The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-04-26

ton. that the sovereigns represented
nave undoubted right to decide for
themselves the fact they have suS-
ealned grievances and to resort to war
against Mexico for the redress thereof,
ana have also a right TO levy the war
seVeraiiy or jointly. The United States
mas ceep interest Which. however,
7hey are happy to believe. Is an inter
est held by them in common with high
contracting powers and with all other
civilized states, that neither of the
SoVereigns by whom the convention
has been concluded. shall seek or OBJ
tam any acquisition of territory or any
advantage peculiar to itself and not
equally left open to the United states
ana every other civilized state, within
the territories OF Mexico, especially
that neither one or all of the contract
ing parties shall, as result or conse-
quence of the hostilities to be inaug
urated under the convention, exercise
an the subsequent affairs of Mexico.
Influence calculated to impair the right
or Che Mexican people to choose and
freely to institute the form of its own
government.
Spain and Chilli.
1t appears that these stipulations
were acknowledged by the contracting
parties IL the satisfaction of President
Lincoln. although it was found neces-
70 take steps to expel Macmillan from
Mexico.
The third precedent was found in the
case of the war between Spain and
Chill, IN 1865. when. upon being appeal
ed TO on behalf of Chill. in the name of
the Monroe doctrine to prevent the
commandment of VALPARAISO. Secretary
Seward wrote to United States Minis
ter Fitzpatrick. at Santiago. as follows:
The government of the United States
viii maintain and insist with all the
decision and energy which are compat-
lbIe with our existing neutrality. that
the republic which is accepted by any
one of those CSouth Americana states
shall not be wantonly assailed. and that
1t Shall not be SubVerted as an end of
lawful war by European powers"
But beyond this point the United
States government will not so. nor Will
It consider itself hereby bound to take
bart IL wars in which q South Ameri-
can republic may enter with a Euro
pean sovereign. when the object of the
latter is not the establishment in the
place Of the subverted republic,
monarchy under a. European prince.
Upon these precedents rests the de-
cision of the administration to refrain
from interference between Great Brit
ain and Nicaragua at this stage Of the
proceedings.
CIGytOn-BuIver Treaty
In behalf of Nicaragua, though with
out success. it would appear that it has
been urged that the occupation of Cor
into by the British troops would be
direct violation of the ClaYton-Bulwer
treaty between the United States and
Great Britain. AZ provision of that
treaty prohibits British occupation of
Central American territory. Article
covenants that the United States and
Great Britain agree that neither will
ever erect or maintain any fortifica-
tons commanding the Nicaragua canal.
or in the vicinity thereof. or occupy or
fortify. or colonize. or assume. eXer-
else any dominion over Nicaragua.
Costa. Rica. the Mosquito coast or any
part of Central America
II is pointed out 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
panty. There have been individual
statements on both sides of the water
that the Clayton-BulWer treaty was
abrogated. yet the governments have
never formally abrogated it. A resolu-
ton was introduced in the last Senate
10 abrogate it, indicating those who OPP
posed it considered 1t still in force. The
terms. it is held. appear TO be very
definite against Great Britain's occu-
plying or exercising any dominion over
Nicaragua.