The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-04-26
JOHN BULL HAS HIS WAY
TIE United States Will Not Interfere
In His EIcarasuan Business.
TROOPS TO ARRIVE TO-DAY
Nicaragua Must Either Pay the In
demnity. Permit the Occupa-
ton of Corinto or Fight
the Thing Out.

last hope OF assistance from the United
States in her controversy with Great
Britain to prevent the seizure of Corinto
vanished this evening. DIR. Guzman, the
| Nicaraguan minister who has been watt
ing with intense anxiety to see Secretary
Gresham, was finally successful about 3
O'Clock, when the secretary came into the
department from the white house. where
he had been in consultation with Presi-
dent Cleveland, presumably on the same
subject. The interview was very short.
In five minutes the minister emerged
from the secretary's Office looking very
depressed. He refused to say word as
to what had taken place, but it can be
stated that the secretary gave him to
understand very clearly that the United
States would not interfere in the case as
| it stands.
| So there are now three courses open
| to Nicaragua, namely: To pay the in
| demnity; to permit the occupation of
Corlnto, or to fight, and the next 12 hours
must find the choice declared, for the
| British troops are to land at daybreak
tomorrow at Corinto.
The position taken by the president in
this matter is that the dispute is one en-
| tirely between Great Britain and Nicara-
qua in which the United States has no
| cause to interfere, unless there should be
acts committed injurious to American
| interests in Nicaragua, or there should be
shown disposition on the part of Great
Britain to acquire Ncaraguan territory.
On each of these points favorable assur-
ance has been had from Great Britain and
it is said that all that can be now done is
TO watch the course of events.
This decision was not hastily reached,
for the entire subject of our relation to
the countries of Central and South Amer
lea was considered and discussed care
fully by the president with his constitu-
tional advisors, and there has been made
a close scrutiny of the precedents that
might suffice for our guidance. These
have been found in at least three cases.
The first was fully set out in the message
of President Buchanan to congress in
1859 in that portion relating to Paraguay.
For several years preceding this message
the United States had great difficulty in
maintaining friendly relations with Para
quay, the latter country being then under
the dictatorship of DR.. Lopez, who was
carrying out a policy OF excluding the
rest of the world from his country by
the most drastic measures. He had
as President Buchanan stated, upon the
most frivolous and even insulting pre-
texts, refused to ratify the treaty of
friendship and commerce concluded with
Paraguay; had seized and appropriated
the property of American citizens residing
in the country in a violent aud arbitrary
manner, and finally the Paraguayans had
fired upon the United States steamer
Water Witch in 1855 and killed the helms
man while the vessel was making peace
full survey of the Parana river to deter
e., 80.
The honor as we'll as the interests of the
United States demanded satisfaction, and
the president being clothed by congress
with the necessary power, sent a naval ex-
pedition up the Parana river to the capi-
tai of Paraguay and compelled ample
apologies from the president-the pay
ment of an indemnity of $4,000 to the
family of the man who was killed and
finally secured the ratification of the
treaty.
The application of this case to the MIC
araguan situation is not exact, but it is
regarded rs committing the United States |
to the recognition of the principle of the |
right to demand an indemnity for the |
abuse of United States officers, and there |
fore we could not consistently deny the |
same right to Great Britain.
The second case, which was relied upon |
as a precedent, grew out of the difficulties |
encountered by Spain, France and Great |
Britain in their relations with Mexico in /
1860. These nations asserted they had |
been placed by tho arbitrary and vexa-
tious conduct of Mexico under the neces-
sity Of exacting from the authorities of |
that country a more effective protection
of the persons and properties of other
states as we'll as the execution OF obliga-
tions contracted with them by Mexico,
and, therefore, they had combined to
effect their ends by force if need be.
The United States, which had similar
grievances against Mexico, was invited to
join these European nations in enforcing
their demands. This invitation was de-
clined by the United States, which was
then in the throes of civil war, but the
significant point in the case is found in
the declaratian of Secretary Seward: "As
the undersigned has heretofore had the
honor to inform each of the plenipoten-
tiaries now addressed, the president does
not feel himself at liberty to question.
and he does not question, that the SOW
ereigns represented have undoubted right
TO decide for themselves the fact they
have sustained grievances and to resort
to war against Mexico for the redress
thereof and have also n right to levy the
war severally or jointly. The United
States has deep interest which,
however, they are happy to be-
live, is an interest held by them
in common with high contracting powers
md with all other civilized states. that
neither of the sovereigns by whom the
has been concluded, shall
seek or obtain any acquisitian of territory
,r any advantage peculiar to itself and
not equally left open to the United States
Ind every other civilized state within the
erritorles of Mexico, especially that
neither one nor all of the contracting par
les shall, as result OF consequence of
he hostilities TO be Inaugurated under
he convention, exercise in the subse-
luent affairs Of Mexico influence calcu-
ated to impair the right of the Mexican | [