Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

blockade. The United States resisted the perversion of this right to other ends, and denied the existence, apart from treaty, of any right of search in time of peace In 1858 the Senate unanimously resolved "that American vessels on the high seas, in time of peace, bearing the American flag, remain under the jurisdiction of the country to which they belong, and therefore any visitation, molestation, or detention of such vessels by force, or by the exhibition of force, on the part of a foreign power, is in derogation of the sovereignty of the United States." "After the passage of this resolution," says Mr. Fish, "Great Britain formally recognized the principle thus announced, and other maritime powers, and writers on international law, all assert it."

While maintaining the freedom of the seas, the United States has also contended for the free navigation of the natural channels by which they are connected. On this principle it led in the movement that brought about the abolition of the Danish Sound Dues. An artificial channel necessarily involves special consideration, but, reasoning by analogy, Mr. Clay, as Secretary of State, declared that if a canal to unite the Atlantic and Pacific oceans should ever be constructed, "the benefits of it ought not to be exclusively appropriated to any one nation, but should be extended to all parts of the globe upon the payment of a just compensation or reasonable tolls." This principle was approved by the Senate in 1835, and by the House of Representatives in 1839, and was incorporated in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty in 1850. It is also embodied in the pending Hay-Pauncefote treaty. It forms the basis of the treaty concluded at Constantinople in 1888, between the leading maritime powers of Europe, in relation to the Suez Canal.

1 Foreign Relations of the United States, 1874, p. 963. See, also, Wharton's Int. Law Digest, III. 122 et seq. Exceptional cases, such as that of piracy, or of strictly necessary and emergent self-defense, it is impossible within the limits of the present paper to discuss.

2 Int. Law Digest, I. Sec. 29.

Nor should we omit to mention, in connection with the freedom of the seas, the subject of the free navigation of international rivers. This principle, consecrated in the acts of the Congress of Vienna,' has been consistently advocated by the United States, and has been embodied in various forms in several of its treaties. Among these may be cited the treaty of 1853 with the Argentine Confederation, conceding "the free navigation of the rivers Parana and Uruguay *** to the merchant vessels of all nations;" of 1858 with Bolivia, declaring the Amazon and La Plata, with their tributaries, to be, "in accordance with fixed principles of international law, * * * channels opened by nature for the commerce of all nations; of 1859 with Paraguay, extending to "the merchant flag of the citizens of the United States" the free navigation of the Paraguay and Parana; and of 1871 with Great Britain, declaring the navigation of the rivers St. Lawrence, Yukon, Porcupine and Stikine to be "forever free and open for purposes of commerce" to the citizens of both countries.

[ocr errors]

While the struggle for neutral rights was in progress, the Spanish colonies in America began one after another to declare their independence. In this movement the United States instinctively felt a deep concern; yet the government, adhering to its policy of non-intervention, pursued a neutral course so long as the contest was confined to the original parties. But in time a new situation arose. In the summer of 1823 the Continential powers of Europe, composing the Holy Alliance, having intervened to restore absolute government in Spain, . gave notice to Great Britain of a design to call a congress with a view to concert measures for putting an end to the 1 International Arbitrations, V. 4851.

2 "A river that passes through or washes the territory of two or more states must, in respect to its navigable uses, be considered as common to all the nations who inhabit its banks, as a free gift flowing from the bounty of Heaven, intended for all whose lots are cast upon its borders." (Mr. Clay, Sec. of State, to Mr. Gallatin, June 19, 1826, Am. State Papers, For. Rel. V. 763.)

revolutionary governments in Spanish America. At this time Lord Castlereagh, who was favorably disposed to the alliance, had been succeeded in the conduct of the foreign affairs of England by George Canning, who reflected the popular opposition to the policy of the allied powers. The United States, acting upon its principle that independence should be acknowledged when it is established as a fact, had then recognized the Spanish-American governments. Great Britain had not taken this step; but English merchants, like those of the United States, had developed with the countries in question a large trade which their restoration to a colonial condition would, under the exclusive system then in vogue, cut off and destroy. Canning therefore lost no time in sounding Mr. Rush, then United States minister at London, as to the possibility of a joint declaration by the two governments against the intervention of the allies in Spanish America. When this suggestion was reported, President Monroe hastened to take counsel upon it. The opinions of Jefferson and Madison were strongly expressed and altogether favorable. In the cabinet, Mr. Calhoun, who also urged the importance of action, inclined to invest Mr. Rush with discretionary powers. Mr. John Quincy Adams, however, maintained that, as we had acknowledged the independence of the Spanish-American states, joint action could be taken only on that basis, and that the declarations of the two governments should therefore be made separately. This view prevailed. Canning, in fact, without awaiting the decision of the United States, advised the French Ambassador, on the 9th of October, 1823, that while Great Britain would remain "neutral" in any war between Spain and her colonies, the "junction" of any foreign power with Spain against the colonies would be viewed as presenting "entirely a new question," upon which Great Britain "must take such decision" as her interests "might require.' The announcement of the United States went further. President Monroe, in his annual message of December 2, 1823, declared that any attempt on the part of 1 Annual Register, 1824, p. 485.

the allied powers to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere would be considered as "dangerous to our peace and safety," and that any interposition by any European power in the affairs of the governments whose independence we had acknowledged, for the purpose of oppressing them or controlling in any other manner their destiny, could be viewed in no other light than as "the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States." In the same message there was another declaration, made with reference to territorial disputes on the northwest coast, that "the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers." These declarations, under the name of the Monroe Doctrine, embody a cardinal principle of American Diplomacy. As a protest against the political intervention of Europe and the extension of European dominion in this hemisphere, they found a ready lodgement in the hearts of the American people; and, thus interpreted and sustained, they still stand, as on memorable occasions they have stood heretofore, as a guarantee of the independence of governments and the freedom of commerce.

Mr. Adams, in his meditations on the question of Spanish America, reasoned thus: "Considering the South Americans as independent nations, they themselves, and no other nation, had the right to dispose of their condition; we have no right to dispose of them, either alone or in conjunction with other nations; neither have any other nations the right of disposing of them without their consent." This principle, coeval with the American Republic, has also been the guide of our policy in the far East Early on the scene in China, and the first to enter into treaties with Japan and Korea, the United States has steadfastly sought the preservation of their independence and territorial integrity, not only as a thing just and expedient in itself, but also as the logical foundation of the system. of trade equality latterly denoted by the phrase "open door." 1 Memoirs, VI. 186.

Especially is this true of those populous countries, China and Japan, our interest in which is not lessened by the fact that they have, by our acquisition of the Philippines, become our near neighbors.' Japan, coherent and aspiring, has at length been emancipated. China, disorganized and rent by internal disorders, portions of her territory occupied by foreign powers and the rest shadowed by spheres of influence, suggests an uncertain future. The United States lately obtained from the powers an engagement to observe throughout the Empire the principle of commercial equality. Its policy in the grave crisis that has since arisen is expressed in the circular issued After by the Secretary of State on the 3rd of July last. stating the President's purpose to act concurrently with the other powers, in the immediate protection of American interests and the restoration of order, Mr. Hay in that circular declares that as to the future "the policy of the government of the United States is to seek a solution which may bring about permanent safety and peace to China, preserve Chinese territorial and administrative entity, protect all rights guaranteed to friendly powers by treaty and international law, and safeguard for the world the principle of equal and impartial trade with all parts of the Chinese Empire."

In a sketch of American diplomacy during the past hundred years it is necessary to refer to the attitude of the government on certain questions that specially affect the rights of individuals. The Declaration of Independence enumerates, as among the "unalienable rights" with which "all men" are "endowed by their Creator," "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' Whether these comprehended, incidentally, the right of the individual to renounce his allegiance at will, is a question on which opinions differed. The courts of the United States, prior to 1868, accepting the doctrine of the common law,

1 Our treaty with China of June 18, 1858, provides (Art. I.) that “if any other nation shou d act unjustly or oppressively, the United States will exert their good offices, on being informed of the case, to bring about an amicable arrangement of the question, thus showing their friendly feelings."

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »