Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-04-26

siding in that country in a'violent and
arbitrary manner, and finally the Para
guans had fired upon the United States
steamsl A. Waterwith In 1855 and killed
the helmsman while the vessel was
making peaceful survey OF the Pa
r1na river to determine its fitness for
steam navigation.
The honor as well as the interests
OF the United States demanded salts
faction. and the president being clothed
by congress with necessary power sent
naval expedition up the Parana river
TO the capital of Paraguay and COM
PEELED ample apologies from the presi-
dent the payment of an indemnity
of $4,000 to the family of the seamen
who was Killed, ana finally secured the
ratification Of the treaty, The applica-
ton Of this case to the Nicafaguan STU
alton 10 not exact, but II Is regarded
as committing the United States to
recognition OF the right to demand an
indemnity for United states officers.
and therefore we could not consistently
deny the same right to Great Britain.
The second case which was relied upon
as n precedent grew out of the dlf-
foulties encountered by Spain, France
and Great Britain In their relation with
Mexico in 1860. These nations asserted
that they had been placed by the arbi-
trary and veXatlOus conduct OF Mexico
under the necessity of eNaCting from
the authorities Of that country a more
effective protection for the persons and
properties Of other states, as well as
the executions of obligations contracted
with them, and therefore they had
combined to effect ends by force II nee
essary. The United States. which had
similar grievance against Mexico
was Invites 0 Join these European ma
tlons in forcing their demands upon
Mexico. This invitation was declined
by the United States, which was then
in the throes Of civil war, but the sig
niiicant point in the case Is found In
this declaration by Secretary Seward:
las the undersigned has heretofore
had the honor to inform each OF the
plenlpoteniiaries now addressed, the
president does not feel himself at lib
erty to question, and he does not ques-
ton, that the sOyereigns represented
have undoubted right to decide for
themselves the fact whether they have
sustained grievances ana resort to war
against Mexico for the redress thereof
and have also a right to levy war sew
orally or jointly; the United States have
deep interest which, however, they
are happy to believe is an interest held
by them In common with the high con-
tructed powers and with all other civ
lllzed states, that neither OF the SOW
ereigns by whom the convention has
been concluded shall seek or obtain
any acquisition Of territory or any adj
vantage peculiar to itself and not equal
ly left open to the United States and
every other civilized state within the
territories of Mexico, and especially
that neither one or all the contracting
parties shall, as a result, or consu-
quence of the hostillties to be inaugur-
ated under the convention, exercise In
the subsequent affairs OF Mexico innu-
ence calculated to impair the rights OF
the Mexican people to choose and freely
to constitute the form Of It's own gov
eminent"
1t appears that these stipulations
were acknowledged by the contracting
parties to the satisfaction of President
Lincoln, although 1t was found neces-
sary after the close of our own war
TO take steps to eXpel MaXlmillian from
Mexico.
The third precedent was found in
the war between Spain and Chill in
1866, when upon being appealed to in
behalf OF Chill in the name Of the Mon
roe doctrine TO prevent the lombard
ment OF Valparaiso, Secretary Seward
wrote to United States Minister Kill
patrick at Santiago as follows:
"phe government of the United
States will maintain and Insist that tho
decision and energy which are computi-
bic with our existing neutrality that
thu republican government which is
accepted by any one of those South
Amerlcanl states shah not be wantonly
assailed and that it shall not be sub
diverted as an act of lawful war by n
European power, but beyond this point
the United States government viii not
20 nor Will 1t consider itself hereby
bound to take part in a war in which
South American republic may enter
with an European sovereign where the
object of the latter Is not the estab-
lishment in place OF subdlverted re-
public OF monarchy under European
prince.
Upon these presidents rests the de-
| cision of the administration to refrain
| from Interference between Great Brit
ain and Nicaragua at this. stage of the
proceedings. In behalf OF Nicaragua,
| though without success II would appear
that 1t has been urged that the ocou-
patton OF Corinto by the British troops
| would be In direct violation OF the
| Clnyton-Bulwer treaty between the
| United States and Great Britain. 4
provision OF that treaty prohibits
| British occupation Of Central American
territory. Article 1 covenants that the
| United States and Great Britain agree
that "nelther will ever erect or main
tain any fortilic1'ions commanding
| Nicaragua or in the vicinity thereof.
| or occupy or fortify or COLOMBO or as
| sumo or exercise any dominion over
! Nicaragua, costa Rlca, lne mosquito
coast or any part Of Central America ="
1t is pointed out that this Is even
more binding than the Monroe doctrine
as the latter IS a principle asserted by
| the United States while the treaty Is
| an agreement to which Great Britain
| is a party There have been Individual
claims on both sides OF the water that
| the Clayton Bulwer treaty was abro-
| gated yet the governments have never
| formally abrogated IT,
A resolution was introduced in the
| last senate 10 abrogate IT. indicating
/ that there are those who stlll consider
IL in force. The terms. It is held, APP
| pear 10 be very definite against Great
| BrItaIn's Occupying" or Exercising"
| any dominion over Nicaragua.
| cnr-r Nr,rr GIL, IaNrAnn