The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1896-06-06
For the Democratic Advocate,
BY CHARLES l.. sHIPLEY.
PART FOURTH.

Having presented to the public in Om
previous article the origin of the Monroe
Doctrine, from the day that it emanated
from the pen of its author until the French
invasion of Mexico, we will endeavor il
this, the second portion of our review, in
as brief manner as possible, TO cover in as
plain details its application to the Vene-
zuela boundary dispute.
1t is plainly evident that doctrine,
which our government has upheld for the
past seventy years, cannot at the present
time be abruptly set aside to suit the in
trigue of any nation, state, or faction Of
statesmen. If we upheld it in the past
when we were weak nation, and later
was ready to sustain it by an application
to arms-as in the case of Mexico-we
must be prepared to sustain it in the same
manner in the present difficulty, or one
that will arise in the future, or else eradi-
cate it absolutely from our political system,
and let might make right, by permit
ting any foreign nation to seize with i'm
punity such territory of the South Ameri-
can republics as would suit their purpose
in extending their system to the continent
south of us.
The present appeal Of Venezuela was
not unexpected or without preliminary
warning, Only during the early part of
the year 1895 was there rupture be-
tween England and one of the Central
American republics, arupture which would
undoubtedly have assumed grave aspect
if the demand of Great Britain had not
been complied with in the form of an in
demnity.
We refer to the Corinto incident.
The cause of trouble between this Cen
tral American republic and Great Britain
was created by the expulsion from the
former country of Consul Hatch, and for
other alleged damages to British subjects
arising from troubles in the Mosquito re-
servation. For this alleged damages Great
Britain made demand on Nicaragua for
an indemnity of s75, 900, and as she
showed very little disposition to pay the
same, number of war vessels were to seize
Corinto, the principal port of entry of the
little republic. When this summary pro-
cedure of Great Britain became known
in this country, it caused great excitement
for while and diversity of opinion ex-
isted as to the course to be pursued by the
United States government.
Those Of our citizens who were afflicted
with the mania of 'jingoism were in
favor of forcible interference, an inter
ference that would demand of Brittania
the immediate and unconditional with
drawal from Nicaragua soil But would
such an interference been justiiable
Here was not question of boundary line
or territorial acquisition, but one Of per-
sonal rights, and tie question Of the set
tlement of such dispute rested solely with
the two countries concerned. Great Brit
ain was sovereign power and so was
Nicaragua, and the former claimed thet
the latter had inflicted personal affront
upon number of her subjects. OF that
Great Britain was the sole judge, and
there is no law, no court, anywhere TO
compel Der to think otherwise. As a
sovereign power she had an indisputable
right to demand redress for the affront
offered and to determine the amount of
reparation that she would accept as ade-
quate for the offense.
Nicaragua in her turn as sovereign
power was entitled to refuse the payment
if she was so disposed, though in so doing
she courted war with her antagonist. She
did refuse, and the result was the seizure
of one of the ports of entry and its occu-
patton by English arms until the indem-
nifty should be paid. In this war Great
Britain only initiated the United States
government. which ordered the lombard
ment of Greytown, in Nicaragua, by a
feet under Secretary Marcy's order by the
way of enforcing a demand of our own a
number of years ago. The rights of a
sovereign power to enforce its demands is
beyond dispute, and in this particular de-
mand of Great Britain we do not see
wherein the United States had any just
cause to interfere, when it was not ques-
ton of territory at stake If Great Brit
ain had demanded portion of Nicaragua $
territory for reparation. Instead Of money
indemnity, then our right to interfere
would have been unquestioncd If we de.
sired to have adhered to our traditional
policy Of Monroeisp Happily, however,
the incident was settled in peaceable
manner, Nicaragua agreeing to meet the
demand of Great Britain, and the latter