New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1896-01-01
MONROE :l;;1t E DOCTRINE.
he Columns af the St. Paul
ch to Discuss It.
r on the Doctine Itself and
cation to the Present
Trouble.

ng from The pen of Hon.
this city appeared in
ispatch:
the usually virile attitude
ch on all questions involv-
er, rights and duties as a
st confess that I am surpri-
say astonished, at the doc
cd in your leading editorial
discussing the Monroe doc
)licable to the Venezuelan
d headed s'Some of the Con-
You Quote with approval
ION aayanced by Mr.. Carter
he Monroe doctrine was in
and formed part of the law
it gave us a right which we
and rightfully enforce by war
y, for its vindication. If the
not a principle of interna.
we would be all wrong to &C
enforce it against any of the
Europe" By conceding this
n, you give the '.Law of Ma.
overshadowing authority which
claimed for it before, and
American statesman ever con.
# this proposition were correct,
f nations would be the law of
g as nation, and not the will
Anerican people. It would be
CT action as state, in our
) to other states; it would over
authority of congress and the
1t; 1t would be higher power
constitution, and the United
would not be II sovereign state.
'uch claim is put forward in be.
the xtsslaN@ of nations'' it is not
oainquiTe what the law of nations
ssformulatadit, and what It's scope?
claw Of nations is not even law
strict sense of the word. tbs US
defined as the rules of conduct
ed as binding among themselves,
. civilized nations of the world.
no code, no court or judges to
md or administer it. It is simply
lection OF rules which European
rs have agreed to, from time to
within the last 800 years, for the
rnmcnt of their conduct in certain
fed particulars both in their peace
Intercourse and in times of war. Most
aese rules been accepted by the
rican nations and by the United
es. Some we have rejected, and
rs have been added at our Instance.
neutrality rules, as now understood,
e championed principally by the |
ted States, and it was at our instance
they received their present form
ion and such obligatory force as
: have.By the treaty of Paris of 1856,
Altering .sisaand remains abolished.
is the of nations for the parties
hat tfeafY.ssIsut the United States
sed restotit, and no one will
end that we are bound by it. A
sstpf the law Of nations is only bind
Upon such states as have consented
4. If it were otherwise England,
Zee and Germany could get together
formulate rules f0r our government.
right was never claimed even
tr the guisc Of International law. 1t
maxim Of the law Of nations that
l independent state is sovereign, and
cuual Of every other state. From
it follows, as suggested. that no rule
/ he force OF law as to any state that
not adopted or consented to 1t.
the nations of the civilized world
consented to our Monroe doctrine.
ly or expressly. then it is part Of the
of nations. If they haven't. it is not,
that is all there is to it. If they
mt consented, is that any reason why
shouldn't: We made rule Of in
ationa! law for England and the rest
epllssthess sncutrallty question,
A ias5t san other!
8 "a truth recognized
L Snations-ir ques-
81 Sn SsnhttSrhatioaal law that each
N has the right to deal with another
choose, and no outsider has anv right
lterfere. cXcep: where one Of them
have surrendered to another por-
of its sovereignty"
his proposition I challenge as utterly
5unded, both in point of doctrine
Historically. The single example
3R you Acknowledgements surrender
her sovereignty to France-ls not
oint. s.Pirates, savages and unciv-
d tribes are excluded from the ben
!. and 9 Iatianssef ths{ls.,law Of nal