The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-07-23
THE DIFFERENCE IS CLEAR.


trine to the case of Mexico, where that
country fails in its international duty
in protecting the lives and property OF
alien residents within the boundaries OF
that republic, revives practically the
situation that existed when the French
intervened in Mexican affairs during
our Civil War. At first the French in
tervention was nominaliy on account OF
a debt due to Frenchmen by Mexico
but Napoleon, finding the attention OF
the United States so thoroughly en-
gagged in the suppression of the rebel
lion. thought that he saw an opportun.
ity TO erect monarchy in Mexico un-
der French protection. though Maxi
milan, whom he undertook to install
as Emperor Of Mexico, was of the Aus
trian royal line. The French scheme
succeeded fairly well until the suppress.
sion of the secessionist rebellion, and
then upon notification of this country
and upon the movement of a consider
able body of Union troops TO the Mex,
ican border. the French forces were
withdrawn from Mexico, and the trag-
edv of Maximilian IS death and the life
long insanity of his queen, Carlotta, en-
sued
A number of instances have been set
forth showing that the intervention of
European powers for the purpose of col.
lecting claims from time to time
against Latin American republics is not
violation of the Monroe doctrine This
may be taken as truism; although il
is certain that when European powers
undertook TO enforce exorbitant and
doubtful claims against Venezuela, the
United States interposed and forced an
arbitration of these claims, which cut
| them down enormously But the gen.
eral principle that foreign nations may
forcibly collect debts due to their cit
izens by occupying custom houses of
Latin-American states and collecting
the revenues, has been too often en-
forced to be now denied
We see accordingly that number of
Eastern newspapers, discussing the Mex.
lean situation from the standpoint that
either Great Britain or Germany is en-
titled to intervene in Mexico for the
collection of claims due to their citi-
Zens by reason of Mexican outrapes
and defaults, cite and rely upon these
precedents. II this were all that is in.
volved in such intervention in Mexico
there. would be no question but the
claim Of collection by that means would
have to be allowed. But as in the old
French case in Mexico such interven-
tion would almost necessarily take the
form that we SO severely reprehended in
| the former French intervention. Secre.
tary Seward in his correspondence with
M. MonthoIon, the French Premier
made the distinction very clear between
mere intervention for the collection
Of debt or the forcible settlement of
a claim, and the undertaking to set up
| a form of government backed by for
eign force. Any foreign government
undertaking TO intervene in Mexican
affairs at this time would necessarily
have TO do precisely what Napoleon un-
dertook to do in Mexico during our
Civil War; that is, set up or recognize
n government with which il could ne.
gotiate for the settlement of the claims,
with undertaking to pay them, since
there IS no government in Mexico that
is universally (or even very extensive
| ly) recognized by the Mexicans them.
selves, and no government that is rec
| ognized by the United States.
Right here is the crux of the whole
question. Mexico is, in effect, an inter
national outlaw at this time 1t has no
government that the United States or
any other nation can fairly recognize.
But, in order TO have the settlement of
a claim against the Mexican govern
ment by any nation, there must be a
government recognized for the purpose
Of settling That claim. The recognition
of such q government by any foreign
power would necessitate, in the present
conditions in Mexico. an armed inter
vention for the support Of that govern
ment, to the extent at least Of making
la