pean) powers, is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This differen ce proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. "And to the defence of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States, and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere, as ́dangerous to our peace and safety. "With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered, and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration, and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other manner than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States." This has continued to be, and is to-day our international polity, and every candid mind will at once admit its soundness and its justness. It is plain, at first glance, that this doctrine is based upon a rule of international law, which has been recognized by all writers and commentators upon the law of Nations, from Grotius down to the present time. It is a rule of international law that the perfect equality and entire independ ence of all distinct States is a fundamental principle of public law. It is a necessary consequence of this equality, that each nation has a right to govern itself as it may think proper, and no one nation is entitled to dictate a form of government or religion, or a course of internal policy to another. No state is entitled to take cognizance or notice the domestic administration of another state, or of what passes within it as between the governmert and its own subjects. See Grotius, de juri belli et paces, b. 1, c. 3, sec. 8; Vattel droit de gens, b. 2, c. 4, sec. 54. Vattel observes, (and I do not think it out of place in this connection,) that the Spaniards violated all rules of right when they set up a tribunal of their own, to judge the Inca of Peru according to their laws. Now, if he had broken the law of nations in respect to them, they would have had a right to punish him, but when they undertook to judge of the merits of his own interior administration, and to try and punish him for acts committed in the course of it, they were guilty of the grossest injustice. The justice of this doctrine of Vattel meets the approbation of Chancellor Kent, than whom we have never had an abler commentator of law in this country. This, I believe, was the first gross outrage or violation of the right of national independence on this continent, unless we choose to go into the discussion of mat ters pertaining to the Indians of the continent of North America, which I deem foreign to the question under consideration. There is also another principle of the law of Nations which stands in close connection with the Monroe Doctrine, which is, that "a rational fear of an imminent danger is a justifiable cause of war." In regard to the justice of the Monroe Doctrine, I deem it almost unnecessary to make any remarks, all reasoning minds will certainly endorse it. Have not the European powers ever seduously guarded what they term the "Balance of Power in Europe?" Have we not the same right to guard our interests and shape our policy in America? Suppose that the United States, or any other American power, should now interfere in the discordant affairs of Denmark or Schleiswig-Holstein, for the avowed purpose of establishing and maintaining a Republican form of government, would not every European nation deem that a sufficient cause for a declaration of war? And should France, a nation which of late years can boast of but little more stability (if any) than our sister Republic of Mexico, which she now by force assumes to dictate to, and to rule; I say, should France again be plunged into revolution, the fires of which now smoulder among her population and in ber council halls, and which, I might almost say, is her normal condition, would we not have as much right to interfere, to interpose and dictate to the French people as they have to impose their form of government, and their religion, upon any American nation? I cannot but believe that every act of such interposition is only the effect of despotic power and overweening ambition, which must sooner or later overleap itself. I cannot believe that such atrocious conduct can ever find a sanction in the hearts of a virtuous and enlightened people. When we contemplate the unjust and unholy war now being waged by France against the Republic of Mexico, and in such shameful bad faith by France, who claims to be the "glass of fashion, the seat of learning, and the school of etiquette;" a nation ranked as one of the most civilized and enlightened nations of the globe, we are almost forced to the conclusion that the world is relapsing into the days of barbarism, when nations went to war for the sake of plunder and rapine, and when every stranger was considered an enemy, and when prisoners of war were put to death or sold into slavery. S. G. HAMILTON, NEW ORLEANS, March 18, 1864. C. To the President and Members of the D.. M.. D.. GENTLEMEN-It becomes the imperative duty of a nation, as well as an individual, to preserve life, when menaced. Self-preservation is a principle more firmly rooted than any other that governs our actions. It is the controlling influence, displacing, for the time, all others. It matters not whether we, as a nation, or community of individuals, are threatened from without by hostile invasion of a foreign power, or from within, by internal broils and dissensions; directly, by invasion of our own soil, or indirectly, by the armed occupation of a neighboring and sister republic. It is sufficient for us to know that we are in danger of destruction in any of the ways mentioned to arouse the most active principle possessed by us as a people. If we are directly assailed, by internal enemies or external foes, we quickly remedy the disease by promptly applying the cure-a speedy destruction of our opponents. If we are indirectly, covertly assailed by foreign forces endeavoring to wrest our friendly neighbor's territory from them, it is our duty, equally as well as our inclination, to hasten to the aid of the patriots of our sister republic and to stand by her as long as an armed foe treads her soil, except it be as a captive. In this we strictly obey the patriotic injunction to "Strike for our altars and our fires, Strike for the green graves of our sires, God and our native land." We, the people of the United States, have not left our intended action on this vital principle to any ambiguous interpretation. It has been authoritatively declared, in terms precise and plain, that no foreign power whatever shall interfere in the concerns of any nation on the American Continent, while the United States has the power to strike a blow to prevent it. It has been distinctly announced that any attempt of this kind would be considered as an aggression to be repelled by every means known to us, including an appeal to arms. We have solemnly declared that we will maintain the integrity of our Union, and the right of the people of this American Continent to arrange their own domestic concerns, as long as a drop of blood remains to be shed, or a cent of treasure to be expended. The embodiment of this principle is known as the "Monroe Doctrine." The particular occasion which called forth this doctrine is related, in his usual felicitous style, by Quackenboss, in, bis History of the United States, pp. 394 and 395. After premising that the South American provinces had followed the example of the North American Colonies and asserted their independence, he states, "While the struggle was pending, Clay, who sympathized deeply with the oppressed provinces, strove with his transcendent eloquence to induce Congress to recognize their independence. His efforts at first failed, as Congress distrusted their success; but his speeches were read at the head of the patriot armies, and encouraged them to persevere in their struggle for liberty. At length, in March, 1822, the bill was passed with but one dissenting voice. The President heartily joined in the recognition of their independence, and in the following year went so far as to declare in his Message, that 'the American Continents were thenceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power." " We presume this extract, from a standard author, is sufficiently luminous, and we therefore pass from a historical review of the subject. We now proceed briefly to inquire whether any reason exists to remind us of our bounden duty to stand by this doctrine. Is this doctrine defied, rejected, mocked, scorned and spit upon by France? Let the presence of her armed cohorts on the soil of Mexico reply. While internal foes essay our annihilation, are there no insidious attempts from without, no advances to ensure our speedy and complete overthrow? Let the blood of our slain Mexican brothers answer. Does it not cry aloud to us to avenge their fall, martyrs to their country's honor and the integrity of the North American Continent? Nobly they have stood on the threshold and met the foe, who seeks to wade through their blood to the heart of this great republic. As Leonidas stood, with his heroic band, at the Pass of Thermopylæ, so stands the small army of Don Benito Juarez to oppose the hirelings of Napoleon III. If an easy conquest is confidently anticipated, that host now so exultant may yet realize that "That bright dream was their last," when they undertook to enslave a free people. Our compatriots know full well that "They who would be free, themselves must strike the blow," and right well are they performing their part. In conclusion-is there no way to lend a helping hand to our suffering and oppressed brethren of Mexico? Are we to stand idly by while this great contest goes on of might against right? Are our neutrality laws, or any other parchment obstacle, to prevent us from flying to the assistance of our neighbor-to prevent us from performing a duty to our God, our country and our friends? Even now, Mexico may be almost in the throes of mortal agony preceding dissolution, and yet we tarry. Let it not be said that we have stricken cowardice from our vocabulary, because we deem it included in prudence; let us be up and doing. Let every one who values life or liberty as a freeman should, who would see his country safe from foreign aggressions buckle on his armor. The swords of Mexico are keen; |