may
equally happen in the case OF emma or
japan, and the right of interference IS not
more extensive more assured IN the one
case than in the other
Though the language of President Mon
roe is directed to the attainment OF opJects
which most Englishmen would agree to be
salutary 1t is impossible to admit that they
have been inscribed by any adequate au-
thority in the code of international law:
and the danger which such admission
would involve is sufficiently exhibited both
nv the strange development which the doc
trne has received at Mr.. Olney's hands,
and the arguments by which it is support
ed in the dispatch under reply. In defense
of it he says: THAT distance and 3,eoo
miles of intervening ocean make any per-
manent political union between an Euro
mean and an American state unnatural and
inexpedient will hardly be denied. But
physical and geographical considerations
are the least of the objections to such
urion. Europe has a set of primary inter-
ests which are peculiar to herself; America
is not interested in them, and ought not to
be vexed or complicated with them"
And, again: Thus far in our history we
have been spared the burdens and evils of
immense standing armies, and all the other
accessories of huge warlike establishments;
and the exemption has highly contributed
to our national greatness and wealth, as
we'll as to the happiness of every citizen.
But with the powers IF Europe permanent
" encamped on American soil, the ideal
conditions we have thus far enjoyed can
not be expected to continue
The British Colonies.
The necessary meaning of these words is
that the union between Great Britain and
Canada; between Great Britain api
Jamaica and Trinidad; between Great
Britain and British Honduras or British
Guiana are ''inexpedieIt and unnatural"
President Monroe disclaims any such infer
ence from his doctrine but in this, in other
respects, Mr.. Olney develops it. He lays
down that the ineXpedient and unnatural
character of the union between a European
and American state is so obvious that it
will hardly be denied" Her maiestys
government are prepared empha tically to
deny it on behalf of both the British and
American people, who are subject to her
crown. They maintain that the union be-
tween Great Britain ana her territories in
the western hemisphere is both natural and
eA pedient. They fully concur with the view
which President Monroe apparently enter
tanned, that any disturbance of the exist
ing territorial distribution in that hem
isphere by any fresh acquisitions on the
part of any European state would be
highly inexpedient change. But they are
not prepared to admit that the recognition
of that expediency is clothed with the sane
ton which belongs to a doctrine of inter-
national law. They are not prepared to adj
nit that the interests of the United States
are necessarily concerned in every frontier
dispute which may arise between any two
of the states who possess dominion in the
western hemisphere; and still less can they