Delaware gazette and state journal., 1896-01-02

out of Chill, for example. On the other
hand, it is quite conceivable that he
would be willing to do so to keep her
out of Cuba. The one act would
be largely matter of self-defence; the
other, sheer quixotism. So far as the
Monroe doctrine is concerned we haye
no more cause to check the alleged
territorial encroachments by England
in Venezuela, than to enter cayeat
against her expansion in India; and
for the sufficient reason that the en-
largement of her power in one place is
no more dangerous to us than In the
other.
II it be held that the Monroe doctrine
does not now impose upon us the duty
OF resisting European interference in
the affairs of South America, il does
not follow that we owe those countries
no duty. The natural intimacy that
exists between this country and its
sister republics to the south, and our
lively interest in their welfare, should
always lead us to exert our good Offices
in their behalf against any encroach.
ment of European powers But IL
should always be distinctly understood
that we are under no duty to exert
force for their protection.
On the other hand, in consequence
of the probability of an isthmian canal,
the Central American republics are
within the area Of danger, and the
American people are disposed TO look
with concern upon any European en-
croachment in that direction. But we
have no inflexible rule to apply. We
arc hampered by no doctrine. " We
arc free to judge each case as it arises.
4 Calhoun, who was member of Mon
roe's cabinet, and who took an active
part in the consideration of the pro-
posed declaration. repudiated the idea
that all European interference was a
violation of the Monroe doctrine. In
notable speech on the Yucatan ques-
ton, he said: "But, in disavowing
principle which will compel us to resist
every case of interposition of European
powers on this continent, | would not
wish to be understood as defending the
opposite, that we should never resist
their interposition. This is position
which would be nearly as dangerous
and absurd as the other. But no gen
eral rule can be laid down to guide us
on such a question. Every case must
speak for itself. Every case must be
decided on its own merits. Whether
you will resist or not, and the measure
of your resistance; whether it shall be
by negotiation, remonstrance, or some
intermediate measure, or a resort to
arms; all this must be determined and
decided on the merits of the question
itself. "
Reason, expediency and the rules of
international law alike lead us to such
a construction OF the famous doctrine.
IL 10 ..f na 30 al
to have done much to formulate and
establish the rules of international law
and for that reason we should be- the
more careful to keep the Monore doc
trine clearly within those rules. I'm
less we are prepared to maintain the
doctrine as an anomaly in International
law, we must limit it to the require
ments of self-preservation. No rule of
international law is better settled than
that one nation shall not interfere in
the affairs of another except for pur-
| poses of self-defence. 1t is a rule con-
fessedly difficult of limitation: but it
clearly forbids that we should forcibly
intervene in the controversies of South
America and European powers The
Monore doctrine is no justification of
a policy Of territorial expansion. We
should remember that it is not policy
Of aggression. but of self-defence. We
should use it as shield, and not a
sword. In tho interest of that modera-
tion and justice in international rela-
tions which we have done SO much to
further, we should be studious to meas
ure the Monroe doctrine by our neces-
sities and not our ambitions
Mark B. Dunnell.
Minneapolis, MINI.