The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-01-30

tended for. the Monroe doctrine has,
therefore, as completely ceased to be a
live issue as the declaration of indie
pendence.
The Holy Alliance, with its
doctrines and aspirations, can no
more be revived than life can
again be breathed into the
royal mummies of the pyramids, and in
all the Christian States of Europe, with
the exception of Russia, absolutism has
been supplanted by constitutionalism on
an ever-broadening democratic basis; in
France even monarchism has been swept
away for good. AS to England-if JEFF
ferson thought in 1923 that she might
properly "lead' in shutting out despotism
from America, it is now too late in the
day to pretend that it is incumbent upon
the United States as guardian of the
cause of freedom on this continent to
side with the Venezuelans against the
English. The cause of freedom will have
n poor show on this continent when with
the people of the United States substance
has no longer a chance against name and
form. If our conception of liberty is of
such character that we think as cham
pions of liberty we must sustain Vene-
Zuela against Great Britain. because the
former is republic and the latter a
monarchy, then let us put stop to hay
ing the minds of our children poisoned in
the schools by teaching them the history
of that abomination, benighted, king
ridden England, and substitute for it the
inspiring lessons taught by the glorious
history of the Simon-pure republic Vene-
zuela, which is said to count pretty
nearly one revolution to every year of
its existence
The notion that liberty would have to
go into mourning if the English were to
prevail against the Venezueans in this
contention is on par with Mr.. Olney's
assertion that the ultimate result of our
allowing England to have her own way
as to the disputed territory would be
that 1--WE, too, must be armed to the
teeth" and although we are master of
the situation and practically invulnerable
as against any or all other powers" nd
although we have grown to be what we
are with an army of about 10000 men,
in spite of English territory bordering on
our own from ocean to ocean and in spite
of England's possessions in the West In
dies, which are of much more conse-
quence than the widest imagination can
suppose this enlargement of British
Guiana 70 be. If we had good case
the administration has displayed ad-
mirable skill in making it look as bad rs
bad can be by painting with such an
it into grossly eXaggerating both ways;
rendering the Standardization so
glaring that even what is sound in its
argument is thereby made to seem I'M
sound or at least open to question.
SEWARD AND THE FRENCH.
Thirty years ago another secretary of
state proved an international complica-
ton of infinitely greater moment and
delicacy that the United States can
safely dispense with the Monroe doctrine.
Without so much as mentioning it a sim
gle time, Seward caused Napoleon to
withdraw the French troops from Mex
leo. His remOnstranceS-very firm. but
calm, dignified and studiously avoiding
whatever might irritate and give Of
fense-rested upon the sentiment of the
people of the United States, which is
now misnamed Monroe doctrine.
That sufficed. Why? Because this
sentiment is II fact, and facts govern
politics. This fact is one of the para
mount elements in determining the rela-
tons of Europe to this continent, and its
weight corresponds exactly to the power
of the United States. j. e. it increases at
IL tremendous rate, and we know it-in
fact, we know it only too WELL On the
other hand, 1.-THE operation of the sure
but silent force of the doctrine pro-
claimed by President Monroe" of which
Mr.. Olney speaks. is fiction. Il fiction
: setting up paper fetch and attributing
magic powers to it,. The doctrine does
not operate by its own virtue,
; for it is not and cannot be pos
, sessed of any inherent force; there is only
ment of the people of the United States,
and the assertion of this force is not de-
pendent on the doctrine-it is n fact. doc
trine or no doctrine. If the fact ceases
to be a fact the doctrine does not avail
us anything. SO long as the fact re-
mains fact we do not need the doctrine.
AS doctrine it is worse than worthless
to us, for as doctrine it is not binding
upon anyone but ourselves.
A doctrine is a straight-jacket and a
rational policy requires freedom of ac-
ton. because it must conform to the con-
ditions and circumstances. If we swear
to a doctrine and the given conditions
render it harmful TO live up to it we are
fools if we subordinate the national in
terest to loyalty to the self-imposed doc
trine, and if we are sensible enough to
be guided by our interests in spite of the
doctrine we do so at the expense of our
consistency. and expose ourselves to scorn
and ridicule. To shape it's policy. not ac-
cording to doctrines, be they of recent
date or never so venerable an age but
according to tbs interests, is not only the
right but the imperative duty, of every
state. The only question that is legiti-
| mately DefOre those upon whom 1t is
incumbent to determine its course is what
its true interests are and require.
This is the real issue. The correct read
ing of the Monroe doctrine would be Il
purely acadcmical question but for the
fetch character which it is attempted to
impart to it. If this controversy could
be authoritatively settled by an inappeal-
able tribunal nothing would be gained by
it. If the president and Mr.. Oney were
so surely right as TO the applicability of
the doctrine TO the case in hand, as for
one believe them to be wrong, their policy
would still stand condemned if it can be
proved to run counter to the true inter
ests of the country. This the critics of the
administration maintain. They do not
contend, as they have been frequently ac-
cused. that England has not laid herself
open to just charges, nor that the United
States have no legitimate interest in the
question. nor that if is not cminently
proper on their part to do their very best
TO have the dispute settled by arbitration.
They only assert,
First-That the interests of the United
States are not sufficiently involved in the
question to warrant their being made a
party to it to the extent it has been done
by the policy of the administration.
Secondly-That from no point of view
| Al L., B., I'LL IL.