New-York tribune. [volume], December 13, 1914, Page 6, Image 38

About New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924

Image provided by: Library of Congress, Washington, DC

                
CENTURY OF PEACE BETWEEN
AMERICA AND GREAT BRITAIN
COMPLETED CHRISTMAS EVE
By WILLIS FLLTCHFR JOHNSON, L.
LLf ? A HE essential prerequisite of
S tion," said Sophomoricus
A logicus, "is sin." So we m
that the prerequisite of
making is war; wherefore consideration
century of peace with Great Britain must
with some thought of the war which pr<
it. To that conflict we may apply the
ment of the German Crown Prince upc
present European struggle. "Such a
war!" It was stupid, indeed, on our part,
it was marked with two or three heroi'
formances on land?and twice as man
speakably disgraceful exhibitions of incar
poltroonery or worse?and on the watei
some of the most thrilling and brillian
ploits in the naval annals of the world. 1
was begun without due cause, under fais?
tences and without any statement of rea
it utterly failed of its purpose: and in the
making at its end neither its real nor its
fessed objects were so much as mentionec
were all left as before, precisely a:s th
there had been no Lundy's Lane and no
Erie and "Old Ironsides."
We were, as we had been for a scoi
years, the victim of European embroilrr
between the upper and nether millstone
Great Britain and F'rance. at this time g
ing exceeding small in the last desperate
ings. We were at least ostensibly stnvir
maintain neutrality, though our efforts
impaired by the savage and insensate preval
of such factionalism as had not before
happily has not since marred our dorn
history.
THE SOMEWHAT VIOLENT AMERK
NEUTRALITY OF 1814.
Jefferson's old hatred of England and
for France had vanished in the Louisiana
sode, and he regarded the two impartially, *
"a perfect horror at anything like connec
ourselves with the politics of Europe,"
with a policy of "peace, commerce and ho:
friendship with all, entangling alliances *
none." That policy he transmitted to his
derstudy and successor, Madison, who fa
fully maintained it, with occasional touche!
the variability and inconsistency which
marked the Sage of Monticello. "To chei
peace and friendly intercourse with all nati
having corresponding dispositions" was
keynote of his inaugural address, and a m
sincere man than he never filled the Presid
?ial chair.
England and France were, however, engaj
in a life or death struggle, in which they w
both unwilling to handicap or to embarr
themselves by too scrupulously regarding I
rights of other nations, especially of natk
which were supposed not to be strong enou
effectively to resent such disregard. "In
arma," Cicero had said, "leges silent," e\
international laws. M reover, neither of the
powers had adopted the advanced and <
lightened principles of the United States cc
cerning neutral rights, but both clung to t
mediaeval doctrines which ignored neutral:
and held that whoever was not for them w
against them. Still more, there is no dou
that many British subjects and deserters ?
enter the service of our navy and mercant
marine: and we must remember that neith
England nor any other nation but our own
that time conceded the right of volunta
expatriation.
BRITISH AND FRENCH INTERFERENC
WITH AMERICAN COMMERCE.
There consequently prevailed tor many yea
systematic and increasingly intolerable Briti:
and French interference with our shippin
Our coasts were infested and our harbors we
watched by privateers, some of which cor
mitted acts of sheer piracy. "They ha'
captured in the very entrance of our harbors
said Jefferson, "not only the vessels of oi
friends coming to trade with us, but our ov>
also." Yet he persistently opposed the buil.
ing of a navy, beyond a few small gunboat
which could be put upon wheeled trucks an
carted inland to get out of harm's way. ?
9 British search of our vessels went on, with n<
only the seizure of British deserters, but al;
the impressment of innumerable native Ame
ican seamen, whom F.ngland wanted to ma
her own ships in her war with France. Thei
were Orders in Council, too, and Berlin an
Milan Decrees, in which the two great riva
seemed to vie with each other in oppressin
and destroying American commerce.
The policies of both countries were sever.
as war measures usually are. But that c
France was by far the worse. The Britis
policy forbade us to trade with France, but i
gave us fair warning; it permitted traders f*
go elsewhither with their cargoes, and it pai
for whatever was seized.
ARBITRARY CONFISCATION WAS THI
FRENCH POLICY.
The French policy was that of arbitrary con
fiscation. An American merchant ship, for ex
ample, which was caught by a British pri
vsteer, taken into a British port against its
will and then released was for that reason
seized and wholly confiscated by the French.
Some were seized and confiscated simply be?
cause they had been spoken at sea by British
ships, and that before the French decree of
non-intercourse had been issued. However, as
the British sea power was immeasurably
greater than the French. America suffered far
more from the milder policy of England than
from the harsher policy of France, and con?
sequently American wrath at England became
far greater than at F'rance.
This was the dilemma; Our ships must com?
ply with certain conditions or they would be
seized by British cruisers, but if they did com?
ply with them, they would be seized by the
French. In the immortal words of Lorenzo
Dow:
"Youll be damned if you do; you'll be
damned if you don't." At the urging o. Jefler
styn, we tried non-intercourse and embargo, for?
bidding our ships to leave our ports, but soon
got tired of such commercial suicide. Then
diplomacy was resorted to, under serious dis?
advantages.
We began it with a singularly unfit mai
Robert Smith, as Secretary of State, whi
Great Britain was represented at Washingtc
first by the well meaning but indiscreet Erskiri
and then by the quite impossible Jackson, wh
was frankly described by Canning as the po:
sessor of all those British characteristics whic
were sometimes offensive to other nations. !
to this it be added that Madison, with his ow
transparent integrity and sincerity, was con
pletely tricked by the duplicity of the Frene
government, it may easily be understood hoi
and why diplomacy failed to compose our dii
ferences with Great Britain.
But there was another factor, which in th
end proved to be the most potent of all. Tha
was the lust of land, the same that a genera
tion later led us into our unholy aggressioi
upon Mexico, and that still later inspired th'
Ostend Manifesto and caused our governmen
to countenance the land pirate, Walker, in hi
attempt to loot Nicaragua. Nominally, w<
went to war for "freedom of trade and sailors
rights." Actually, we went to war for the con
quest of Canada. Nor was this purpose con
cealed. "The conquest of Canada," cri?e
Henry Clay, "is in your power. The rniliti?
of Kentucky alone are competent to place Mon
treal and Upper Canada at your feet!" B5
such appeals was Congress persuaded to de
clare the war. To them Jefferson, speaking
from the retirement o.' Monticello, responded
"The acquisition of Canada this year as far as
the neighborhood of Quebec will be a mer<
matter of marching, and will give us experience
for the attack on Halifax the next, and th?
final expulsion of England from the American
continent." No wonder that Randolph ol
Roanoke, with bitter truth, declared: "Agrarian
cupidity, not maritime right, urges the war."
NO LIES FROM US AND NO CONFES?
SION, EITHER.
We had, however, at least the grace not to
lie about it. There was in the act of Con?
gress no pretence that we were going to war
for "freedom of trade and sailors' rights"?
which, in fact, most sorely needed vindicating
?but neither, of course, was there a confes?
sion of our lust for Canadian land. So no
cause whatever was mentioned. The act con?
tained the single sentence, "that war be and
the same is hereby declared to exist." With
what followed it would not be pleasant to con?
cern ourselves. Dreams of the conquest and
annexation of Canada vanished in the smoke
of our own burning Capitol, at Washington.
We may exult in memory of the deeds of our
navy on the lakes and on the high seas, of the
midnight strife at Lundy's Lane and of the
triumph of frontier levies over peninsular
veterans at New Orleans. But the rest is
silence.
A most important corollary to the war, or
rither to the complications which preceded
it. was the establishment of relations between
America and Russia. The latter power had
been conspicuously unsympathetic, if not po?
tentially hostile toward us during the Revolu?
tion, and had never yet formally recognized
our independence. But Madison wisely sent
thither as minister that master diplomat, John
Quincy Adams, who arrived at a psychological
moment.
THE WORK OF JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
AT ST. PETERSBURG.
He was received with special honors, and as
prompt results of his mission American com?
merce was welcomed to Russian ports and was
in a measure protected from harassment in the
Baltic, and Russia decided to break with Na?
poleon and to seek leadership of the alliance
against him. In fact, just four days after our
declaration of war against Great Britain war
was also declared by France against Russia.
That made Russia and Great Britain allies, and
caused the Czar to regard with much regret
the conflict between his ally, Great Britain,
and his friend, America.
At one time, indeed, the Czar feared that
America might become allied with France, not
only against Great Britain but also against
Russia. For that fear there was no ground,
but because of it Alexander was moved to in?
crease his friendly overtures to America and
also to make offers of mediation between this
country and his British ally. Such offers were
made, unofficially, in January, 1813, and of?
ficially in the following month, and in March
the government of the United States formally
accepted them. It did this on the premature
assumption that Great Britain had signified
her acceptance, an assumption for which the
Russian government was wholly responsible.
"""he Czar's Minister of State, Romanzoff. had
told Adams that the offer of mediation had
been made to Great Britain at the same time
and in the same form as to the United States,
when, as a matter of fact, it had not been made
at all. The result was. when our three envoys,
Adams, Gailatin and Bayard, met at St. Peters?
burg, in expectation of meeting British envoys
there to negotiate under Russian mediation,
they found that Great Britain had declined to
have anything to do with the scheme.
PEACE NEGOTIATIONS ARE TRANS?
FERRED TO LONDON.
Happily, however, the British government
made known to ours its willingness to enter
into direct negotiations, considering a contro?
versy between these two countries to be a
family matter of Anglo-Saxondom, into which
ho outsider should be called. The offer was at
once accepted, and Adams Gallatin and Bay?
ard, reinforced by Henry Clay and Jonathan
Russell, were directed to proceed to London,
there to conduct the peace negotiations. Gal
latin and Bayard were the first to arrive, and
they got there at an inopportune moment. It
was in April, 1914. Napoleon had abdicated
the throne of France. Great Britain was tri?
umphant and exultant, with army and navy
free to be transferred to America for the prose?
cution of the war. It was purposed to recon?
quer and annex New England, where a will?
ingness to rejoin the British Empire was be?
lieved to prevail, u challenge our title to
Louisiana, to drive us out of West Florida,
to erect Michigan, Wisconsin and the northern
parts of Indiana and Illinois into an Indian
territory under British suzerainty, and to ex
elude us from the North Atlantic fisheries.
Gallatin, in dismay, begged our minister a
Paris to seek the aid of the Czar, who wa
then in that capital, but neither Alexander no
his minister, Nesselrode, who had succeedei
Romar.zoff, would so much as grant him an in
terview. Then Lafayette took up the case an?
pleaded with the Czar, at Mme. de Sta?l'
house, with the result that the Czar promise?
that when he went over to London he woulc
do what he could for the Americans. Bu
when Alexander got to London he told Gal
latin that he could do nothing for him, anc
soon thereafter he began to plan the distinctlj
anti-American policies of the Holy Alliance.
CONTRAST BETWEEN BRITISH ANE
AMERICAN COMMISSIONERS.
Thus deserted by their one supposed friend
the American commissioners resolved to rel>
upon their own resources. They arranged tc
have the negotiations conducted on neutra
soil, at Ghent, and repaired thither in August
1814, to meet their British antagonists. Be?
tween the two commissions there was a strik?
ing difference. The live Americans were among
the ablest and most resolute men that this
country then possessed. Adams, the chairman,
was an expert diplomat and international law?
yer, without a superior in the world in intel?
lectual keenness and controversial skill. Gal?
latin was a man of commanding abilitv and of
a fine diplomatic temperament, well fitted to
counteract the somewhat harsh and arrogant
manner of Adams. Clay was a fine repre?
sentative of the younger element of the West;
Russell was an equally good representative ol
New England and the East generally, and Bay?
ard united in himself the principles of both the
great political parties of America. Opposed
to these were only three British envoys. Lord
Gambier was a naval officer of discreditable
repute; Henry Gbulbourn was a tyro in diplo
macy, and William Adams was an academic
jurist. The three had apparently been selected
because thev were mediocrities and could there?
fore be trusted to take no initiative, but me?
chanically to reflect the mind of the British
Ministry.
THE DEADLOCK AT GHENT. AND AP
PARENT FAILURE.
The conferences began with a deadlock. The
British demanded the surrender of the North?
west Territories as an Indian domain. The
Americans refused so much as to consider the
demand. The negotiations therefore ceased,
and the Americans began to pack their trunks
for a return home. Meanwhile the war con?
tinued. Chippewa and Lundy's Lane were
fought while the commissioners were proceed?
ing to Ghent, and the raid upon Washington,
the repulse at Baltimore and the Battle of Lake
Champlain followed hard upon their first meet?
ings. But before the Americans could leave
Ghent Lord Castlereagl. himself called there,
on his way to that Congress of Vienna which
was to reorganize Europe. He asked the
Americans to wait until he could make new
proposals. They did so, and he submitted his
views in writing, out-Heroding the Herod of
his commissioners. America was to relinquish
the Northwest Territories and all of Lake Su?
perior, Lake Michigan and Lake Huron and
the northern and eastern parts of Maine, and
was to have no naval vessels on Lake Erie or
Lake Ontario, and Great Britain was to have
, full rights of navigation on the Mississippi
River. Adams and his colleagues wrote a
notably resolute and forceful reply to the effect
that they would not so much as consider or
refer to their home government any such pro?
posals. They then reported to Washington
the failure of the peace negotiations. Adams
prepared to return to St. Petersburg, Clay to
go to Paris, and Russell to Sweden, to which
country he was minister, while Gallatin and
Bayard turned thei- faces toward America.
This news reached the United States when the
people were still exulting over Lundy's Lane
and Lake Champlain. when they were exas?
perated over the burning of Washington, and
when they were learning to sing "The Star
Spangled Banner," and they grimly resolved
to fight the war out to the bitter end.
CONFERENCES ARE RESUMED UPON
LORD CASTLEREAGHS REQUEST.
Then Castlereagh saw a great light. Dis?
regarding the fact that he had himself done
worse than they, he gave his commissioners a
wigging for their extreme demands, and asked
for a renewal of negotiations on the basis of
a complete relinquishrnent of those demands.
With that triumph the Americans resumed the
conferences, making the counter demand that
the old territorial boundaries as they existed
before the war should be restored at all points.
To this the British demurred, and threatened
to break off negotiations again. It was actual?
ly suggested by some hot heads in London that
the Duke of Wellington should be sent to
America, either to command the British army
or to negotiate peace here. But the Duke re?
plied that f he came hither he could do noth?
ing in a military way without the control of
the Great Lakes, and he saw no way in which
that could be secured, while as for terms of
peace, he regarded the Americans as quite
right in their demand for the restoration of the
ante-bellum boundaries. Meantime, affairs at
Vienna were not going to Castlereagh's liking,
talk of Russian intervention was renewed, and
British taxpayers grumbled at the prospect of
more American war bills. So the British yield?
ed and invited the American commissioners to
draft a treaty of peace.
HAVING REDUCED THE ENEMY, THE
PEACE MAKERS DISAGREE.
In this the Americans had a pretty free hand.
Their original instructions were to make com?
plete abandonment of the impressment of sea?
men a sine qua non. but later Monroe told
them that that, while desirable, was not indis?
pensable. Then grave differences arose among
themselves. Adams and Russell, New Eng?
landers, wanted to insist upon North Atlantic
fishery rights, and cared little about the Mis?
sissippi River, while Clay and Bayard wanted
the British excluded from the Mississippi and
I
were indifferent toward the fisheries. The
the question arose whether the British-Amer
?can treaty of 1783 was still valid or had bee
automatically voided by the war. Clay though
it had been voided and that thus the Britisl
title to navigation of the Mississippi had lapsed
Adams took the contrary view, that that treat;
was of so exceptional a character that it hat
survived the incidence of war and was still il
force, and that therefore the American right
in the fisheries and the British rights in th
Mississippi were intact. In this Adams wa
doubtless right, but Clay could nof be con
vinced, and there was actually danger of th'
failure of the negotiations through the inability
of the Americans to agree among themselves.
THE DRAFT OF A TREATY SUBMITTEE
ON NOVEMBER 10.
Gallatin, however, with his unfailing patience
and good humor, saved the day by persuading
both Adams and Clay to assent to the making
of a treaty in which neither the fisheries noi
the Mississippi should be mentioned. The drafi
of such a treaty was submitted to the Britisl
commissioners on November 10, at about the
time General Jackson was seizing Pensacola
in return for the British use of that Spanish
city as their base of operations against South?
ern Georgia. The reply of the British com?
missioners, a fortnight later, was to throw ?i
nrebmnd among the Americans. This was ar
amended draft, which contained a specific
recognition of the Btitish right to navigate the
Mississippi, but which contained no allusion to
the fisheries. That set Adams and Clay at
each other again, hammer and tongs, and again
Gallatin's diplomacy was taxed to restore peace
among his own colleagues. A proposal to grant
the Mississippi rights in return for the fishery
rights was rejected by the British. Then the
Americans offered to proceed with negotiations
under a tacit reservation of all rights, to be
determined by future processes.
THE SIGNING OF A TREATY IN WHICH
NOTHING IS CONCLUDED.
In the end, substantially, this course was
adopted. The amazing anomaly was presented
on Christmas Eve, December 24, of the making
and signing of a treaty of peace which did not
settle nor so much as refer in any way to even
a single one of the issues over which the war
had been declared and fought. Search of
vessels, impressment, blockade, maritime rights
of neutrals, indemnities and the other matters
which had loomed so large at the beginning of
the war and for years before were as com?
pletely ignored as though they never had exist?
ed. The treaty realized the title of the last
chapter of "Rasselas": "The Conclusion, in
Which Nothing Is Concluded." It simply pro?
vided for peace, for the restoration of all con?
quests to the ante bellum status, for the ap?
pointment of commissioners to define disputed
boundaries, for the ending of Indian wars and
for the abolition of the slave trade?the last
named provision unfortunately not becoming
effective for many years thereafter, chiefly be?
cause its enforcement would have involved the
exercise of that right of search which both
parties were now desirous of dropping into
"innocuous desuetude," or at least of exercising
as little as possible.
THE DIVISION OF GLORY AMONG
THE COMMISSIONERS.
The chief credit for the making of this
treaty must be given to Gallatin, though all
his colleagues must share in it. Even the
sometime., acrimonious differences between
Adams and Clay on the whole contributed to
rather than obstructed the attainment of the
end. Gallatin described the treaty to Monroe
as being "as favorable as could be expected un?
der existing circumstances, so far as they were
known to us," and that estimate of it was
probably just. Before the news of the signing
of it could reach America the battle of New
Orleans was fought and the British suffered
their one really stinging land defeat of the
whole war. The news did not, in fact, become
known here until near the middle of February,
1815, when it was received with mingled emo?
tions of satisfaction and regret. There was
occasion for the administration party to feel
humiliated, because of the failure of the high
and resounding boasts with which they had be?
gun the war, yet Madison reported to Con?
gress that the treaty ended "with peculiar
felicity a campaign signalized by the most
brilliant successes." The treaty was submitted
to the Senate on February 15, and was ratified
two days later. Instantly there was a gratify?
ing response in business and finance. Stocks
in New York and Philadelphia rose from ten
PEACE?"I'M GLAD YOU BOYS ARE FRIENDS."
to eighteen points within a week, and the whc
country hastened into a general revival of i
dustrial and commercial prosperity.
The issues left unsettled by the treaty wei
however, numerous and formidable, and sor
of them were urgent. Adams, Gallatin ai
Clay soon began supplementary negotiatior
which resulted in the making of a commerci
convention on July 3, 1815, under which, u
fortunately, only a few matters were dispos'
of. The fisheries question was not so much ,
touched, and, indeed, it was not until in tl
next century that it was finally settled. It w;
not for many years, either, that the questioi
of search and impressment were formal
settled, although after the Treaty of Ghent tht
were seldom raised in an acute form.
PEACE THAT HAS OUTLIVED TIM
AND CIRCUMSTANCE.
?
With all its anomalies and omissions and a
its legacies of controversy to future years, th
peace of Christmas Eve a hundred years ag
was a real peace, based upon mutual agreemer
and sincere desire, of sufficiently robust fibr
to endure the strain of all the differences an
dispute? of the succeeding century, which hav
indeed served merely to strengthen it and t
render its perpetuity more assured.
Since the War of 1812 had at least ostensibl;
arisen through the aggressions of Europeat
powers upon American rights and interests, i
was an interesting coincidence that the firs
great confirmation of the peace should com
because of other European processes. At th
very time of the making of the peace the so
called Holy Alliance was in course of forma
tion, and the direct and most important out
come thereof was the enunciation of the Mon
roe Doctrine. To that epochal achievemen'
Great Britain contributed much, in the way o:
suggestion and encouragement, and the sympa
the'ic attitude of that country greatly enhanced
the moral, political and military force of the
pronouncement. The net result of the episode
was to unite the two countries more closely,
though from the very first Great Britain chal?
lenged that part of the doctrine which was in?
terpreted as forbidding further European col?
onization in America and which was then much
misunderstood, while in later years, in respect
to Central America and Venezuela the whole
doctrine was more or less defied.
DIFFICULTIES SETTLED IN EARLY
PART OF NINETEENTH CENTURY.
Before the time of the doctrine we had come
unpleasantly near to a clash over the killing
of Ambrister and Arbuthnot, in Florida, by
General Jackson, and in 1818 had begun a ri?
valry for the possession of the Oregon country,
which lasted until 1846, and which more than
once caused talk of war. Indeed, the final
settlement was not until the San Juan arbitral
award was made in 1872. The Maine boundary
was another vexatious problem, submitted to
an arbitration of which we refused to accept
the result, involving an attempt at the waging
of war by Maine, and a final settlement under
the Webster-Ashburton treaty in 1842. At one
time there was a little cloud in Texas, when,
before we finally annexed that state, there was
some coquetting between it and England.
Central America was a portentous storm
centre, with British aggressions in Belize and
on the Mosquito Coast and in the Bay Islands
and at Tigre Island. The Clayton-Bulwer
treaty in 1850 was intended to compose all dif?
ferences there, but, in fact, proved itself a
fecund source of new troubles, which inter?
mittently vexed both countries until the ill
conceived instrument was replaced by the Hay
Pauncefote treaty. In Cuba we declined, in
1852, to make a tripartite agreement with Great
Britain and France for the guardianship of that
island, and thereafter our paramount interest
there was recognized. During the Ten Years'
War a British captain. Sir Lambton Lorraine,
in an historic episode intervened to save Amer?
icans from slaughter. During the Spanish war
of 1898 Great Britain was our one important
friend in Europe, notably when Admiral Chi
chester gallantly stood with Dewey at Manila
against the obstreperous Diederichs.
On one occasion we had to read the riot act
for the undoing of the work of an overzealous
British captain in Hawaii, and in Samoa the ill
devised tripartite control caused much friction
until it was abolished, in 1898. In Chin?, in
1859, occurred the famous "blood i? thicker
than water" episode, a fitting prelude at long
range to the co-operation of the two countries
in later years in establishing the principle of
the "open door." There waa ?ome unpleasant
ness during the Crimean War, when attempt?
were made to recruit men for the British ar
in the United States, but when, in 1858, the t
Atlantic cable was laid, and then, in 1860,
Prince of Wales visited this country, all seen
quite serene.
But our Civil War made more trouble, ui
on a memorable occasion our miniiter to Gr
Britain was compelled to say to the Brit
Foreign Minister, "This means war!" The ft
overt act was the wholly unjustifiable sein
of two Confederate passengers on the Briti
steamer Trent by an overzealous Amerif
naval officer, in utter violation of our own t
ditional principles. Then came the British co
pliance with Confederate military schemes,
which the Alabama and other vessels were p?
mitted to issue from British ports to prey up
American commerce, and in which the simi
issuing of ironclad rams was narrowly avoid?
Meantime we were here tolerating Fenian i
tivities, culminating in an armed raid in
Canada. The outcome of it all was, howevi
the treaty of Washington, in 1871. and t
Geneva arbitration, in 1872, which immeast
ably advanced the cause of peace and arbiti
tion the world over.
TROUBLES IN ALASKA-THE SEAL
AND THE KLONDIKE.
Two troubles arose in Alaska. One was ov
fur seals and our untenable pretence of ow
ership of those animals wherever they mig
be found in the waters of the high seas, again
which an arbitral award was given at Paris
1893. The other was over the boundary lin
when the discovery of gold in the Klondil
made Canada want to break through our Pai
handle and get direct access to the sea, a mi
ter which was decided altogether in our favo
As for the fisheries on the Newfoundland ar
Canadian coasts, it was the oldest of all the
controversies and it was the most endurin
Commission after commission sat upon it, wil
awards now to one party and now to the othe
and modus vivendi after modus vivendi wi
established, until the twentieth century wi
well started, when a final adjustment was mad
Venezuela was another name or grave poi
tent. In 1895 Great Britain issued an ultimi
turn to that disorderly state, which threatens?
to infringe upon the Monroe Do. ;nne, where
upon President Cleveland issued a cour.terMi?1
which fell just short of being a pro vocation t<
war. Probably never in the whole centur
were the two nations nearer to v.dr than a
that time. But the sober second thought o
both nations prevailed over the iraicib'.i
passions of their statesmen. A vigorous con
troversy ensued, in the course of which Mr
Cleveland, or his Secretary of State. Mr. Olney
made the most extreme interpretation and sp
plication of the Monroe Doctrine on record
and Lord Salisbury made the most sweepini
denial of that doctrine ever made by a re?
sponsible British minister. But in the end ar
bitration prevailed, with results satisfactory to
America.
SOME UNPLEASANT EPISODES AND
OTHERS MOSTLY PLEASANT.
There were other unpleasant episodes. In
1876 our Minister to England came home hur?
riedly and in unpleasant circumstances, and u*
1888 the British Minister to this country went
home discredited for meddling in politics. B?t
there were more agreeable passages of re-?
tionship. At the memorable jubilee of Qu-*n
Victoria, at her funeral, and at the coronation
and again at the funeral of Edward VII. the
conspicuous place of the American official r?Pj
resentatives marked the peculiar intimacy ?.
the two nations. Indeed, during the clou?!
years of Victoria's reign and during the who?
of Edward's too brief reign, partly because o
the personality of those sovereigns and of ?
American ambassadors at that court and part?
ly because of the disposition of the two peopl*-*
Great Britain and America were drawn to?
gether somewhat more closely than any ow
two nations in all the world.
The same happy circumstances have
continued in the reign of George V. and t m
prevail to-day, so that the completion of*
full cycle of a hundred years of pea? Jjj
that peace more confidently established ^*
at any other moment in all the century. W1
the practical collapse of the malign attempt
repudiate the Hay-Pauncefote treaty *ot
single cause of important controversy ?* .
in existence between the two countries.
the coming Christmas Eve will give pi onus* '
another century of peace to come only a * ?
less certainly than it will bear witness ?**?
century of peace achieved.
t la