New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-11-12
"UNDER WHICH LAW ?"
Correspondent Regards Interference at Pan
ANA as High Handed Meddling.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: Be kind enough to permit me to comment
upon your leader. Under Which Law?'
I had not expected anything evasive OF as in
consistent from your pen THE end justihes the
means is the essence of your remarks. and take
by force what you cannot get otherwise seems to
be your motto. At least such IS the case in this
instance. You talk OF laws one would Of
mere mechanical contrivance and lose sight OF the
fact that laws not greater than the principle
they representative impartial Interpretation OF
right IS might.
If Washington IS responsible for or countenanced
this latest coup d'etat." then such action would
be on par with former exploits OF that govern
ment. republic that will permit the Illicit sup
port Of a monarchy at war with another republic
can be acclaimed as being capable of anything
Such was the case when England exterminated the
late Boer republics
Colombia certainly has the right OF using her
railroads as she thinks ft. and interfering here
constitutes what can be called high handed med
ding 1t might interest you TO know that such
procedure was responsible for the late AnglO-BOer
War OF course. all this you acquainted with.
but with true Ango-Saxon stoicsm you justify, d.
rectIy or Indirectly. the means to end
VERY well. then" replies the advocate Of the
governments policy, I'VE have also under the
higher law of the interests Of civilization the right
10 say that the worlds commerce from sea 70 sea
shall not be INSTRUCTED or Jeopardized by these IN
tern,Inabls tusurrectons-tO which the critic would
saw in the case Of a larger power. you would not
dare 70 do such a thing. Would the government
Of this country try to enforce laws and reforms In
England? Hardly power nowadays Is no longer
safe except it join the great AngO-Saxon coterie.
or has a war record that makes meddling dan
esrous undertaking. What applies to nations APP
o,;ss to Individuals Would you call II 'in the in
terest of civilization IL somebody was generous
enough to help you administer your personal az
fairs? Whether sucn effort be tusti1ed or not you
would resent it. The parallel here quoted might
60 t,,k &C.
ouainted with the laws of common decency by dis
section OF course. all this is being perpetrated
IN the name Of civilization The Anglo-Saxon's
conception of that unknown quantity must per-
force he a queer one. With him civilization seems
70 be only another word for diplomatic treachery.
Even II Colombia had been found incapable OF
Winding her own business and that OF others.
would not The Hague tribunal have been in posi-
bone OF contention transferred to that august in
sttution? The line of demarcation OF -eiyIlzs-
ton IL compared in the two instances, seems 70
Here enters the Monroe Doctrine Pray ex-
pIain why il in one instance the doctrine itself
can be enforced. the principle OF Il cannot be hon
Monroe Doctrine is but a means to end-the
privilege OF territorial acquisition Of favored
few? Would not a strict application OF IL defend
the isthmus as well against American encrOach-
development lies deeper and elsewhere The in
orousIy and impartiallv the fundamental law OF
existence: BE just and be cOnsiderate Of others
that the interest OF the majority before that
of the few who oppose such interest. This is a
very flexible argument. and practically means that
might is right" Its frequent application seems
to make It clear that have accepted IL as a law
the individual attacked by a gang Of robbers en-
Moved in the interest OF some charitable inStitu-
ton would be able to explain how the enforce
ment OF such law feels OF course. In times
we have a standard for thing and a radically
different one for the other. One apply 10 our
selvesit is and just: the other is elastic
an exOrbitant one: the rejection Of the bill may
have stung of 'veni. vidi vicf'' pOlf-
tcians: but that Is excuse for the action taken
and the sooner amends are made the better
New-York. Nov. s. 1903
We print the foregoing the principle of
giving the other side hearing. though the tone
and manners OF our correspondent scarcely war
rant such treatment Of him. Unfounded instnu-
atoms against the United States government IN
the case Of Panama are not to be strengthened
by revamping the stale libel about Illicit sup
port Of Great Britain against the Beers Our
correspondent should know IL he knows any
thing about the matter. that the only illicit
support" which proceeded from this country
went TO the Beers. AS 20 the Monroe Doctrine.
if our correspondent. has ever read that doctrire
as formulated by Mr.. Adams and Mr.. Mon
roe he should know that II put forward
by the United States primarily for this coun-
try's own comfort and welfare. We pass by his
sneers at Anglo-Saxon civilization and his dis
courtesy TO the journal the hospitality OF whose
columns he seeks. with the single suggestion