in North America would be permitted to complete its title, should that title admit of doubt in the United States.

Notwithstanding the positive attitude he thus assumed, the President was nevertheless willing to change his attitude when the compromise offer from England reached Washington, to partition the Oregon territory north of the Columbia River, over which he believed our title was "clear and unquestionable."

A few weeks after the reading of the President's message, Mr. Allen, of Ohio, in the face of considerable opposition, introduced into the Senate the following resolution:

RESOLVED, That Congress, thus concurring with the President, and sensible that this subject has been forced upon the attention of the United States by recent events so significant as to make it impossible for this government longer to remain silent, without being ready to submit to and even to invite the enforcement of this dangerous doctrine, do hereby solemnly declare to the civilized world the unalterable resolution of the United States to adhere to and to enforce the principle, that any effort of the powers of Europe to intermeddle in the social organization or political arrangements of the independent nations of America, or further to extend the European system of government upon this continent by the establishment of new colonies, would be incompatible with the independent existence of the nations, and dangerous to the liberties of the people of America, and therefore would incur, as by the right of self-preservation it would justify, the prompt resistance of the United States.

The bill expired in the committee room of foreign affairs when the treaty with England, of June 26, 1846, was concluded, by which the Oregon dispute was settled. Thus an attempt to secure Congressional expression upon the Monroe Doctrine again failed.

IX. YUCATAN

One other event occurred toward the close of Polk's administration, which is interesting on account of its bearing upon the Monroe Doctrine. In a Senate debate upon the President's special message of April 29, 1848, relating to

Yucatan, a considerable range of opinion concerning the application of the doctrine was expressed. The speech of John C. Calhoun, made at that time, is an especially valuable contribution to the literature of the subject.

In this message the President submitted to the consideration of Congress certain communications from the governor of Yucatan, setting forth the unfortunate condition to which the country had been reduced by an uprising of the native Indians. The Indians were represented as carrying on a war of extermination against the whites, and the latter, "panic-stricken and destitute of arms," had been brought to a deplorable condition of suffering and misery. In desperation they had appealed to the United States for protection, and offered in return the "dominion and sovereignty of the peninsula." A similar appeal had been made, along with the same offer of sovereignty, to the Spanish and English governments.

The President added: "Whilst it is not my purpose to recommend the adoption of any measure with the view to the acquisition of the dominion and sovereignty' over Yucatan, yet, according to our established policy, we could not consent. to a transfer of this dominion and sovereignty,' either to Spain, Great Britain, or any other European power." Quoting from Monroe's and his own messages of 1823 and 1845, he continues: "Our own security requires that the established policy thus announced should guide our conduct, and this applies with great force to the peninsula of Yucatan. . . . I submit to the wisdom of Congress to adopt such measures as in their judgment may be expedient to prevent Yucatan from becoming a colony of any European power, which in no event could be permitted by the United States. . . .

Yucatan was a state belonging to Mexico, but her inhabitants remained neutral during the war between the United States and Mexico, then in progress. A bill had been intro

duced into the Senate to enable the President to order military occupation of Yucatan, which furnished the subject of debate already referred to.

Aside from feelings of humanity, that naturally aroused

Mr. Polk's desire to send prompt relief to a suffering people, he believed that an urgent necessity called upon him to maintain the integrity of the Monroe Doctrine. He believed the doctrine not only forbade foreign interference for purposes of dominion or control, but he further considered that the duty of the United States extended to the prevention of foreign interposition, even when offered in friendly spirit and upon the invitation of American states. John C. Calhoun was then a member of the Senate, and the only survivor of President Monroe's cabinet. In his estimation, the true character of the Monroe Doctrine was misunderstood both by the chief Executive and by the masses of the people. Eminently qualified to speak, he delivered a speech in the Senate, May 15, 1848, carefully reviewing the circumstances under which the declaration of President Monroe was promulgated, and gave as unavoidable deductions a series of conclusions. It is difficult to qualify them.

1. The declaration was made to meet but one special and particular condition, to wit;-the threatened interference of the Holy Alliance in Spanish-American affairs, for the purpose of preserving the revolting colonies to Spain, and forcing their continued allegiance to monarchical institutions. The danger soon after ceased to exist, and the warning of the United States, supported by the sympathetic attitude of Great Britain, had served its purpose. That part of the declaration, therefore, must be considered in connection with the circumstances under which it was announced; otherwise it "would have involved the absurdity of asserting that the attempt of any European state to extend its system of government to this continent, the smallest as well as the greatest, would endanger the peace and safety of our country."

2. The next declaration, that the interposition of any European power to oppress the governments of this continent, or to control their destiny in any manner whatever, would be regarded as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States, arose from the same conditions, and "belongs to the history of that day." It was an appendage to the last declaration. The governments referred

to were those just freed from Spain, and the Executive made use of the words "any European power," for the sake of encouraging the young republics.

3. In regard to the use of the word "colonization," as employed by Monroe, it had a specific meaning — "the estab lishment of a settlement by emigrants from the parent country, in a territory either uninhabited, or from which the inhabitants have been partially or wholly expelled." This part of the doctrine was also directed to a certain source of irritation Russian colonization on the northwest coast. To include the whole continent as under the ban, was manifestly an impropriety, as a large part of the continent had not asserted nor maintained its independence; British and Russian America then exceeded in area the whole of the United States. This portion of the message originated with Mr. Adams, and had not been freely discussed in the cabinet. "I will venture to say," asserted Mr. Calhoun, "that if that declaration had come before the cautious cabinet, (for Mr. Monroe was among the wisest and most cautious men I have ever known,) it would have been modified and expressed with a far greater degree of precision, and with much more delicacy in reference to the feelings of the British Government."

4. In another respect as well, Mr. Calhoun believed, President Polk did not understand the famous declaration. "They were but declarations, nothing more. Declarations announcing in a friendly manner to the powers of the world that we should regard certain acts of interposition of the allied powers as dangerous to our peace and safety; interpositions of European powers to oppress the republics which had just arisen upon this continent, having become free and independent, as manifesting an unfriendly disposition, and that this continent having become free and independent, was no longer the subject of colonization word in any one of them in reference to resistance." 5. Our country, then, is not expected inexorably to follow a simple declaration as though it were a fixed principle. Such a course would make the United States a party, willing or unwilling, to all the wars, just or unjust, of the several Ameri

- not one

can states.

"We are not to have quoted upon us, on every occasion, general declarations to which any and every meaning may be attached." Whether the country intends to resist by force any interposition from abroad rests with Congress, and must be decided upon the merits of the case itself. It should be asked- does such interposition affect the safety of the country? Is it to the best interests of the nation to resist it, and if so, are our interests involved sufficiently great to make war expedient? In some particular instances this would be proper-proper because wise—and Mr. Calhoun cited the cases of Cuba and Texas. Here he "would resort to the hazard of war with all its calamities." In the case of Yucatan, the only duty devolving upon the United States was to respond to a cry for help.

From this review of the Monroe Doctrine, the following deductions seem to be clear:

The safety of the United States did not demand the annexation of Yucatan.

The occupation of this country by Great Britain or Spain would not have been for the purpose of dominion. It would have been only the friendly interposition of another power at the solicitation of Yucatan herself.

Occupation of this sort could not properly be called colonization.

The doctrine as enunciated by its authors did not apply in this case.

There was but a slight desire in the United States to annex Yucatan. The country was regarded as practically worthless, and its admission into the Union to be a mistake. It is not easy to determine, however, what final action the Senate might have taken in the matter, had not the incident been closed by a treaty between the whites and the Indians which put an end to their difficulties.

X. THE FRENCH INTERVENTION IN MEXICO

There is no event in the history of the Monroe Doctrine in which the principles it embodies have had such direct and