The herald., 1896-12-22

that Europe has invariably asserted and
practiced the right to interfere. both
collectively and separately; amicably
and forcibly, in every instance. except
that of Poland, where European peo-
pie has resorted to insurrection to OBJ
tain independence.
The right itself has been based on va
rious grounds: "Impediments to COM
merce," burdens on measures of pro-
lection and repressions," requests of
one or both parties to interpose," "ef-
fusion of blood" and "evils of all kinds"
humanity" and "the repose of Europe"
Greek treaty of 1920; " a warm desire
to arrest, with the shortest possible de-
lay, the disorder and effusion of blood"
(protocol of November 4, 1880, in the case
Of Belg um);' his own safety or the po-
litical equilibrium on the frontiers of his
empire (Russian circular of April 27,
1S49, in the case of Hungary); "to @afe-
guard the interest and honor" and Ito
maintain the politicsl influence" of the
intervening power (French declaration
of 1S49-50 in regard to the states of the
church, Finally, in the latest and most
considerable, becauae absolutely unan-
imous act Of all Europe, simply the "de-
sire to regulate" (preamble to the treaty
of Berlin, 1878. covering the recognition
of Servia, Roumania, Montenegro and
Bulgaria).
EAPERlENCE In ASlA.
The report then turns to the experience
Of Asia. In regard to Asia, probably all
other authorities agree that the entire
fabric of European supremacy, whether
in Asiatic Turkey, Persia, Afghanistan,
India, Siam or China, rests on the right
of intervention
The American precedents are handled
exhaustively. After tracing the upris-
ings in Mexico, Venezuela, Chile and In
the Argentine Republic against Span
ish rule, the report says:
"The question of intervention began
in 1917. The Spanish government ap-
pealed to the European powers fon aid.
The czar openly took sides with Spain.
In October. 1917. the Russian govern
ment instructed its ambassador in Lon
don to press on the British government
the great importance of European in
tervention. President Monroe decided.
early as April, 1918, to discourage Fu-
ropean mediation. In August he made
formal proposal to the British and
French governments for a concerted
and contemporary recognition of Bue-
nos Ayres whose de facto independ-
ence made that country the natural
object of first step towards the estab-
ishment of general policy. In Decem
ber he notified both governments that
he had patiently waited without inter-
fering in the policy of the allies. but as
they had not agreed upon anything, and
as the fact of the independence OF
Buenos Ayres appeared established, he
thought that recognition was necessary.
In January. 1919, he announced to them
that he was actually considering this
measure Thus all parties had agreed,
as early as 1917 and 1918, upon the pro-
| priety of intervention between Spain
and her colonies.
MONROE'S FIAT.
Both the United States and Europe
asserted that the time had come so
they disagreed only as to the mode
| When President Monroe interposed his
| fiat that no interference could be coun-
| tenanced by him except upon the basis
| Of independence, he dictated in advance
| the only mode of intervention which he
| meant to permit. He waited before
carrying it out; it was only because
in the actual balance of European and
! American, power, he felt that isolated
| action might injure the cause he had
determined to help He waited In vain
| Neither England nor any other power
| moved again.
after a delay Of four years from the
time whIan he began his policy, the
Greek revolt in Europe and the military
| success of Bolivar and 1turbide in
America gave the desired opportunity,
and Monroe sent to congress his cele-
| brated message of March g. 1922. rec
| ommending the recognition of all the
revoted colonies of Spain-Mexico. Co.
lombia. Chile and Buenos Ayres. These
countries asked no more. They based
their claim on their independence de
facto, and Monroe admitted its force.
i ''The provinces" he said, (which have
| declared their independence and are in
the enjoyment Of it ought to be recog-
| nized."
| He added: "That the measure is pro-
| posed under thorough conviction that
| it is in strict accord with the law of
! nations"
| In reality it created the law so far
as its action went. and it's legality was
recognized by no European power.
| Nevertheless Monroe's act, which ex
| tinguished the last hope of the Holy
| Alliance in America. produced the deep
est sensation among European conser-
| vatives, who gave the United States
| extraordinary consideration. England
| used it as a weapon at the congress Of
Verona to threaten the other powers
| when they decided upon intervention in
| Spain. Slowly Charming came wholly
over to the side of Monroe, and France
| and Austria forced his hands in Spain.
The principle thus avowed by Canning
adds little to the European law of inter-
vention, but the principle avowed by
| Monroe created an entire body of Amer
lean jurisprudence. AS an isolated act
| it meant little. but in Monroe's view it
was not an isolated act it was part of
system altogether new and wholly
| American.
Monroe lost no time in doubts or hes
itation. In his anual Message of Decem-
ber, 1923, he announced the principle
the Monroe doctrine-that the new ma
| tions which his act alone had recognized
as independent, were by the act placed
outside the European system and that
the United States would regard any at
tempt to extend that system among them
as unfriendy to the United States
From that day to this the American
people have always and unanimously
supported and approved the Monroe doc
trine They needed no reasoning to prove
that it was vital to their safety.
RECOGNITION OF TEXAS
| The report then takes up the recogni-
ton Of Texas and quotes at length from
the executive and commercial utterances
preceding that action. President An
| drew jackson in his Texas message of
December 21. 1886, said
In the preamble to the resolution of the
house Of representatives it is distinct
lively intimated that the expediency OF
recognizing the independence of Texas
should be left to the decision of congress.
In this view. on the ground of expedien-
cy. / am disposed to concur and do not
therefore consider 1t necessary to express
any opinion as to the strict constitu-
ttonality of the executive apart from or
in conjunction with the senate over the
| subject 1t is to be presumed that on no