The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-12-18
ENGLAND MUST STOP.


- izla sspfm By President M0or5e.
- ge.a.ng 81 bfs ianguage - as9S
.~ss .hsGrht q claiming iris noTei
tfa@.f~e for ths Unsfed States. i ~
F.-.sssss .tat ts as rot geek 70 assef&
Ss--.-..rssrsfe over Mexico Or TIE states
sks-z,+rai sra S0s+s America. such
-, xcssN have imposed upon TIE ffl
~.~.es ne aufy ~ aHaW"flnE 'oF ing
:. saeee states. and consequently
r.vefs,sff.zr - controlling a. tfsz
% -. foresight would have led him en-
sz&N.ss-.fs,, "a senraczte the addition of -
49, fsfr8er 70 those which the Trler@
~. fTrs.eA States have - bear u fol-
- ~aeazsffv that II the government
- rrntted States vii not c0n'Tol the
80. az these communities, ne3fneT can
-a.-..ks. q rrossrf them from tire con-
..1ysnees attaching - any u'iseptie3 et %
sTss .sav raav - guilty coward other
n they violate 50 any w&y the
= s~g.fpr state Or IS subjects. n Is
- shsf .he Monroe doctrine WtIl a.
.hsso the assistance 81 the United
$50 IL eucapfng from any reparat'0a
ass.s .nav nnav h. bound by International
-t,e NJ. oiney expressly discisirus
- an inference from The principles be
-. soxr Boz The claim which he POUNDS
-. taenl il that II auy independent
ss..4~,n Kfsss advances 5ertand for
-. exrsr. and that neIghbor = the col.
- European state. the United
-. have n right 20 insist that the
s.so-.sn state shall submit the demand
- rs can impugned rights 70 stoitra-
- wstj not now enter into a discussion
:, 49, merits ~ this method OF terminal
= International differences. IL has proved
.-.,t xaluahle in many cases, but u Is not
a.. - 70 ~
..rsaus drawback on IT'S value. 10 ts
>. ,,uavs easy TO End an arbitrator who
:. s~srnetent. and who. at the same time.
: wa.llv free from bias: and the task cf
s.,,rsng compliance with the award when
: = made Is not exempt from difficulty.
mode OF settlement OF which the
gszryes much. according 20 the nature
!. ~ controversy 10 which II Is applied
- 80 character OF the litigants who ap-
..,,att whether IN any particular case
suitable mode Of procedure is gen
s..av delicate and difficult question
- srsy parties who are competent to de-
"a. rat question are the two parties
1859 rival contentious are In Issue The
s,,l,s az a third nation which is unaffected
A. shs controversy 70 impose this partic-
-, rraeedure on either Of the two otli-
srs cannot he reasonably justified. and
~. no foundation In the laws Of nations.
In the remarks which I have made, I
savs argued on the theory that the Monroe
aarsrtns in Itself IL sound. ! must not.
hsx,ysr. be understood as expressing any
sreotanes O. Il on the part % her majes-
IVA government. IL must always be men
,sorss Nth respect, on account OF the dis
,snsplshegs statesman 20 whom II Is due, a3d
she grss; nation which has adopted II. But
International law Is founded on the general
consent OF nations. and no statesman, now
ever eminent. and no nation. however pow
srfsl are competent TO insert into the code
OF international Law a novel principle which
xas never recognized before and which has
not since been accepted by the government
4, any other country. The United States
have rixht. Ike any other nation. 10 In
tsrDase in any controversy by which their
owa interests are affected. and they are
me Judges whether those Interests are
tosIehea ana IN what measure they should
Be slgtained But their rights are In no
xay strengthened or extended by the fact
hat the controversy affects some terri
tory which IS called America Mr.. Olney
quotes the case OF the recent Chilean war.
n which the United States declined 20 Join
with France and England In an effort to
bring hoStilities to a close on account OF
the Monroe doctrine. The United States
~ere entirely I'm the right in declining 10
join IN an attempt al pacincation II they
thought IT. but Mr.. Olney's principle, that
American Questions are for American de-
tlslon.' even ~ IL received any eouHtenaqe
from the language OF President Monroe,
which Il does not cannot be sustained by
Aay reasoning drawn from the law OF ma
tons The government OF the United States
IL not entitled 70 affirm as a universal pro-
position. With reference 10 z number OF in
dependent states for whose conduct Il as
Eames no responsibility. that It's interests
are necessarily concerned IA whatever may
hefall those states Simply because they are
situated IN the Western Esmlsphere. II
may we'll be said that the interests If the
United States are affected oy something
tia; happens 20 Chile or 10 Peru. ard the
circumstances may give them ne rtght Of
Interference, but such a cont lgency may
equally happen in the case Of China or
Japan. and the right OF interference Is not
more extensive or more assured in the one
case than In the other
Though tho language OF President Mon
roe i directed 90 the attainment OF objects
which most Engllshmen would agree to be
sanitary. Il is impossible &c admit that
they have been inscribed ny any adeq late
authority IN the code OF International law.
sad the danger which such admission
would involve is sufficiently exhibited. both
~ The strong development which the doc
trne has received at Mr. 0iney's hands
end the arguments from which IL is sup
sorted IN the dispatch under reply. In de-
Tense OF Il he says: That the distance of
Se1 niles OF intervening ocean makes any
ornament political union between a Euro
Feaa ana an American state unnatural and
aeSpedent viii hardly be denied. But
shys'caI and geographical considerations
Ars re leaS; OF the objection 70 such
ueou. Europe has a set ~ primary in
ffstSts which are peculiar To herself
America Is not Interested IN them. and
aeghs not 70 be ve1ed or complicated with
hen And again. Thus Ear IN our his
Rory ~ have beer spared The burdens ana
fgls o. immense standing armies and all
Ge other accessories OF huge warIxe Cs-
aotSaments. Rne the exemption has high
y contribute 20 oar national greatness ana
setlta. as We'll as 20 the happiness ~ ev-
'F citizen B9t .th the powers % Europe
grsmsneaty cueamped on American soil
ts deal conditions we have Thus tar en-
N3e2 cannot - expected 10 continue
l"e necessary meaning OF these words
tAaf The union between Great
h0ialn and Cars3a between Great Brit
~ A31 Jamaica ana Trinidad. between
sstsi Britain ard British Honduras or
Nslsh Guiana. Is tucNpedItnt ANA uunat-
"a President Monroe d.sc,8ins any
,A Inference from his doctrine. bat in
~ in other respects. Mr. Oi1sy de-
H'5s e .ie 'aFs DOWN that the intVpedi-
a-t uhua 'gral character ~ the union
N-en Eur-peau and an American
At r So 3htie9s tGst IL VIII hardly De
Tier IuStrsty's government IS pre-
t1 enplaura.y 90 3env 10 on behalf
oe'a gle hr t's1 ana American people
80 are SCI tvrf f9 Hrf -rt uu They main
NAT tar Nniru between Great Britain
- Fe' territories 'u the Western Feml-
atre s. ht.a n4..-..1 ana s-.at.-t