Thermal and mineral waters are found in nearly every province of the Republic. The celebrated geysers of Los Trincheras, on the line of the new railway between Puerto Cabello and Valencia, are especially noted for the high temperature of their waters, which is never below 200° Fah., and is sometimes as high as 206°. The celebrated Urijino Springs, in Japan, have a temperature of 212° Fah., but, with this single exception, I believe those of Los Trincheras, in Venezuela, are the hottest in the known world. Very little less remarkable are the celebrated springs near Coro, where upwards of thirty different streams have formed beds of white, dishshaped basins of a peculiar substance. The waters are of various odors and colors, contain many varieties of mineral substance, and maintain temperatures of from 41° to 151° Fah.

16

CHAPTER XXI

A WORD ABOUT THE MONROE DOCTRINE

O

UR relations with the South American states,

and the frequent invocation by them, of what

is known as the "Monroe Doctrine," make it desirable to obtain, if possible, some clear and definite idea of its source and meaning; for, singularly enough, there has been some diversity of opinion, even in this country, as to both its origin and import.

The generally accepted opinion in this country is, that the Monroe Doctrine originated with President Monroe, and was first promulgated in his celebrated message to Congress in December, 1823. But this is at least doubtful; for substantially the same principles had been enunciated by John Quincy Adams nearly three years before. I allude, of course, to the declaration made by Mr. Adams to the British minister at Washington on the occasion of the suggestion by Russia that the United States should join the "Holy Alliance." 1 And substantially the same declaration was made by Mr. Adams two years later, first in an instruction to Mr. Rush, our minister at London, and afterwards in the course of a personal conference with Baron Tüyl, the Russian minister at Washington.2

But it is doubtful whether even Mr. Adams was the first to conceive and give expression to the principles

1 Whart. Dig. Int. Law, I., Ch. iii. sec. 57.

2 Adams' Mem. 163; Tucker's Monroe Doctrine, pp. 12-14.

now known as the Monroe Doctrine; for they had been clearly foreshadowed, if not distinctly outlined, twentythree years before by President Washington in his Farewell Address to the people of the United States. Nor can they be said to have been original even in that address, though they seem to have originated with its author. It is well known that, from the date of the first organization of the government under the federal Constitution of 1787, the new Republic had been beset by foreign agents who sought to commit it, first, to the quixotic schemes of the French democrats, and afterwards to the cause of France in her war with England. Even Thomas Jefferson covertly favored this project; and in this, as in other vagaries, he had many followers, not only in Virginia, but in other states of the Union. But Washington stood firm against all these importunities, and by his great personal prestige and influence committed the infant government to the policy of nonintervention in the broils of Europe, and to non-interference by Europe in the affairs of America.

I think it is fair to assume, therefore, that the American policy and principles of neutrality formulated in President Monroe's message of 1823, are coeval with the very existence of our government itself. They were the logical sequences of the declaration of 1776, and of the treaty of peace of 1783. They were incident to the character of our republican institutions, were evolved by the outgrowth of a national public sentiment, and rendered practicable by our isolated geographical position.

It had long been the conceded right of every European state to increase its dominions by pacific means; but this right was qualified by the acknowledged right of interference for the preservation of what was known as the "balance of power." That is to say, whenever

the ambitious designs of any European ruler tended to the disturbance of the proper distribution of power, other European sovereigns had the right to interfere to prevent it. This, however, was not held to prohibit the acquisition of unoccupied territory outside the limits of Europe, nor to prohibit the acquisition of sovereignty over states beyond those limits; because such acquisitions were supposed to have no appreciable influence on European politics. And this right of intervention for the preservation of " the balance of power," as thus understood, had received full confirmation by positive acts. Thus, at the time of the French Revolution, several European sovereigns had avowed the right to put down any revolutionary movement on that continent, even though their aid had not been invoked by the legitimate government; and this claim was subsequently made good by actual armed intervention in the affairs of France, which resulted in the final overthrow of Napoleon I.

Soon thereafter a league was formed by Austria, Russia, and Prussia, known as the "Holy Alliance," the declared purpose of which was the regulation of the relations of Christian countries by the principles of Christian charity, its real object being the preservation and extension of the power and influence of existing European dynasties. It subsequently received the moral support of nearly every nation of Europe, including both England and France; and in virtue of its power and influence, the army of occupation was removed from France, and the revolutions in Piedmont and Naples were crushed out.

In October, 1822, this league held its celebrated Congress at Verona, at which, however, England was not represented, owing to some differences that had arisen. at the previous conferences at Paris and Aix-la

Chapelle. Just what those differences were in detail, does not now concern us; but the suspicion had become general that the so-called "Holy Alliance" contemplated the reconquest of the Spanish-American colonies, and England's trade with those colonies had already become considerable since the recognition of their independence by the United States. It was but natural, therefore, that, while England had little sympathy with the new governments, and had therefore failed to recognize them, she should oppose a measure which involved the readoption of the old Spanish re strictive policy whereby her trade had been excluded. That the reconquest of the Spanish-American colonies. was proposed and discussed at the Conference of Verona was generally believed at the time; but this fact did not come out very clearly until some months later, when it was announced that only portions of those colonies were to be restored to their Spanish allegiance, while the others were to be divided among the allies.

In view of these facts, and of the general apprehension which followed, President Monroe in his message to Congress, of December 2, 1823, declared, with the purpose of giving formal notice to Europe, that thenceforth no portion of the American continent would be deemed open to European conquest or colonization; and that the government of the United States would consider any attempt to interfere with the sovereignty of the new republics in South America, or any attempt to colonize any portion of America, as imposing upon it an obligation to prevent it. These official utterances became known as the "Monroe Doctrine," the central idea of which was that "America belongs to Americans." Briefly summarized, the Doctrine is this:

I. No more European colonies on the American con