The herald., 1895-04-28

| deny to foreign powers the right to en-
force indemnity claims unaccompaneo
by conquest or territorial acquisition
A very full exposition of the subject is
contained in the report of Secretary Fish
to the president on July IA, 1870.
Mr.. Seward very clearly defined our pc,
sition when he said: The president
does rot fell himself at liberty to ques-
ton and he does not question that the
sovereigns represented. England, France
and Spain, have undoubted right to decide
for themselves the fact whether they have
sustained grievances and to resort TO war
| against Mexico for the redress thereof,
and have a right also to levy war severally
or Jointly. Secondly, the United States
nave deep interest that neither
OF the sovereigns shail seek TO
obtain any acquisition of territory or any
advantage peculiar TO itself and not lett
! open to the United States, ETC.
The situation may be briefly sum-
married. as follows:
| First -Nothing in the Monroe doctrine
| prevents a foreign power from enforcing
| the payne mt of indemnity form uries in
! ficted upon its citizens or subjects where
there is no subverslon of the government
or seizure and occupancy of territory.
Second-The government OF the United
States has never committed itself to the
Monroe doctrine, though many OF our
ablest statesmen have insisted upon the
that doctrine the government of the
United States would be justified and pos
sibly ii would be its duty, to prevent the
forcble acquisition by n foreign govern
ment of the territory OF any of the Amerl-
can states, or the overthrow OF the gov
ernments desired by the people OF those
states. In the present instance (Nlca-
ragua) if Great Brain contents herself
with the exaction OF damages due because
of outrages committed upon her subjects
and compels monetary satisfaction
thereof, and if she at the same time alb
stains from possessing herself OF territory
or interfering with governmental func-
tions, the United states Will not be justl-
fled in interfering because of the Monroe
doctrine or of any other doctrine hereto
fore advocated by any recongized author
ity.
| mi ght add to the foregoing that some
persons of learning and experience have
been inclined to limit the application OF
the Monroe doctrine to North and Central
America; but this seems to me inconsls-
tent with the original theory. An inte-
resting discussion of the question from an
American standpoint will be found i'll
Professor Woolsey's International Law.
and the conclusions above reached will be
found accordant with his views.
There are several claims now pending
before our state department against Mica
ragua and other Central American states.
arising out Of wrongs done citizens OF the
United States. We will probably demand
payment for these injuries before very
long and will not be disposed to permit
interference with our proceedings.
Some Americans of very scanty informa-
iton have declared that under the Clayton
Bulwer treaty we are justified in prevent
ing the landing of troop by Great Britain
in Nicaragua. This treaty was negotiated
for the purpose OF facilitating the CON
stIuction of ship canal across the 18TH
mus by way of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the
Mosquito coast, or any part OF Central
America. The first article is interesting
reading. for several reasons, and may be
quoted 1t is as follows:
Article l. The governments of the
United States and Great Britain hereby
declare that neither the one nor the other
will ever obtain or maintain for itself any
exclusive control over the said ship canal;
agreeing chat neither will ever erect or
maintain any Notifications commanding
the same. or in the vicinity thereof, or
occupy, or fo1tify, or colombo, or assume
or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua,
Costa Rica. the Mosquito coast or any part
of Central America nor will either make
affords or may afford, or any alliance
which either has or may have with
any state or people for the purpose of
erecting or maintaining any such fortiti-
cations. or of occupying. fortifying. or
colonizing Nicaragua. Costa Rica, the
Mosquito coast or any part OF central
America, or of assuming or exercising do
minion over the same: nor will the
United States or Great Britain take adj
vantage of any intimacy. or use any ALL
ance, connection or influence that either
may possess with any state or government
through whose territory the said canal
may pass for the purpose of acquiring or
l. flxr or inII
citizens or subjects of the one any rights
or advantages in regard to commerce or
navigation through the said canal which
shall not be offered on the same terms to
the citizens or subjects of the other. ;"
Tue third article provides that parties
constructing the canal under the author
ity of the local government shall be pro-
tected by the United States and Great
Britain. The treaty also provides for the
construction of the canal by both parties
and the seventh article guarantees the
support and encouragement of both gov
ernments to any competent persons offer
ing to commence the canal, etc. Mutual
itv of interest is manifested throughout
the compact.
1t is we'll known that English states
men object to the pending project. look
ing to the constructor of the Nicaragua
canal by means of the aid of our govern
ment upon the ground that the plan is
VlOlatlVe OF the clay JO0 DulNtT treaty.
Some of the advocates of the Nicaragua
canal bill at the last session of congress
stated that they believed that the carry
ing out of the work as contemplated
would be in conflict with the treaty. but
nevertheless, these gentlemen affirmed
their willingness to go ahead. Others
contended that no violation was involved.
Others, of whom there were great num-
Der, argued with mucn force that the
treaty was negotiated to meet a special
exigency existing when it was ratified in
1850; that conditions and wholly changed;
that the projects which were before both
governments at the time of the treaty
failed of realization and that the situa-
ton having been wholly altered and the
treaty having existed so long without
action taken, it must be considerd as
dead letter-as having fully lapsed.
Above all things at this d ~ the people of
the United States should not attempt to
vitalize the Clayton-Bulw treaty. An
effort upon the part of our state depart
| ment to interfere with Great Britain
| simply because of the Clayton Bulwer
! treaty, would be great diplomatic blum
der. The strongest reason for the belief
that England does not intend to occupy
| Nicaragua and will not seek to control it,
| is found in the fact that her diplomats
are at this very moment insisting that
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty is in full force,
and that for that reason the Nicaragua
canal cannot be built under the exclusive
| auspices of the United States. When
| England does anything to violate the re-