Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-03-24
On, p,r,om.,,c compiic.t,ons.

/ 10 the eatlsfaction or the JiHBus w
nonce, the two iast-named have risen
most prominently TO the surface anu
have caused In some quarters great
/ deal of talk about the application ana en-
: forcement OF the Monroe doctrine.
/ While we hope and believe that in any
serious issue growing out OF any OF these
complications the administration VIII %
/ everything necessary TO be done 10 pro-
tect the interests OF the United states
and uphold their prestige. we suggest
that 1t would be well not to cry out
I before we are hurt. Every time diner
| ence occurs between European POWER
/ and one OF the Central or South Amerl-
can countries we hold up the protecting
aegis OF the Monroe doctrine. win the
result. most frequently. Of rendering our
| selves ridiculous The fact Is that tha'
doctrine has been more honored IN the
breach than the observance. Tne Euro
| pean powers have never regarded the
! doctrine as much more than mere pru-
! tum fulmen, and we have ENCOURAGE
that view OF 1t on their part by al
| lowing IL, TO use one Of President CleVe-
lands expressions. to fall into "innocu-
| Gus desuetude."
| Even, however. should we be disposed
| to revive in earnest the Monroe doctrine
| and make It cardinal principle or our
policy II would be we'll to first inquire
| whether there exists any reason Tor It's
application or enforcement In either the
| Nicaragua or the Venezuela matter
The Monroe doctrine was a sort OF one
sided blanket-contract, under which the
| United States undertook to throw their
protection over all American territory
not already under European domination.
In 1922 we recognized the independence OF
| Mexico. and the provinces OF South
America formerly under Spanish control
and on December z. 1923, Mr. Monroe, In
his message to Congress said: I'VE owe
| IL to candor and 10 the amicable relations
! existing between the United States and
| the allied Powers to declare that we
| should consider any attempt on their
part to extend their system to any por-
ton OF this hemisphere as dangerous to
our peace and safety. With the existing
colonies Or dependencies Of any Euro
pean power, we have not interfered. and
shall not interfere. but with the govern
ments which have declared their indie
pendence and maintained II, and whose
independence we have on great considera-
ton and Just principles acknowledged.
we could not view an interposition for
depressing them or controlling in any
other manner their destinies by any En-
ropean power. In any other light than
as n manifestation Of an unfriendly dis
position towards the United States Mr.
| Monroe also declared that the American
continents should no longer be the sub
jects of any new European colonial set
Elements"
This is the Monroe doctrine In its origi-
nal and primary form, and 1t was aimed
| as much at the Holy Alliance as at any
thing else. Since its enunciaton it has
been subjected to various interpretations
according to circumstances and condi-
| tions
| Now what are the facts in the Nicara-
qua and the Venezuela complications? AS
far as the lights are thrown upon them.
| neither seems 10 have reached such an
acute crisis as would justify the current
| furore about enforcing the Monroe doc
trne under any OF its interpretations.
| When the Nicaragua or Bluefelds trou-
bles occurred last year, a British man-of-
. war landed force of marines and re-
! stored order. Before all tbs circumstances
| were known there arose In tbs United
| States the stock demand for the assertion
| of the Monroe doctrine, and Great Britain
| was accused of having all sorts Of ne
farlous territorial designs. But it turned
out that John Bull. by interfering. not
| only protected his own subjects and in
| terests, but also American citizens and
interests The Mosquito question in It's
| broader sense then became matter of
| diplomatic correspondence between this
government and the British Government,
and the result was that Great Britain
| even renowned her hazy claim to sove-
| reignty over the Mosquito coast, which
had been bone of contention for many
years. Yet, she did not waive her right TO
| demand indemnity for the expulsion from
| Bluefelds Of her Consul, Mr.. Hatch. As
we understand the new phase OF the ques
ton all that is in 1t is that Great Britain
now proposes to compel the payment Of
this indemnity--a step for which she is af.
forded numerous precedents. She dis
tnctly repudiates any intention Of terri
torial acquisition and the excitement pre-
vailing IN this country over the matter
would appear TO have been born OF q
fear that her ultimate purpose is to seize
| the mouth OF the Nicaragua canal and
control that proposed great waterway
to the Pacific. This, of course, Great
Britain should never be permitted to do
but it will be time enough Ito enforce
the Monroe doctrine" when we have
evidence that she is not acting In good
faith. SO far such evidence seems to be
entirely lacking
| As to the Venezuelan controversy, that
involves an old problem of boundary be-
tween that country and British Guiana,
and the British side of the question has
Il not yet been fully heard. II 1t shall
I appear that Great Britain really con.
templates encroachment upon Venezuelan
territory. and that such encroachmeni
| VIII anect detrlmentally the interests cl
this country, it will undoubtedly be oul
duty to meet the issue firmly. But il woul
be both unwise and absurd to assert the
Monroe doctrine In the premises wher
such a course could in no possible way
benefit us, but would place us in The
position Of interfering in a matter with
which we had nothing to do. The mean:
Great Britain may resort TO in order tC
obtain her rights either in Venezuela ol
Nicaragua are no concern OF ours. 81
long as they do not endanger our right:
| and interests in those countries.
|
MIR. PattesOn's Letter.
The letter of S. S. +. Patteson. Esq, o