doctrine was originally announced, and has ever since been, as it always should be, maintained.2

See reference to Lord Salisbury's letter in note 1 on page 107, post.

produce that great excitement and sympathy in their favor which have been so signally displayed throughout the United States. A strong hope is entertained that these people will recover their independence and resume their equal station among the nations of the earth.

"A great effort has been made in Spain and Portugal to improve the condition of the people, and it must be very consoling to all benevolent minds to see the extraordinary moderation with which it has been conducted. That it may promote the happiness of both nations is the ardent wish of this whole people, to the expression of which we confine ourselves; for whatever may be the feelings or sentiments which every individual under our Government has a right to indulge and express, it is nevertheless a sacred maxim, equally with the Government and the people, that the destiny of every independent nation in what relates to such improvements of right belongs and ought to be left exclusively to themselves.

"Whether we reason from the late wars or from those menacing symptoms which now appear in Europe, it is manifest that if a convulsion should take place in any of those countries it will proceed from causes which have no existence and are utterly unknown in the States, in which there is but one order, that of the people, to whom the sovereignty exclusively belongs. Should war break out in any of those countries, who can foretell the extent to which it may be carried or the desolation which it may spread? Exempt as we are from these causes, our internal tranquillity is secure; and distant as we are from the troubled scene, and faithful to first principles in regard to other powers, we might reasonably presume that we should not be molested by them. This, however, ought not to be calculated on as certain. Unprovoked injuries are often inflicted, and even the peculiar felicity of our situation might with some be a cause for excitement and aggression. The history of the late wars in Europe furnishes a complete demonstration that no system of conduct, however correct in principle, can protect neutral powers from injury from any party; that a defenceless position and distinguished love of peace are the surest invitations to war, and that there is no way to avoid other than by being always prepared and willing for just cause to meet it. If there be a people on earth whose more especial duty it is to be at all times prepared to defend the rights with which they are blessed, and to surpass all others in sustaining the necessary burthens, and in submitting to sacrifices to make such preparations, it is undoubtedly the people of these States.

"When we see that a civil war of the most frightful character rages from the Adriatic to the Black Sea; that strong symptoms of war appear in other parts, proceeding from causes which, should it break out, may become general and be of long duration; that the war still continues between Spain and the independent governments, her late Provinces,

§ 53. Russia's colonization on the Pacific Coast stopped.— In 1823, even prior to the delivery of President Monroe's mes

in this hemisphere; that it is likewise menaced between Portugal and Brazil, in consequence of the attempt of the latter to dismember itself from the former, and that a system of piracy of great extent is maintained in the neighboring seas, which will require equal vigilance and decision to suppress it, the reasons for sustaining the attitude which we now hold and for pushing forward all our measures of defence with the utmost vigor appear to me to acquire new force.

"The United States owe to the world a great example, and, by means thereof, to the cause of liberty and humanity a generous support. They have so far succeeded to the satisfaction of the virtuous and enlightened of every country. There is no reason to doubt that their whole movement will be regulated by a sacred regard to principle, all our institutions being founded on that basis. The ability to support our own cause under any trial to which it may be exposed is the great point on which the public solicitude rests. It has been often charged against free governments that they have neither the foresight nor the virtue to provide at the proper season for great emergencies; that their course is improvident and expensive; that war will always find them unprepared, and, whatever may be its calamities, that its terrible warnings will be disregarded and forgotten as soon as peace returns. I have full confidence that this charge so far as relates to the United States will be shown to be utterly destitute of truth." Richardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. II., pp. 192-195.

A year after the doctrine had been announced, President Monroe, in his last annual message transmitted to Congress, December 7, 1824, referred to the effect of the announcement as follows:

"In turning our attention to the condition of the civilized world, in which the United States have always taken a deep interest, it is gratifying to see how large a portion of it is blessed with peace. The only wars which now exist within that limit are those between Turkey and Greece, in Europe, and between Spain and the new Governments, our neighbors, in this hemisphere. In both these wars the cause of independence, of liberty and humanity, continues to prevail. The success of Greece, when the relative population of the contending parties is considered, commands our admiration and applause, and that it has had a similar effect with the neighboring powers is obvious. The feeling of the whole civilized world is excited in a high degree in their favor. May we not hope that these sentiments, winning on the hearts of their respective Governments, may lead to a more decisive result; that they may produce an accord among them to replace Greece on the ground which she formerly held, and to which her heroic exertions at this day so eminently entitle her?

"With respect to the contest to which our neighbors are a party, it is evident that Spain as a power is scarcely felt in it. These new States had completely achieved their independence before it was acknowledged by the United States, and they have since maintained it with little for

sage to Congress, it had been quietly communicated by Secretary John Quincy Adams to Russia, and Russian coloniza

eign pressure. The disturbances which have appeared in certain portions of that vast territory have proceeded from internal causes, which had their origin in their former Governments and have not yet been thoroughly removed. It is manifest that these causes are daily losing their effect, and that these new States are settling down under Governments elective and representative in every branch, similar to our own. In this course we ardently wish them to persevere, under a firm conviction that it will promote their happiness. In this, their career, however, we have not interfered, believing that every people have a right to institute for themselves the government which, in their judgment, may suit them best. Our example is before them, of the good effect of which, being our neighbors, they are competent judges, and to their judgment we leave it, in the expectation that other powers will pursue the same policy. The deep interest which we take in their independence, which we have acknowledged, and in their enjoyment of all the rights incident thereto, especially in the very important one of instituting their own Governments, has been declared, and is known to the world. Separated as we are from Europe by the great Atlantic Ocean, we can have no concern in the wars of the European Governments nor in the causes which produce them. The balance of power between them, into whichever scale it may turn in its various vibrations, cannot affect us. It is the interest of the United States to preserve the most friendly relations with every power and on conditions fair, equal, and applicable to all. But in regard to our neighbors our situation is different. It is impossible for the European Governments to interfere in their concerns, especially in those alluded to, which are vital, without affecting us; indeed, the motive which might induce such interference in the present state of the war between the parties, if a war it may be called, would appear to be equally applicable to us. It is gratifying to know that some of the powers with whom we enjoy a very friendly intercourse, and to whom these views have been communicated, have appeared to acquiesce in them." Richardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. II., pp. 259, 260.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE.

It is an absolute impossibility to successfully attempt to write upon any branch of the political history of the United States without making more or less extended reference to the original announcement of the Monroe Doctrine and the subsequent application thereof. The famous enunciation, although contained in a few brief paragraphs of an annual message of one of the Presidents, has been the basis of hundreds of articles, speeches, and even entire volumes which have been devoted to discussing "the origin, meaning, and application of the Monroe Doctrine"; the last sentence is quoted as it is the title of a brochure upon the subject published by Professor John Bach McMaster in 1896. Nor

tion upon the Pacific Coast was thenceforth confined to its then existing limits.1

§ 53.

ence between Secretary Adams and

1 See references to correspond-our Minister to Russia, p. 97, post. has this discussion been confined to Americans, or to the United States; reference to it will be found in nearly all of the works on international law; and varied opinions have been delivered in regard to it by American, English and Continental authorities.

The question whether or not the Monroe Doctrine actually exists and is as applicable to-day to similar cases, as it was in 1823, has been presented to the American people on several occasions. One of these was in December, 1895, when Mr. Cleveland's message and Lord Salisbury's letter" in regard to the Venezuela boundary brought the issue forward in a more practical manner than it had been presented for many years.

In the brochure above referred to Professor McMaster said: "The crisis is certainly a serious one, and an examination of these views is not untimely. The hour has come for the people of the United States to decide once for all whether there is or is not a Monroe Doctrine. If there is, it should be stated as clearly and precisely as possible. If there is not, then it becomes us to say so frankly and at once."

Since that time if any answer has been given to Professor McMaster's question it certainly is to the effect that the Monroe Doctrine does exist; that it is recognized as existing not only by the people of the United States, but also by the governing powers of other nations; and also that it has been reannounced, and so reaccepted, as "the traditional policy of the United States in regard to affairs of the Western Hemisphere" as was evidenced by the reservation under which the United States acceded to The Hague Treaties. (§ 58 post and footnotes thereto containing extract from Holl's Peace Conference at The Hague.)

The Monroe Doctrine, properly so-called, ever since December 2, 1823, when it was formally announced (in the form above quoted) in the seventh annual message transmitted to Congress by President James Monroe, was not the formulation of any new discovery of the political rights and power of the United States, but was the enunciation of principles which had already been adopted by the administration and which had been communicated to the other powers, who had acknowledged them as reasonable and proper in view of the unique position which the United States then occupied in this hemisphere, which it has ever since occupied, and which it will continue to occupy so long as the American people themselves recognize the wisdom and justice of the policy, our right to assert which no other power dares to directly deny, and few even dare to indirectly question.

It would be far beyond the scope of a footnote to give even a brief review of the causes leading up to the announcement of the Monroe Doctrine and of the occasions on which it has been applied since it was first uttered as an effective warning of "hands off" to the allied powers who were then masquerading under the quasi-religious, but wholly hypocritical guise of the Holy Alliance. A few dates and facts will be collated,

§ 54. England, Central and South America, and the Monroe Doctrine. During the fifties, when England's protectoand references given to the original documents, and to the writings of those who have discussed the subject at length.

I. ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE.

The Monroe Doctrine cannot be understood, nor can its full force and effect be appreciated without a thorough knowledge of the political conditions existing in the first quarter of the nineteenth century in Europe and America, both North and South.

The doctrine as enunciated in President Monroe's message was neither new nor unfamiliar, nor was it announced without premonition and warnings.

It had been foreshadowed in the President's annual message of the year previous, as appears by the paragraph quoted from the message of 1822, as well as in the correspondence which John Quincy Adams as Secretary of State had conducted with Russia in regard to Russian colonization on the northwest Pacific coast, and with England in regard to the recognition of the South American Republics, over which Spain first claimed dominion, although she could not exercise it. (See Professor Snow's article and John Quincy Adams' diary.)

The attitude of the European Powers in regard to those Republics and their relations with Spain forced the United States into taking a corresponding attitude; it is to the lasting credit of the United States that, earlier than any other country, it enacted strict neutrality laws and vigorously enforced them; in fact, the neutrality laws of 1790, 1818, and 1838 were not only the first crystallization into statutory form of the principles of neutrality, which had been recognized as elements of international law, but they have been taken as the models for the neutrality laws of many other countries. (See also §§ 5281 et seq. U. S. Rev. St.) The neutrality of the United States in the Spanish-American wars had been maintained at great cost, and in spite of the sympathy which a majority of the people felt towards our struggling and weaker sisters who were following in our own footsteps and whose desires for freedom as a general rule found utterance in proclamations which were simply paraphrases of the Declaration of Independence.

No one championed the cause of these junior members of the American family of republics so earnestly or as ably as Henry Clay, whose speech in the Senate of the United States on March 25, 1818, in favor of recognizing the Republics of Buenos Ayres and of La Plata, is not only one of the most eloquent addresses ever delivered by that gifted statesman, but one which ranks among the masterpieces of American oratory. Neutrality was also ostensibly preserved by the European countries, but the emotions of the people were suppressed by governmental espionage and the sympathy of the governing powers was entirely with Spain.

Alarmed by the rapid spread of republican tendencies in Europe as well as in America, "their Majesties, the Emperor of Austria, the King