THE MONROE DOCTRINE 425 



to refuse to mediate in the war between Chili and Peru jointly 

 with Great Britain and France. Finally, on the ground, among 

 others, that the authority of the Monroe doctrine and the prestige 

 of the United States as its exponent and sponsor would be seri- 

 ously impaired, Secretary Bayard strenuously resisted the enforce- 

 ment of the Pelletier claim against Hayti. 



" The United States, [he said,] has proclaimed herself the pro- 

 tector of this western world, in which she is by far the stronger 

 power, from the intrusion of European sovereignties. She can 

 point with proud satisfaction to the fact that over and over again 

 has she declared effectively, that serious indeed would be the 

 consequences if European hostile foot should, without just cause, 

 tread those states in the New World which have emancipated 

 themselves from European control. She has announced that she 

 would cherish as it becomes her the territorial rights of the feeblest 

 of those states, regarding them not merely as in the eye of the 

 law equal to even the greatest of nationalities, but in view of her 

 distinctive policy as entitled to be regarded by her as the objects 

 of a peculiarly gracious care. I feel bound to say that if we 

 should sanction by reprisals in Hayti the ruthless invasion of her 

 territory and insult to her sovereignty which the facts now before 

 us disclose, if we approve by solemn Executive action and Con- 

 gressional assent that invasion, it will be difficult for us hereafter 

 to assert that in the New World, of whose rights we are the 

 peculiar guardians, these rights have never been invaded by 

 ourselves." 



The foregoing enumeration not only shows the many instances 

 wherein the rule in question has been affirmed and applied, but 

 also demonstrates that the Venezuelan boundary controversy is in 

 any view far within the scope and spirit of the rule as uniformly 

 accepted and acted upon. A doctrine of American public law thus 

 long and firmly established and supported could not easily be 

 ignored in a proper case for its application, even were the con- 

 siderations upon which it is founded obscure or questionable. No 

 such objection can be made, however, to the Monroe doctrine 

 understood and defined in the manner already stated. It rests, 

 on the contrary, upon facts and principles that are both intelligible 

 and incontrovertible. That distance and three thousand miles of 

 intervening ocean make any permanent political union between 

 an European and an American state unnatural and inexpedient 

 will hardly be denied. But physical and geographical considera- 

 tions are the least of the objections to such a union. Europe, as 

 Washington observed, has a set of primary interests which are 



