The Portland daily press., 1895-12-21
nj ust IL Be War :?
To the Editor of the Press:

oiAC soluI1OD is OnlyEpOSSlDlo ny Gue I'LL
mediate intervention OF. the humane pa
triotic, and upright citizens of the United
States, to prevent such an unspeakable
calamity. And what they do or say must
be done at once. The delay OF d few
weeks, perhaps of Few days may, kindle
in our too excitable people sinothered
passions of national hate under the pro-
vocation of which nothing can be consid-
cred but schemes of conquering Canada
and how to indemnify ourselves for tine
depredations of rebel cruisers built and
armed IN English porJs by sweeping from
the seas the commercial marine of our
too successful rival.
Nothing that we have said or done or
propose to do has interrupted the cordial
good understanding that has character
lied the diplomatici Intercourse OF the two
great governments OF English speaking
peoples, but it is already apparent that
the unnecessarily clustering and often
sive way in which we have set forth our
pretensions, has turned against us the
entire public sentiment of Great Britain
and utterly failed to gain the approval
of the disinterested statesmen nand pub
licists of Europe. In our Revolutionary
struggle, in our Civil War, we had hosts
of influential hackers and synpathizers
in England itself In this gratuitous
quarrel it is not apparent that we have
one.
1t is to be regretted that negotiations
requiring such skilful and delicate
handling should have been committed to
a citizen whose selection as the legal ad
visor of the administration was somewhat
of q surprise to the country, and who for
the management OF our foreign relations
to compete with Lord Salisbury, one of
the mosJ able and celebrated diplomats OF
Europe, seemed to have none of the
knowledge which had equipped Mr.. Sc
ward, Mr. Fish and Mr.. Bayard for the
oreditable performance OF their less I'M
portant functions. How lacking our new
Statesman is in understanding tho art of
putting things-the suaviter in modo that
should go with tho fortiter in re Is mani
tested by the insinuation that found place
in one of his official communications to
a friendly government, "that distance
and 5000 miles of inter vening ocean make
any political union between European
and an American state unnatural and
inexpedient will be hardly denied y
How would this sweeping generalization
have sounded coming officially to us from
British minister OF foreign affairs IN
1850 in reference to our political union
with California and Oregon, at direct
distance from our capital OF 5000 miles
and accessible by voyage over 1nterven-
ing oceans of about 10000 miles.
Nor was it very helpful to our purpose
to get the Venezuelan controversy SUBJ
mitted to arbitration to append to tie
offer blunt threat that the refusal OF ar
duration was Calculated to greatly en-
barrass the future relations between this
country and Great Britain. 1t Is true
that the President in somewhat more
ambiguous phraseology virtually repeats
the same threat as the necessary sequence
of the refusal to arbitrate, although he
is talking to his own government and
is not strictly bound to the etiquette re-
quired in comm unicatiOnS addressed TO
foreign powers.
There is nothing unfair, nothing I'M
usual in one of two litigants Offering and
even urging the other side to leave out
the pending suit to reference, but II the
other side refuses what would be thought
OF threat to administer personal ohas-
tisement to the recuSant? And II the IN
sisting upon arbitration had come as In
this case not from one of the parties. but
from some outside volunteer hacker, how
strangely out of place would threats OF
that nature be: for it cannot be over
looked that from Great Britain's point OF
view the United States is an impertinent
intermeddIer in a controversy in which
she is not party and has no defnable in.
tereSt.
THE MONROE DOCTRINE.
But the Monroe doctrine binds the
United States for its own interest and
security to certain duties in the purely
local boundary between the two South
American states, and if not part of the
law of nations in terms has become vir-
tually so. This is the enormous preten-
sion of the President
NoD xx,ban ha maiutainS that the Mon-
roe doctrine is not obsolete, that it is
just as binding upon our government,
perhaps more binding than it was when
first promulgated, the President will be
supported by the intelligent people not
only Of our country, but of the world.
When he further insists that an exces-
sive, unwarranted and unsupported
claim of boundary is just as subversive
of the Monroe doctrine as an open in
vasion or an independent colonization,
l think all parties in this country will
sustain him.
But when our government maintains
that the Monroe doctrine is part of the
law of nations or. that any foreign pow
ers, even England, have ever assented
to it so as to bind their good faith as it
is related to our present right of inter-
vention, they take an untenable position,
from which they will have to recede, not
without dishonor.
Let it be supposed thas the Gar of
Russia, who already holds under his
sway more than half Of the territory of
Asia should make public state paper
in which he announced that no part OF
the continent Of Asia was henceforth
open to colonization by any foreign pow
er and that any attempts TO conquer or
colonize any region of Asia would be re-
garded as hostile invasion OF the rights
of Russia. That is exactly what the
United Statss did in promulgating the
Monroe doctrine. 1t is the assertion OF
policy, of purpose. The laws of ma
lions sanction no such policy. 1t is the
assertion of might, not of natural right.
1t is not assentod to by any foreign pow
er. No assent is asked. 1t is simply
notice to them if you come here conquer
ing or eolonizing you may expect to
meet US rs your enemy.
At the most it is an engagement en-
tered into by the strongest state in the
American system of states to protect
them against hostile invasion of their
territorial possessions. But yet not an
absolute engagement even towards them.
Clearly the right is reserved by the en-
gaging state to exercise its discretion
and withhold Intervention if the coloni-
cation or invasion seems promotive of
peace and prosperity and not prejudicial to
its interest, or If the expense of lnterven-