Delaware gazette and state journal., 1896-02-20
THE PRESIDENTS MONROE DOCTRINE.

lanus Monroe Doctrine message hy
Theodore s. Woolsey, professor of In
ternational Law at Yale. Prof. Woolsey
says In part:
Among the fundamental rights of
every State is that Of Independence.
Now, Independence means the right to
be let alone. In the exercise Of its in
dependence each State deals with every
other as 1t secs fit; it fosters trade or
it restricts it; il guarrels or it makes
friends. This is the rule interference
in the affairs OF another State is the
exception and needs to be justified.
The necessity of elf.defence. is the
most common excuse for such inter-
ference. The baance-of- power prin.
ciple was based upon this, with the
maintenance of the Ottoman Empire
and the Triple Alliance as its latest
manifestations. Interference to pre-
serve the peace of Europe-such as that
which carved neutral Belgium out
of the kingdom of the Netherlands -
was based upon this. And it was this
which called the Monroe Doctrine into
being. Let us fix firmly in our minds
at the outset, then, the undoubted
fact that the declaration Of President
Monroe was an interference in the
affairs of other States, to be justified
only by the necessity of self defence
9 A new instance of interference in
the affairs OF other States has occurred.
President Cleveland, in his message
to Congress of December 18th, 1895,
declares that he conceiyes il to be his
duty to ascertain and lay down
boundary line between British Guiana
and Venezuela, using every means in
his power to enforce il. This, of
course, is threat of war. For this
interference the President states that
the Monroe Doctrine is his warrant
lie believes that Doctrine applicable
to the case in question, and failure
to enforce it dangerous to the safety
of the United States, -
In commenting on the Presidents
message, Prof. Woosey says that the
President bases his fresh use of the
old Doctrine on the original ground,
that Of self-defence. That this danger,
which justities our interference, really
exists, ] find it very hard to believe.
1t may well be asked whether our peace
is most threatened by an unsettled
boundary in South America, or by the
message itself.
Again Prof Woolsey says: "The
President has threatened Great Britain
with war In a certain contingency: he
has thrown business already into great
confusion, and ieopardized the nations 8
finances. on the ground that our Mon.
roe Doctrine is binding law, is neces.
sary TO the safety Of our institutions
and form OF government, and is applc-
able to the Venezuelan boundary dis.
pute. Ii these contentious cannot be
maintained. his actions must be con-
demned as an offence to a friendly
power and very serious hlunder.
Speaking of the Presidents argu-
mcnt for tho applicability of the Mon
roe Doctrine, the writer says: "The
argument is perfectly clear and needs
no elaboration. An unsettled boundary
dispute between a British colony and
Venezuela, disposition to edge up on
the latter in the mattOr of territory is
an attempt to extend the European
system to sister republic and to con
troll its destiny. On the face of it this
is a possible inference, but only by
emphasizing the letter-not the spirit
and real intent-of Monroe's mes
sage, and by almost pervorson of
words. Apply the same language to
our Maine boundary. The valley of
the ST. John was disputed ground. BY
the Ashburton compromise it was di-
vided between the disputants. 1t is a
proper use of language to say that the
success OF Great Britain in acquiring
the country north of the st. John river
to the st. Lawrence watershed, which
we had justly claimed, extends a
European system to the United States
or controls its destiny Venezuela s
is a perfectly parallel case. We're she
to lose the whole region in dispute by
arbitration or by aggression, in neither
case would new system be extended
over her, or her destiny be controlled. -
Prof. Wonlsey then goes into the real
spirit and intent of the Monroe Doc
trine, treating of its origin and it's
application. This history and these
comments" " he adds. "show that it
was the substitution of monarchial
for Republican form Of government,
| by European forces, at which tho Mon
| roe Doctrine was aimed. " He then
quotes as follows from his father 8
treatment of thosubiect in his introduce
tion to the Study of International
Law" ITO lay down the principle
that the acquisition of territory on this
continent by any European power can
not be allowed bv the United States
would go far beyond any measures die
tated by the system of the balance of
power; for tine rule of sell preservation
Is not applicable in our case; we fear
no neighbors, But TO resist at
tempts of European powers TO alter the
| Constitutions of States ON this side of
the water is wise and Just opposition
to interference. Anything beyond this
| lustiiies the system which absolute
| governments have initiated for the sup
preston of revolutions by main force. ="
Such was the Monroe Doctrine, !"
continues the professor. Anything
othor than this is the doctrine of some
body else d"
There is another striking difference
between the old version and the new.
President Monroes message nowhere
| threatens force. This fact has been
often commented upon. His strongest
| expression is that we should look upon
| certain actions as evid ,nce of an un-
friendly disposition. But President
Cleveland is not SO tame After sug-
/ gesting a commission To report upon
the Venezuelan boundary, he says:
When such report ia made and ac-
cepted. it will, in my opinion, be the
duty of the United States to resist by
every means in its power, as a wilful
aggression upon its rights and interests
the appropriation of Great Britain of
any lands or the exercise of governmental
jurisdiction over any territory which,
after investigation, we have determined
of right belong to Venezuela
But for this threat the message would
have been regarded as political mani
festo; with this threat it is menace