PANAMA CANAL. 



723 



that " doctrine " had its origin. In 1822 the 

 Government of the United States recognized 

 the independence of the revolted Spanish colo- 

 nies in America. Among the designs imputed 

 to the concert of European powers known as 

 the " Holy Alliance " was the reclamation of 

 those colonies. The British Government was en- 

 listed against such a design, partly on account 

 of the extension of its commercial interests on 

 the Western Continent through the removal of 

 the old Spanish restrictions on colonial trade, 

 and partly from a fear of French encroachments 

 on its own possessions in case the work of rec- 

 lamation was once begun. Accordingly, in the 

 summer of 1823, Mr. Canning, the British Prime 

 Minister, proposed to Mr. Rush, the American 

 Minister in London, that the United States juin 

 with England in the following declarations: 



1. That we conceive the recovery of the colonies of 

 Spain to be hopeless. 



2. We conceive the question of the recojjnition of 

 them as independent states to be one of time and cir- 

 cumstances. 



3. We are, however, by no means disposed to throw 

 any impediment in the way of an arrangement between 

 them and the mother-country by amicable negotiation. 



4. We aim not at the possession of any portion of 

 them ourselves. 



5. We could not see any portion of them transferred 

 to any other power with indifference. 



Mr. Rush, in reply, accepted these declara- 

 tions in substance, excepting the second, as the 

 United States had already recognized the inde- 

 pendence of the former Spanish colonies, but 

 chose his own form of expression for them, and 

 disclaimed any authorityf rom his government as 

 to the manner of making an avowal of the prin- 

 ciples involved. The communications between 

 Mr. Canning and Mr. Rush, which were duly 

 transmitted to the Government at Washington, 

 resulted in no formal action, and are important 

 chiefly as indicating to some degree the incep- 

 tion of the doctrine afterward announced by 

 President Monroe, and showing the moral sup- 

 port looked for from Great Britain. 



The allied monarchs, in December, 1822, had 

 announced their determination "to repel the 

 mania of rebellion, in whatever place or nnder 

 whatever form it might show itself." In July, 

 1823, Mr. Adams, Secretary of State, in reply 

 to a question from the Russian Minister at 

 Washington, declared that " we should contest 

 the right of Russia to any territorial establish- 

 ments on this continent ; and that we should 

 assume distinctly the principle that the Ameri- 

 can Continents are no longer subjects to any 

 new European colonial establishments." The 

 subsequent declaration of the President, in his 

 annual message, on the subject of European 

 colonization, which is regarded as one branch 

 of the "Monroe doctrine," was as follows : " The 

 American Continents, by the free and inde- 

 pendent condition which they have assumed 

 and maintain, are henceforth not to be consid- 

 ered as subjects of future colonization by any 

 European power." 



Prior to November 25, 1823, Mr. Adams had 



prepared a draft of a reply to various commu- 

 nications from the Russian Government, as well 

 as the proposals of Mr. Rush, which was sub- 

 stantially the basis of the declarations after- 

 ward made by the President. Mr. Monroe had 

 submitted the proposals of Mr. Canning and 

 the correspondence relating thereto to Mr. 

 Jefferson, then in retirement at Monticello, 

 and the aged statesman had responded with the 

 following sentiments on the questions involved 

 " The question presented by the letters yoa 

 have sent me is the most momentous which 

 has ever been offered to my contemplation 

 since that of independence. . . . Our first and 

 fundamental maxim shonld be, never to en- 

 tangle ourselves in the broils of Europe. Our 

 second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle 

 with cis-Atlantic affairs." Mr. Jefferson fa- 

 vored accepting Mr. Canning's proposal, as did 

 Mr. Madison, who was also consulted. The 

 final enunciation of the main branch of the 

 " Monroe doctrine " was made in the following 

 language, in the President's message of Decem- 

 ber 2, 1823 : " We owe it to candor, and to 

 the amicable relations existing between the 

 United States and the allied 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 depend- 

 encies of any European power we have not in- 

 terfered, and shall not interfere, but with the 

 governments who have declared their inde- 

 pendence and maintained it, and whose inde- 

 pendence 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 light than as the manifestation of 

 an unfriendly disposition toward the United 

 States. ... It is impossible that the allied 

 powers should extend their political system to 

 any portion of either continent without en- 

 dangering our peace and happiness. ... It is 

 equally impossible that we should behold such 

 an interposition in any form with inditlcrenee." 

 This declaration fully served the purpose in- 

 tended, and put an end to all designs, if any 

 existed, for restoring the authority of Spain 

 over its former colonies. It also served as the 

 basis of a traditional American policy, hostile 

 to the intrusion of any European power on 

 the Western Continent, for the purpose of ac- 

 quiring new posse>Moiis. ^cttinjr up or extend- 

 ing authority, or in any way affecting the sov- 

 ereignty of independent Mates. Whether it 

 has any application to a purely commercial en- 

 terprise, under the sanction of the jrovernment 

 within whose territory it in prosecuted, or 

 whether it is inc<.ni-teiit with an internation- 

 al guarantee of the neutrality of a commercial 

 water-way, in which European nations should 

 take part for the security of their commercial 

 interest-, are questions about which there ia 

 some controversy. 



