could not have been so early secured. So deeply did this appeal touch the heart of the American people that only the deference they cherished to the counsels of the Father of our Country, who then was at the fullness of his unapproachable moral greatness, reconciled them to the stern decision that, in view of the location of this republic, the characters, habits, and sentiments of its constituent parts, and especially its complex yet unique and very popular Constitution, the American people must be content to recommend the cause of human progress by the wisdom with which they should exercise the powers of self-government, forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference. "It is true that Washington thought a time might come when, our institution being firmly consolidated and working with complete success, we might safely and perhaps beneficially take part in the consultations held by foreign states for the common advantage of the nations. Since that period occasions have frequently happened which presented seductions to a departure from what, superficially viewed, seemed a course of isolation and indifference. It is scarcely necessary to recur to them. One was an invitation to a congress of newly emancipated Spanish-American states; another, an urgent appeal to aid Hungary in a revolution aiming at the restoration of her ancient and illustrious independence; another, the project of a joint guarantee of Cuba to Spain in concurrence with France and Great Britain; and more recently, an invitation to a cooperative demonstration with Spain, France, and Great Britain in Mexico; and, later still, suggestions by some of the Spanish-American states for a common council of the republican states situated upon the American continent. These suggestions were successively disallowed by the government, and its decision was approved in each case by the deliberate judgment of the American people. Our policy of nonintervention, straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations, has thus become a traditional one, which could not be abandoned without the most urgent occasion, amounting to a manifest necessity. Certainly it could not be wisely departed from at this moment, when the existence of a local, although as we trust only a transient disturbance, deprives the government of the counsel of a portion of the American people, to whom so wide a departure from the settled policy of the country must in any case be deeply interesting. "The President will not allow himself to think for a single moment that the Emperor of the French will see anything but respect and friendship for himself and the people of France, with good wishes for the preservation of peace and order, and the progress of humanity in Europe, in the adherence of the United States on this occasion to the policy which they have thus far pursued with safety, and not Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Dayton, min. to France, No. 342, May See, further, Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Motley, min to Austria, "Within the last three years it has seen an attempt at revolution in the ancient kingdom of Poland, a successful revolution in what was New Granada, but now is Colombia, a war between France and Mexico, a civil war in Venezuela, a war between three allied SpanishAmerican republics and Salvador, and a war between Colombia and Ecuador. It now sees a probability of a war between Denmark and Germany. In regard to such of these conflicts as have actually occurred, the United States have pursued the same policy, attended by the same measure of reserve, that they have thus far followed, in regard to the civil war in Santo Domingo. It is by this policy that the United States equally avoid throwing themselves across the way of human progress, or lending encouragement to factious revolutions. Pursuing this course, the United States leave to the government and people of every foreign state the exclusive settlement of their own affairs and the exclusive enjoyment of their own institutions. Whatever may be thought by other nations of this policy, it seems to the undersigned to be in strict conformity with those prudential principles of international law-that nations are equal in their independence and sovereignty, and that each individual state is bound to do unto all other states just what it reasonably expects those states to do unto itself.” Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Tassara, Feb. 3, 1864, MS. Notes to As to keeping aloof from foreign interests, see 9 John Adams's Works, As to nonintervention generally, see 3 John Adams's Works, 316; 7 id. As to special mission in reference to claims of Costa Rica on Nicaragua, "It is not deemed unreasonable on the part of the government of Hayti that it should ask leading maritime states to guarantee their sovereignty over Samana. The government of Hayti very properly consults the United States government with reference to such a guarantee. The President is gratified, also, that the Haytian government has submitted its views in a proper spirit to Great Britain. Nevertheless, the question unavoidably calls up that ancient and settled policy of the United States which disinclines them to the constituting of political alliances with foreign states, and especially disinclines them to engagements with foreign states in regard to subjects which do not fall within the range of necessary and immediate domestic legislation. This policy would oblige the United States to refrain from making such a guarantee as Hayti desires, but disclaiming for themselves all purpose or desire to disturb the peace and security of Hayti, the United States would be gratified if Great Britain and other maritime states should see fit to regard the wish of the government of Hayti in the same spirit of justice and magnanimity." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Sir F. Bruce, British min., Aug. 15, 1865, This note of Mr. Seward's was written in reply to a note from Sir F. "In the opinion of the President, the most beneficent policy which this government can practice with reference to foreign states is to abstain from all authoritative or dictatorial proceedings in regard to their own peculiar affairs, while it employs at all times whatever just influence it enjoys to promote peace, and to recommend to them, by its own fidelity to justice and freedom, the institutions of free popular government. In this respect you have proceeded in harmony with the policy of the United States." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Kilpatrick, min. to Chile, No. 6, May 5, 1866, Dip. Cor. 1866, II. 411. This instruction referred to the action of Mr. Kilpatrick in endeavoring to avert the bombardment of Valparaiso. In the course of the instruction, Mr. Seward said: “The conclusion at which you arrived upon an examination of the circumstances, that it was not your duty to advise or instruct Commodore Rodgers to resist the bombardment by force, is accepted and approved." (Id. 412.) The instruction above quoted is recorded in MS. Inst. Chile, XV. 327. The American commissioner and consul-general at Port au Prince having reported that there existed between Hayti and Santo Domingo jealousies which derived support from some imaginary political designs on the part of the United States, Mr. Seward said: "The United States sincerely desire and hope that Hayti and St. Domingo may become cordial friends, and may dwell together in peaceful neighborhood, each maintaining its own sovereignty, integrity and independence. The forbearing and friendly policy of this government towards all the free states of the American continent and islands has been so often exposed and illustrated during the last five years, that it is deemed unnecessary now to make a distinct utterance on that subject, when no event has occurred which could bring uncertainty or suspicion over it. If any such uncertainty or suspicion exist, either in Hayti or in St. Domingo, it is exclusively a creation of parties there, who have no grounds for claiming any interest or sympathy here." Mr. Seward, Sec. of State, to Mr. Peck, No. 13, May 11, 1866, MS. Inst. Mr. Seward added: " 'Perhaps I could not more clearly elucidate the Fish. "The intelligent and sympathetic interest which you manifest in the fortunes and destinies of the people of Greece, gives satisfaction to the Department. Although the United States look with favor upon the increase of material power of all governments that represent liberal and progressive ideas, and that are clothed with constitutional forms, even though those forms may not be the ones which we have adopted in our own case, and which, in communities trained to self-government, are the best preservatives of liberty; yet, can we never give to that favor any form other than a moral one. Your course in making that clear to the court and nation to which you are accredited is approved by the Department." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Tuckerman, min. to Greece, No. 26, Sept. See, also, Mr. Fish to Mr. Tuckerman, No. 42, June 21, 1870, MS. Inst. It is against the policy of the United States to interfere in contests between the titular government of Hayti and insurgents. Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bassett, min. to Hayti, No. 16, Oct. 31, 1869, MS. Inst. Hayti, I. 158. Same to same, No. 138, March 26, 1873, MS. Inst. Hayti, I. 287. "The settled foreign policy of the United States is in the familiar knowledge of all Europe and America. That policy forbids, on our part, all intercourse in the mutual affairs of other governments, and excludes interference by them in ours. It is the policy established by the venerated founder of the American Republic, under circumstances of great difficulty pending the European wars growing out of the French Revolution. It has been steadfastly adhered to by every successive President of the United States, and is firmly rooted in the conviction and judgment and approval of the American people. It is the well-considered fixed idea, consecrated by experience, which lies at the foundation of all our intercourse with other powers. It has proved of signal benefit to the United States, and in the long run not less so to every friendly power. It commends itself unqualifiedly to the judgment of the President for the time being. Against this fundamental policy of the United States Mr. Catacazy has deliberately offended and is now daily deliberately offending. He has made himself busy, in season and out of season, in efforts to obstruct, embarrass, and defeat the recent negotiations between the United States and Great Britain for the adjustment of their mutual differences; and he continues in the same way now to interfere with the due execution of the treaty of Washington of 8th May last. "As the government of the United States would not tolerate such conduct on the part of the minister of our close ally, the French Republic, in a similar emergency in the early days of our history, so it will not tolerate that conduct on the part of Mr. Catacazy, intimate as are the ties of amity between us and his government. "The President directs me to say that he can not look on with indifference to see this extraordinary attempt to introduce at Washington the diplomatic practices of Constantinople." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Curtin, min. to Russia, No. 110, Nov. 16, 1871, S. Ex. Doc. 5, 42 Cong. 2 sess. 17. "Treaties of foreign offensive and defensive alliance are contrary to the declared policy of this government. In the Frelinghuysen. early years of our independence certain compacts of this nature were projected. A notable instance is found in the treaty with France, concluded in 1778, during the Revolutionary war, by the 11th article of which the United States guaranteed the French possessions in this hemisphere. The fulfillment of this stipulation proved to be the occasion of much embarrassment, and eventually of serious misunderstanding between the two countries, which defeated its object and rendered further entangling alliances,' as Mr. Jefferson characterized them, objectionable to the people of the United States." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baker, min. to Venezuela, No. 326, By treaty of Nov. 18, 1903, the United States guarantees the independ- |