The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-12-20
The MONROE DOCTRINE LAW.
Professor Dabaty discusses CltTtlaud'S
Interpretation Of Il.
IT DATES BACK TO The THIRD DECADE.
The Extent of Territory Does Sot Affect
the REHABILITATION suggests That
the Monroe Doctrine be Either
Promptly Asserted or Definitely
Abandoned.

| H' lclloNlhs communicated 'N''
with a subject OF great and present in
terest, and need no explanation:
Richmond. Dec. 49, 1885.
! Hon. Walter d. Dabney Professor Uni
versity Law School. University Of Nir-
GINA.
Please discuss President Cleveland's in
! depreciation OF the Monroe doctrine for
The Times and telegraph the tui III, is, at
| our expense. THE TIMES.
Charlottesville, a,
! Dec 10. II 10 i. NJ.
! To The Times:
In the early years of the third decade OF
this century the Northwestern portion
| OF the North American continent, then az
| unoccuvied wilderness, was the SUBJECT
! OF conflicting claims asserted ny the
| United States, Great Britain. ana Russia
About the same time the so-called Holy
| Alliance. having previously suppressed
| the movements toward popular govern
| ment which had taken place IN various
European countries began 10 manifest
an unmsiakable design to turn It's arms
agains, the newborn South American
| republics for the purpose or DrlnElhS
them again under the dominion OF Spain.
TERRITORIAL CLAIMS.
The territorial claims OF Great Britain
ana Russia mad no connection WIN the
| designs OF the Holy Alliance against the
South American republics but IL happen
| ed that they both engaged the attention
Of the Government and the people OF
| the United States at the same time. ana
served TO place in a strong light two
sources Of danger 10 republican institu-
lions Oh the American continents.
one danger was from the peaceful ana
| stedlthy encrouchment OF foreign settie-
mcnt and colonization on unOccupled
American territory Of the monarchcal
idea and the principle of the divine right
of kings. The other was from violent
suhversiOn by force of arms OF those gov
crnments which in both Americas had
much blood, on the basis OF popular SOW
TWO DECLARATIONS.
Such. briefly. were the conditions which
called forth the two declarations IN me
Presidents message Of December :. ~
declarations separately asserted but en-
bOdying a single fundamental idea COM
monty known as the Monroe doctrine.
one OF these declarations, which the
question Of disputed territory furnished
the occasion FOR making, though ID was
by no means limited In its application 10
that territory, was that the american
continent, by the free and independent
condition which they have assumed ana
maintained. are henceforth not 10 be
considered as subjects Tor future coloni-
cation by any European powers.
THE HOLY ALLIANCE
The other declaration was: Referring
TO the so-called hoiy alliance that the
political system OF the allied powers
from that OF America. This difference
proceeds from that which exists in their
respective Governments and TO the de-
fence of our own, which has been
achieved by the loss Of so much blood
and treasure and matured by the Wis
dom of their most enlightened citizens.
and under which we have enjoyed UNI
exampled felicity. this whole nation is
devoted.
We owe it, therefore. 10 candor and to
the amicable relations existing between
the United States and those powers TO
declare that we should consider any
attempt on their part 10 extend their
system to any portion Of this hemis-
phere as dangerous 20 our peace and
safety.
A NICE QUESTION.
This last declaration. it is true. was
made IN contemplation of a violent ana
sudden, not peaceful and gradual eX-
tension OF their system 10 this hemis-
phere, but the reason given for the decla-
ration. as well as the previous denial OF
the right or European colonization. dem
onstrates the scope Of the principle 10 be
the exclusion OF al European powers
from furtltr territorial domination or a
permanent character on either continent
of America. unless At least by voluntary
cessiOn IL Is important 10 note as part
Of the Monroe doctrine the express decla-
ration made in connection with those
above referred TO, that with the ex-
European power we have not interfered
and shall not interfere"
TWO WAYS OF DOING IT.
But manifestly European powers hav-
ing colonies or dependencies I'm either Of
the Americas n,@c violate the principle
OF the Monroe doctrine and extend their
system 10 this hemisphere as well by
insisting upon an expansion OF their colo
NAL boundaries conceded 10 them at the
time that doctrine was promulgated as
by military invasion, with the avOwcd
purpose OF conquest. or by colonization
Of territory II such might be found un-
claimed by any other nation. or. as
the same idea is expressed by the Presi-
dent In his recent message, IN any Euro
pcan power, by extension Of it's bounda-
ries. takes possession of the territory
of one of orr neighboring republics
against its will. II is difficult 10 see why
10 that extent such European power
does not thereby attempt to extend its
system OF Government TO that portion
of liz continent which is thus taken.
THE PRINCIPLE INVOLVED.
The extent OF territory does not affect
the principle involved though II may be
an important consideration in determin-
ing whether our Government should in
sist on its application I'm the particular
instance. But If "a comparatively trivial
'sression by foreign power upon a
weak South American republic should
appear likely 10 result in similar or
further asgressions by the same or other
powers, wisdom would suggest that the
Monroe doctrine be either promptly as
seized or definitely abandoned by the
United States.
DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS.
That the conditions under which the
doctrine was announced were very differ
ent from those which now exist cannot
be denied. The divine right OF kings and
absolute royal OF imperial power, what
ever the theory may be, are practically
recognized III but one of the great Euro
pean powers Of to-day.
EngIishmen. whether in the mother
country or I'm her colonies, scout the idea
that their institutions are less free than
ours, and II Is highly improbable that
the principles OF the Holy Alliance Will
ever again he seriously asserted, even on
the continent OF Europe. They certainly
can never endanger ,the free Institutions
of the United StateS
IL should. in fairness also be said. in
reference 10 the pending Anglo-Nene-
zuelan controversy that the colony OF
British Guiana wotld probably not suffer
by comparison OF its political institu-
tons with those Of Venezuela as regards
the practical protection afforded by them
respectively 10 individual liberty.
LORD SALISBURY
Perhaps Lord Salisbury has reference 10
consideration of this sort when he says
that the Monroe doctrine is generally
inapplicable TO the state OF things In
which We live at the present day" But