The record-union., 1899-09-10

we were then weak and must be eau
tious, lest we should be crushed be
tween the upper and neither millstones.
In a letter to Patrick Henry October
8, 1895, Washington expressed his mind
freely that it was his ardent desire TO
keep the country free from political
connections with any other country; to-
see the United States independent of
all and under the influence of none.
He added, I'm a word, 1 want an
American character, that the Powers
of Europe may be convinced that we
act for ourselves, and not for others.
President Jones does not find in the
advice to steer clear of foreign en-
tanglements the preaching of doc
tfine of isolation nor a plea against all
alliances. Washington considered as
entangling any European alliance in
which the United States should be an
unequal partner and dependent-any
connection which should make this
country the vassal of another" So,
too. an equal alliance which should be
permanent would be entangling. Thus
he contemplated alliances temporary in
character, but feared permanent ones
He declared that we should stand aloot
from ordinary" European combina-
tions but distinctly said that there
might arise extraordinary 'emergen-
cies" forcing us to interfere.
He thus believed that we might wise
ly become a member of European
coalition. Armed intervention in Eu-
rope he considered a possibility, for in
the original draft of the address, in
speaking of attaining the condition that
would make foreign Powers hesitate
to give us provocation, he used the
words "to throw our weight into the
opposite scale" These words were
erased but serve to show that the
thought of armed intervention was in
his mind.
The address advised the best possi-
Bile commercial treaties, to be so framed
as to be subject to change or abandon
ment as might become our interests.
In a letter to Lafayette he declared
that these United States shall one day
have weight in the scale of empire
and in the same connection he spoke
| of himself as "a member of an infant
empire"
President Jones finds not even hint
in the address against extra-continen-
tai expansion, cit does not glimpse the
bogey of imperialism" Washington
was regarded as a statesman, and his
address was the specific advice of a
statesman directed to the meeting of
specific temporary conditions. When
maturity came and the infant nation
was settled, strong and a fixed factor
in the family of nations, then he looked
to it's taking its equal place among
! States of the world.
We are no longer weak and poor says
the essayist; national isolation is done
away with: the Atlantic is no longer "a
! barrier" but a ferry to be crossed al
will. Qutckened transportation has
!
Washington advised, extend our com
mercial relations with other nations
without having much, if any, politica
connection with them. His words
were "as little political connection as
possible"
| We cannot now make an unequal al
lance; we are in no danger of becom-
/ ing the satellite of any Power; a fixed
alliance against which the address
warns us no one contemplates for a
moment. Our internal development
/ Washington realized as essential tc
/ consolidation of political individuality
National character was to be builded
and then we were to stand forward fol
our rightful place in the world. Thai
is the thought and teaching Of the ad-
dress, and we have proved true to it
and despite the lessons the anti-ex-
pansionist orators seek to draw from
the address we are not departing from
its teachings.
Whether the Monroe doctrine is con.
tanned in the address or not is inmate
rial, for, says the essayist, it is not &
theory but a fact of National procedure
having been explicit for seventy-fyt
years. We have shaken off foreign
influence; we have intervened to pro
tect our Spanish-American neighbors
from European. domination. But the
ssJ,o lo,,oa Of YNoxx-a,.'t &c cf;11 ,.oo1 +b;,,c
in European politics, and partition OF
countries has been under it effected
and is still going on-now in the Orien
while European nations look witt
longing eyes upon South America.
President Jones at length consider:
this latter threat, after sketching tn,
activities of the nations in dominating
other peoples. and asks why Europe
should not seek to occupy South Amer
lea? A better reason than the Mon
roe doctrine, in his opinion, must bt
advanced for our protest if it is at
tempted. The answer is that no Euro
pean Power, excepting England ha'
any capacity for colonization Cont
mental Europe is incompetent to de
velop South America in any large, lib
eral and intelligent way. Africa ano
Asia must satisfy them.
European domination in South Amer
lea would be dangerous to our inter
ests. and freedom from it is necessar.
for the South American States. II
short, Professor Jones believes tha