The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-03-30
THE BRITISH DEMAND On MIA
KAGUA.

Va have read the full text OF the "V-
roand Of the English Government upon
>-,corapua The Nicaraguan Govern
,,cn+ had submitted documentary evil
ao,ne Of its right to treat several Brit
ish subjects in the outrageous manner
o,corde1 10 them. The principal part Oh
-. documents consisted of written
,,a,or,ents signed by the agSrieved par
ues who admitted I'm those statements
svetvthing that the Nicarasaah "oFe'H-
,,,ort wished TO prove. Lord Kimberly
.ho British Minister of Foreign Affairs
.,u,,ree all the evidence with great
candor and fairness. and points out tha'
all these statements were IN spanish
when offered for the signatures OF the
rarties. that none of them understood
Snanish: that they all asked TO nave
the documents translated that they n'lsh'
understand them; that their request was
refused. and that they were compeneu
under terror and threats TO sign them
in tho Snanish language The review
which Lord Kimberly makes of the case
satisfies us perfectly that the lacts are
lust what he states them TO be.
Now. with this as the state OF the
case, are the American people going 10
allow these jingoists and sensationailsts
TO force an interruption of the frlenuly
relations between this country and Great
Rritain m order that the lawless and
dsorderly community called Nicaragua
may treat foreigners sojourning there III
this outrageous manner? Lord Kimberly
demands that the Nicaraguan Govern
ment shall at once pay an indemnity
of 81. go to those Englishmen whose IN
iuries are made apparent by the case
and. as TO the others. concerning whose
cases the testimony is defective, that II
shall agree TO a board OF arbitration
which is 10 ascertain the facts and make
an award.
Now is there any candid man who
can Coubt that it is both the right and
theJ duty OF the English Government to
demand redress of the Nicaraguan Gov
eminent for its outraged citizens? Is
there any American who would be saus-
fed if his own Government did not de-
mand and enforce redress for
any Americans who might be
treated in this way by a foreign gov
eminent? If there is anything in that
antiquated and obsolete idea called the
Monroe doctrine" which would seem TO
require this government to thrust itself
I'm between Great Britain and Nicaragua
in this case, the sooner the American
people understand it the better. The
Baltimore Sun of Thursday contained
the following most excellent article on
the Monroe doctrine" which we cor
daily recommend to all persons who
think it requires this country to become
wet-nurse for all the turbulent associa-
tons called the republics of Central and
South America:
MisUsING THE MONROE DOCTRINE.
An authoritative and definite statement
of the obligations of the United states
under the Monroe doctrine toward the
various republics of the West Indies and
Central and South America is badly need
its scope was very narrow. Its formula
ton was due to a confidential proposal
of Canning, the British Secretary OF
State, TO Mr.. Rush, our minister IN Lon
don, looking to the cooperation OF the
United States with England in 1873 10
prevent 1.-The holy alliance" OF Russia,
| Austria, France and Prussia from inter
| ferine to bring SPANS revoited provinces
i'm South and Central America again into
subsection TO that power AS Independent
| republics the colonies traded more freely
with England than they had been allowed
| TO do when subject to Spain, so tnat
then as now. England favored their con
tnued independence. The utterance 10
which the name Monroe doctrine" Is
given is found in President Monroe's an
nual message of 1928 in these words;
with the existing colonies or dependen-
cies Of any European power we have
not interfered and shall not interfere,
but with the Governments which nave
declared their independence and main
tanned il, and whose independence we
have OH great consideration and just
principles acknowledged, we could not
view an interposlon for depressing them,
or controlling in any other Mariner theiI
destiny by any European power In any
other light than as manifestation OF an
unfriendly disposition toward the United
States" This eminenty conservative
statement did not. however. bind the
United States 10 any particular line OF
conduct, and was, indeed, expressly re-
pudiated in 1875 by Congress IN a resoiu-
ton declaring that 1.-THE United States
ought not TO become a party with the
Spanish republics TO any joint
| declaration for the purpose or preventing
interference by any Of the European
powers with their independence or form
| OF government" AS recently as 1868 the
] Monroe doctrine was repudiated by the
! Republican party when Secretary Sew
| ard, referring to the effort OF France tC
! establish a monarchy in Mexico. wrote
| to our minister at Vienna that the United
| States "have neither a right nor dispo
sition 10 intervene in the internal AFFAIR:
| of Mexico. whether to maintain kepub
| lican Government, or overthrow an I'M
| perial or foreign one" Only since. oui
| tariff lords have conceived the idea o.
| extending their markets by force rather
| than by low prices. has the Republican
party begun to accept the Monroe die
tum as an authoritative statement o.
| policy and expanding IL TO an absurd ex
| tent.
| The Monroe doctrine, as stated by its
| author, proposes no policy OF aggression
| on the part OF the United States. IL does
| not look to the seizure OF Cuba or Cam
4 ada, TO say nothing of far-on Hawaii.
| There was no jingoism TN IL. such as Re
| publican politicians are now constantly
| preaching under the name OF Monro'
| doctrine. IL was merely declaration
/ favoring the preservation OF the political
| situation as 1t existed In the West Indies
| and in Central and South America in 1873.
| ~ nf America