colonization clause was intended to be, and understood by England to be, a foreclosure of the whole continent against all future European dominion, however derived. It may well be said, however, and such seems now to be the prevalent opinion, that the complaints of Mr. Cass and others of his school, of the neglect and abandonment of the Monroe doctrine, apply rather to their construction of the doctrine than to the doctrine itself." Note by Dana, Dana's Wheaton (1866), § 67, note 36. 5. LATER ILLUSTRATIONS. $943. See the case of Venezuela, infra, § 966. In 1870 the Government of the United States was sounded by that of Sweden as to the cession by the latter to the former of the island of St. Bartholomew. It appeared that the Italian Government had made an offer to Sweden for the island, and it was intimated that the United States might have it on the same terms. President Grant felt constrained to decline the offer under the circumstances, especially as measures for the purchase of Russian America and the Danish islands of St. Thomas and St. John were still pending and incomplete. "As, however," said Mr. Fish, "we would prefer to avoid any controversy with a friendly power which the acceptance by Sweden and Norway of the offer of Italy . . might involve, an acceptance which might be construed as adverse to that cardinal policy of the United States which objects to new colonies of European governments on this hemisphere, it is hoped that it may comport with the views of your Government to postpone for the present any definite disposition of the subject." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Count Lewenhaupt, Swedish and Norwegian min., Feb. 14, 1870, MS. Notes to Sweden, VI. 221, acknowledging receipt of the latter's note of Feb. 10. "Until recently, the acquisition of outlying territory has not been regarded as desirable by us. The purchase of Russian America and the proposed purchase of the Danish West India Islands of St. Thomas and St. John may seem to indicate a reversal of the policy adverted to. Those measures, however, may be presumed to have been adopted for special reasons. In any event, it appears to be inadvisable to decide upon the offer of St. Bartholomew while the question of the cession of St. Thomas and St. John shall be pending, and even when that question shall have been disposed of the President, before he should make up his mind upon the subject, would probably prefer to consult Congress in regard to it, either directly or indirectly." (Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bartlett, min. to Sw. and Nor., No. 22, June 17, 1869, MS. Inst. Sweden, XIV. 168.) "The United States have no disposition to interfere with the existing relations of Spain to her colonial possessions on this continent. They believe that in due time Spain and other European powers will find their interest in terminating those relations and establishing their present dependencies as independent powers-members of the family of nations. These dependencies are no longer regarded as subject to transfer from one European power to another. When the present relation of colonies ceases, they are to become independent powers, exercising the right of choice and of self-control in the determination of their future condition and relations with other powers." President Grant, annual message, Dec. 6, 1869, Richardson's Messages, VII. 32. As to the Cuban insurrection in 1869, see S. Ex. Doc. 7, 41 Cong. 2 sess.; "The avoidance of entangling alliances, the characteristic feature of the foreign policy of Washington, sprang from this condition of things. But the entangling alliances which then existed were engagements made with France as a part of the general contract under which aid was furnished to us for the achievement of our independence. France was willing to waive the letter of the obligation as to her West India possessions, but demanded, in its stead, privileges in our ports which the Administration was unwilling to concede. To make its refusal acceptable to a public which sympathized with France, the Cabinet of General Washington exaggerated the principle into a theory tending to national isolation. "The foreign policy of these early days was not a narrow one. During this period we secured the evacuation by Great Britain of the country wrongfully occupied by her on the lake; we acquired Louisiana; we measured forces on the sea with France, and on the land and sea with England; we set the example of resisting and chastising the piracies of the Barbary States; we initiated in negotiations with Prussia the long line of treaties for the liberalization of war and the promotion of international intercourse; and we steadily demanded, and at length obtained, indemnification from various governments for the losses we had suffered by foreign spoliations in the wars of Europe. "To this point in our foreign policy we had arrived when the revolutionary movements in Spanish and Portuguese America compelled a modification of our relations with Europe, in consequence of the rise of new and independent states in America. "The new states were, like ourselves, revolted colonies. They continued the precedent we had set, of separating from Europe. Their assumption of independence was stimulated by our example. They professedly imitated us, and copied our national Constitution, sometimes even to their inconvenience. "The formation of these new sovereignties in America was important to us, not only because of the cessation of colonial monopolies to that extent, but because of the geographical relations to us, held by so many new nations, all, like ourselves, created from European stock, and interested in excluding European politics, dynastic questions, and balances of power from further influence in the New World. "Thus the United States were forced into new lines of action, which, though apparently in some respects conflicting, were really in harmony with the line marked out by Washington. The avoidance of entangling political alliances and the maintenance of our own independent neutrality became doubly important from the fact that they became applicable to the new republics as well as to the mother country. The duty of noninterference had been admitted by every President. The question came up in the time of the first Adams, on the occasion of the enlistment projects of Miranda. It appeared again under Jefferson (anterior to the revolt of the Spanish colonies) in the schemes of Aaron Burr. It was an ever present question in the administrations of Madison, Monroe, and the younger Adams, in reference to the questions of foreign enlistment or equipment in the United States, and when these new Republics entered the family of nations, many of them very feeble, and all too much subject to internal revolution and civil war, a strict adherence to our previous policy and a strict enforcement of our laws became essential to the preservation of friendly relations with them. "A vast field was thus opened to the statesmen of the United States for the peaceful introduction, the spread, and the permanent establishment of the American ideas of republican government, of modification of the laws of war, of liberalization of commerce, of religious freedom and toleration, and of the emancipation of the New World from the dynastic and balance of power controversies of Europe. "Mr. John Quincy Adams, beyond any other statesman of the time in this country, had the knowledge and experience, both European and American, the comprehension of thought and purpose, and the moral convictions which peculiarly fitted him to introduce our country into this new field, and to lay the foundation of an American policy. The declaration known as the Monroe doctrine, and the objects and purposes of the congress of Panama, both supposed to have been largely inspired by Mr. Adams, have influenced public events from that day to this, as a principle of government for this continent and its adjacent islands. . "This declaration resolved the solution of the immediate question of the independence of the Spanish American colonies, and is supposed to have exercised some influence upon the course of the British cabinet in regard to the absolutist schemes in Europe as well as in America. It "It has also exercised a permanent influence on this continent. was at once invoked in consequence of the supposed peril of Cuba on the side of Europe; it was applied to a similar danger threatening Yucatan; it was embodied in the treaty of the United States and Great Britain as to Central America; it produced the successful opposition of the United States to the attempt of Great Britain to exercise dominion in Nicaragua under the cover of the Mosquito Indians; and it operated in like manner to prevent the establishment of a European dynasty in Mexico. "The United States stand solemnly committed by repeated declarations and repeated acts to this doctrine, and its application to the affairs of this continent. In his message to the two Houses of Congress at the commencement of the present session, the President, following the teachings of all our history, said that the existing 'dependencies are no longer regarded as subject to transfer from one European power to another. When the present relation of colonies ceases, they are to become independent powers, exercising the right of choice and of self-control in the determination of their future condition and relations with other powers.' "This policy is not a policy of aggression; but it opposes the creation of European dominion on American soil, or its transfer to other European powers, and it looks hopefully to the time when, by the voluntary departure of European governments from this continent and the adjacent islands, America shall be wholly American. "It does not contemplate forcible intervention in any legitimate contest; but it protests against permitting such a contest to result in the increase of European power or influence; and it ever impels this Government, as in the late contest between the South American Republics and Spain, to interpose its good offices to secure an honorable peace." Report of Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to the President, July 14, 1870, S. Ex. An extract from this report is printed in the Correspondence in relation "The time is not probably far distant when, in the natural course of events, the European political connection with this continent will cease. Our policy should be shaped, in view of this probability, so as to ally the commercial interests of the Spanish American States more closely to our own, and thus give the United States all the preëminence and all the advantage which Mr. Monroe, Mr. Adams, and Mr. Clay contemplated when they proposed to join in the Congress of Panama." President Grant, annual message, Dec. 5, 1870, For. Rel. 1870, 6. With reference to confidential reports that Great Britain desired to obtain from Honduras the Bay Islands, Mr. Evarts said: "Aside from the well understood doctrines of this Government as to any new acquisitions of American territory by European powers, it seems unquestionable that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty precludes the acquisition of those islands by Great Britain. The intentions which are imputed, therefore, to that power, looking in that direction, may well be discredited. Still, they should awaken the attention and arouse the vigilance of this Government. Even should the tendency you report toward the alienation of the Bay Islands take another direction, it would, of course, be impossible for us to remain indifferent, or to acquiesce in any other European power acquiring any of them." Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, to Mr. Logan, min. to Cent. Am., No. 53, confid., The Haytian Government having on Nov. 8, 1883, proposed to cede to the United States the peninsula of the Mole St. Nicholas, or the whole island of Tortuga, in consideration of certain specified guarantees and the payment by the United States of a sum of money, and the proposition having been declined by the United States "on account of the obstacles which our national policy interposes to such acquisitions," it was a year later reported that the Haytian Government was contemplating the transfer either of the Mole or of the island to France. This report was not credited; but the American. minister at Paris was instructed, should a proper occasion arise, "in suitable terms" to "call the attention of the foreign office to the fact that acquisition of Haytian territory by France would conflict with the principles of our public policy known as the Monroe doctrine.” Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Morton, min. to France, No. 698, Feb. 28, 1885, MS. Inst. France, XXI. 172, enclosing copies of dispatches from Mr. Langston, min. to Hayti, Nos. 691 and 696, Dec. 3 and Dec. 24, 1884. Mr. Vignaud, chargé, and Mr. Morton had interviews, respectively, with |