Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-02-09
Is Expected From Genera
Butler in Few Days.
HE IS In A TIGHT PLACE
The Beers Are on Both Sides of Him
and Also in the Center-Total
British Casualties up to Tuesday
Noon.

Washington, Feb. ga persistent eff
ort is being made to induce this govern
ment to take the first step toward a
practical application of the mediation
provisions of The Hague conference
treaty to the war between England and
the Boer republic. Resolutions adopted
by public meetings and by permanent or
g~anizations locking to the end are being
received at the state department and the
president and secretary Of state are get
ting scores Of letters from individuals all
over the country, urging the administers
ton to seek to bring about the end Of the
war.
The statement attributed to Senator
Mason Of Illinois. that Montagu White.
he ransvaal's private agent in Ameri-
ca, had been informed by the secretary
OF state that the United States could
not offer mediation because The Hague
treaty had not been ratified by the sem
ate, does not fully nor fairly represent
the position of this government. There
is another and more important reason
why this government should not become
a party to mediatory proceedings, which
would be just as much an obstacle to
American Interference If The Hague
treaty had become operass.e. In hat
treaty all the signatory nations to 1t
bound themselves to the observance of an
international rule OF which little has
been said. and its Importance and extent
almost entirely overlooked. In effect
this rule is a general agreement. binding
all foreign nations who are parties to the
trsaty to recognize n observe the Mon
roe doctrine, and. in turn, the United
States bind themselves to keep from
mcddling in the political affairs Of any
foreign country. The government has
not exploited the important victory
which it won at The Hague in securing
a worldwide recognition of its tradition
al policy concerning purely American at
fairs, for the reason that such a course
might bring about opposition in foreign
countries to the ratification of the treaty
On the ground that the United States
Were getting altogether too much benefit
from the Monroe doctrine declaration.
But 1t Is now realized hat the position
of the government must be fully ex-
planned, to prevent a mfsconception of
It's attitude concerning the proposal that
mediation be. offered to Great Britain and
Ni-N CuAAJ XIV - NV ~@AN - VAA0
declaration of The Hague conference, the
United States intend that they shall not
as a nation be drawn into foreign quar-
rsls through the application of the media
ton provision of that convention, and
eign countries will pursue the negative
policy of ':hands-off'' in relation to tho
affairs of the three Americas.
The reference to, The Hague treaty IN
the above dispatch is not exact. The
treaty itself contains no provision recog-
nizing the Monroe doctrine, and the ref
erence is undoubtedly made to a declare.
ton attached to the signatures Of AM
erlcan delegates which reads as follows:
Nothing contained In this convention
shall be so construed as to require the
United States of America to depart from
its traditional policy of not intruding up
ON, interfering with or e~ntangling itself
in the political questions or policy, or in
ternal administration of any foreign
states. nor shall anything contained in.
ply a REIMBURSEMENT by the United States
of America OF it's traditional attitude to~
ward purely American questions"
This declaration was called out by the
wording of Article q of he convention,
which says: Az
""The signatory powers consider 1t q
duty, in a case when an acute dispute
threatens to break. out between. two or
more of them. to femind these powers
that the permanent court Is open to
them. Consequently. they declare thai
tho fact of calling the attention Of the
parties to the provisions of the present
convention, and the advice given, in the
higher interest of peace to address
Themselves to the permanent court. can
not be considered @othe rwise than as acts
of good Offices"
Regarding this article Seth Low, a
delegate of the United States to the peace
conference, says in a recent magazine
article: - @
When this section was literally read,
1t seemed to the American delegation to
confront the United States with a pro-
posal to enter into an obligation to in
t%ervene, in the manner proposed, in every
controversy hat might arise between
any of the signatory Powers; and to in
wife a similar course on their part toward
the United States. Such an obligation
and such an invitation . appeared :.
to be in direct conflict with the his
toric policy OF the United States. The
"'can delegation ~endeavored there
fore to secure ar amendment +. tina
each nation was to Judge for itself when
the duty could properly be discharged.
ment could probably have been made;
for there was no hesitation IN say
ing that the obligation was q NOR
al duty as to the performances Of
which each nation . must be its W
Judge. . At the end of the conference
an attempt to amend {. might lead to
very serious results. Accordingly, the
American delegation contented itself by
pacing in the minutes Of the conference,
when he convention was about to be
al d. he. -. declaration -.
which. having been read in full confer
cree, the convention was Immediately
adopted without dissent. The convention
was subsequently signed by the American
6e'esation. subject to the reserve of this