the Central and South American states furnish too many occasions for European interference and claims of indemnity. Their resulting financial condition offers too strong temptation to relieve embarrassments by the expropriation of territorial rights and privileges. It is easy to find occasion for a naval war, if any European power desires a pretext for the seizure of a port or a territory. The recognized doctrine of a war indemnity stands in aid of the acquisitive purpose. To establish a colonial dependency in America by treaty, or as a result of war, these alternatives, according to Señor Calvo, remain to the European nations without violating the principle of the Monroe Declaration.

Europe would be misled by the acceptance of that view, and still more deceived by accepting it as indicating the principles distinctly held on this subject by the United States during the last fifty years.

The original Declaration was limited, in words, by the circumstances of that epoch. The reasons upon which it was founded provided room for a further development and extension of the declaration. This government has from time to time indicated this development, and shown its desire to preserve always toward the ambitious commercial powers of Europe an attitude of candor and dignity, while

defending its own rights and interests. There was no display of mere sentiment against monarchical institutions in America. On the contrary, our government recognized the imperial establishment of Iturbide in Mexico, and Dom Pedro in Brazil, because both were by choice of the people, and were home powers. Indeed, the Brazilian diplomatic agent told Mr. Adams that the Brazilian emperor was more republican than the people whom he ruled. On the other hand, we have always claimed that it was our material interests which demanded the maintenance of the American principle of noncolonization and non-acquisition by Europe on the western continents. While acknowledging existing colonial rights, Mr. Adams was of opinion that "we could not see with indifference any attempt . . . to transfer any portion of the ancient or present American possessions of Spain to any other European power." Mr. Rush was ready to unite with Mr. Canning in declaring that "we could not see any portion of them transferred to any other power with indifference." Mr. Jefferson advised President Monroe-facing a possible war for the principle -"to establish the American system of keeping out of our land all foreign powers; of never permitting those of Europe to intermeddle with the affairs of our nations;" and to oppose, "most especially, their transfer (of

the Spanish-American possessions) to any power by conquest, cession, or acquisition in any other way."

Our own happy condition is not, unfortunately, that of all our neighbors of this hemisphere. It will not be theirs for many years to come. Their weakness has invited, their internal disorders have provoked, the acquisitive passions of several European governments. The persistent interference of the British in Nicaragua was one long vexation to that weak nation, to our government, and to our interests in Central America. Through it all, our government asserted the non-colonization principle. It was not settled, though earnestly desired, by the Anglo-Nicaraguan treaty of 1860, which has been itself the subject of arbitration. In 1848, Yucatan, too weak to suppress by her own arms the general insurrection of her uncivilized Indians, appealed to England and to Spain for help. This being refused, she offered to the United States her sovereignty in exchange for the required assistance. Mexico claimed this sovereignty; and our government, although at war with her, refused the offer, but proposed to aid this detached state of the Mexican federation. President Polk, in his message of December, 1845, after approving the Monroe Declaration, had said that it should be distinctly announced to

the world as our settled policy, that "no future European colony or dominion shall, with our consent, be planted or established on any part of the American continent." On this occasion, in 1848, in his message on the subject of Yucatan, he further declared that “we could not consent to a transfer of this dominion and sovereignty, either to Spain, Great Britain, or any other European power; . . . it would be dangerous to our peace and security if it should become a colony of any European nation."

The attempt to plant an Austro-French empire in Mexico is so recent as to need little explanation. It was a conception of the French emperor, which he hoped to execute during our civil war, and by its success not only to obtain commercial advantages, but to discredit the republican system in America and break its prestige in Europe. It furnished an occasion to manifest again, and in a practical way, the adhesion of our government to the principles announced forty years previously. The representations of our government to both France and Austria were explicit, and, after the spring of 1865, very resolute in their tone toward the imperial cabinet at Paris. In fact, the French-American relations became at one time very delicate; we had an army of observation on the Mexican frontier, and the sec

ond in rank of our army officers was ordered to the side of President Juarez in Mexico. A direct engagement was finally made by the French government to the American for the definitive withdrawal of the French troops in a limited time. The emperor promised for the future non-interference in Mexican affairs. That sad chapter of the history of European intervention in America presents one relief of color to an otherwise melancholy picture. It informed the governments of Europe how impossible it is for them to govern Americans, and how impracticable it is to extend their system to the New World. The attempt will not probably be repeated, except possibly for colonization in smaller territories or isolated possessions.

It may be very positively affirmed that the underlying motive of the non-colonization principle was and is the danger which European dominions in America offer to our material interests, both in peace and in war. It means a flanking position, a military and naval rendezvous in time of war, and an exclusive commercial position in time of peace. It invites the extension of purely European wars to American coasts and territories. Rights of commerce and navigation, often questioned, are referred to a distant government for settlement. Such questions, arising on one continent and re