St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-04-26

ladl tney naQ Deen placeQ Dy the ar
bitpary and vexatious conduct of Mex
leo Under the necessity of exacting
from the authorities Of that country
more effective protection for the per-
sons and properties Of other states,
as we'll as the execution of obligations
contracted with them by Mexico, and
therefore they had combined to effect
their ends by force if need be- The
United States, which had similar griev-
ances against Mexico, was invited to
join these European nations in forcing
their demands upon Mexico. This in
yitation was declined by the United
States, which was then in the throes
OF civil war. but the
SIGNIFICANT POINT
In the case is found in this declaration
by Secretary Seward: "As the under
signed has heretofore had the honor
to inform each of the plenipetentiaries
now addressed, the president does not
feel himself at liberty to question, and
he does not question, that the sover-
eigns represented have undoubted
right to decide for themselves the fact
that they have sustained grievances
and to resort to war against Mexico
for the redress thereof, and have also
right to levy the war severally or
Jointly. The United States have q deep
interest, which, however, they are
fappy to believe is an interest held by
them in common with the high con-
tractfng powers, and with all other
civilized states, that neither of the SOW
grs by whom the convention has
haen concluded shall seek or obtain
acquisition of territory or any ad-
-itage peculiar to itself and not
g tally left open to the United States
a. = every other civilized state within
the territories of Mexico, and especially
that neither one nor all of the contract
ing parties shall, as result or con-
sequence of the hostilities to be in
augurated under the convention, exer-
else in the subsequent affairs of Mex
leo any influence calculated to
impair the right of the Mexican people
to choose and freely to constitute the
form of its own government" 1t ap-
pears that these stipulations were ac-
knowledged by the contracting parties
. to the satisfaction of President Lin
coin, although it was found necessary
after the close of our own war to take
steps to expel Macmillan from Mexico.
l.
was found in the case of the war be-
tween Spain and Chill in 1866, when,
upon being appealed to in behalf of
Chilli in the name of the Monroe doc
tfine, to prevent the bombardment of
Valparaiso. Secretary Seward wrote to
United States Minister Fitzpatrick at
Santiago as follows:
The government of the United States
will maintain and insist with the decis-
ion and energy which are compatible
with our existing neutrality, that the
republic which is accepted by any one
OF those (South Americap> states shall
not be wantonly assailed, and that it
shall not be subverted as an end of a
lawful war by European powers, but
beyond this point the United States
government will not go, nor will it
consider itself hereby bound to take
part in wars in which South Ameri-
can republic may enter with Euro
pean sovereign when the object of the
after is not the establishment in the
place of the subverted republic of a.
monarchy under European prince"
Upon these precedents rests the de-
cision of the administration to
REFRAIN FROM INTERFERENCE
between Great Britain and Nicaragua
at this stage of the proceedings.
In behalf of Nicaragua, though with
out success, it would. appear that it
has been urged that the occupation of
Corinto by the British troops would be
a direct violation of the Clayton-BuI-
wer treaty between the United States
and Great Britain. A provision of that
treaty prohibits British occupation of
| Central American territory Article 1
covenants that the United States and
Great Britain agree that neither will
ever erect or maintain any fortifica-
tons commanding the Nicaraguan
canal, or in the vicinity thereof, or oc-
cupy or fortify OF colonize, or assume.
or exercise any dominion over Nicara-
qua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast,
or any part of Central America
At is pointed out that this is even
more binding than the Monroe doc
tfine, as the latter is a principle as
serted by the United States. while the
treaty is an agreement to which Great
Br1taln is party. There have been
lndfvidual statements on both sides of
the water that the Clayton-BuIwer
treaty was abrogated, yet the govern
1hents have never formally abrogated
iss A resolution was introduced in the
last senate to abrogate it, Indicating
that those who opposed it consider 1t
in force. The terms, it is held, appear
to be very definite against Great Brit
aims Occupying" or Exercising any
dominion over Nioo ono