THE MONROE DOCTRINE 437 



a burden to those which the Rulers of the United States have to- 

 bear. It follows of necessity that if the Government of the 

 United States will not control the conduct of these communities, 

 neither can it undertake to protect them from the consequences 

 attaching to any misconduct of which they may be guilty towards 

 other nations. If they violate in any way the rights of another 

 State, or of its subjects, it is not alleged that the Monroe doctrine 

 will assure them the assistance of the United States in escaping 

 from any reparation which they may be bound by international 

 law to give. Mr. Olney expressly disclaims such an inference 

 from the principles he lays down. 



But the claim which he founds upon them is that, if any inde- 

 pendent American State advances a demand for territory of 

 which its neighbour claims to be the owner, and that neighbour is 

 the colony of a European State, the United States have a right to 

 insist that the European State shall submit the demand, and its 

 own impugned rights to arbitration. 



I will not now enter into a discussion of the merits of this method 

 of terminating international differences. It has proved itself val- 

 uable in many cases ; but it is not free from defects, which often 

 operate as a serious drawback on its value. It is not always easy 

 to find an Arbitrator who is competent, and who, at the .same 

 time, is wholly free from bias ; and the task of insuring compli- 

 ance with the Award when it is made is not exempt from diffi- 

 culty. It is a mode of settlement of which the value varies 

 much according to the nature of the controversy to which it is 

 applied, and the character of the litigants who appeal to it. 

 Whether, in any particular case, it is a suitable method of proced- 

 ure is generally a delicate and difficult question. The only parties 

 who are competent to decide that question are the two parties 

 whose rival contentions are in issue. The claim of a third nation, 

 which is unaffected by the controversy, to impose this particular 

 procedure on either of the two others, cannot be reasonably justi- 

 fied, and has no foundation in the law of nations. 



In the remarks which I have made, I have argued on the 

 theory that the Monroe doctrine in itself is sound. I must not r 

 however, be understood as expressing any acceptance of it on the 

 part of Her Majesty's Government. It must always be mentioned 

 with respect, on account of the distinguished statesman to whom 

 it is due, and the great nation who have generally adopted it. 

 But international law is founded on the general consent of 

 nations; and no statesman, however eminent, and no nation, how- 

 ever powerful, are competent to insert into the code of interna- 

 tional law a novel principle which was never recognized before,. 



