Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

our

episode, which has thrown the country into a must be decided on its merits. The mere fact fever of excitement, makes it the emphatic duty that it is an interference does not close the of lawyers as a class to counsel thoughtful and question of our duty. It must be such an indeliberate action and to spread a dispassionate terference that, from all the circumstances of realization of the legal bearing of the controversy. the case, it would be 'dangerous to our peace

“The American Law Review for November- and safety. It is owing to a failure to keep in December, 1895, contains an article by Mr. mind this necessary limitation of the doctrine, Mark B. Dunnell, of Minneapolis, on "The that much confusion of thought has arisen, and Monroe Doctrine,' which briefly, but ad that wholly unwarrantable extensions of the equately, sketches the history of the events doctrine have been made. Mr. Monroe's leading to its promulgation, and presents, in ideas of what is 'dangerous to our peace very cogent form, the author's conception of and safety' are dead. Mr. Monroe's ideas the true status of such doctrine to-day. Mr.

that we should resist dangerous interferDunnell's article was published before the

ence is a living force in national life recent diplomatic correspondence between to-day. It matters not whether Mr. Monroe's England and America was given out; but he

language is susceptible of the construction substantially concurs with Lord Salisbury as to that all interference is dangerous and to be rethe causes and immediate occasion of Presi

sisted. His ideas were founded on the condident Monroe's utterance, and it would see.n

tion of things existing in 1823. rin interfer that, to a material extent, he anticipated the

ence that might well have been thought dasEnglish prime minister's position as to the gerous then might safely be disregarded by us necessary modification of the doctrine by change to-day. It is palpably absurd to impose the of conditions. Mr. Dunnell says :

ideas of danger entertained by a government of On the other hand, we should not fall into seven millions, on a government of seventy the corresponding error of maintaining that the millions. The American who regards Eurodeclaration of Mr. Monroe is binding upon us pean interference in distant South America a to-day. His declaration was made to meet a

danger to this country has a ridiculously inparticular exigency and ceased to be operative adequate conception of his country's greatlong ago. Its life was limited to the continu

We have long since outgrown the inance of the circumstances that provoked it. fantile weakness of seventy years ago. The What we now call the Monroe Doctrine, and

arear of danger has shrunk with our increasing cherish as a fundamental rule of our foreign strength. It is inconceivable that any sensible policy, is the principle which underlay Monroe's American would willingly shed his blood to declaration, and not the declaration itself. The keep England out of Chili, for example. On the declaration of 1823 was simply a particular ap- other hand, it is quiet conceivable that he would plication of a general principle, and is valuable be willing to do so to keep her out of Cuba. merely as a precedent. It is like a judicial The one act would be largely a matter of selfdecision- not the law itself, but an application defense; the other, sheer quixotism.

So far of the law; and, as the lawyer studies cases to

as the Monroe Doctrine is concerned we have get at the principle they embody, so we may

no more cause to check the alleged territorial study Monroe's declaration to get at its prin- encroachments by England in Venezuela, than ciple or 'doctrine.'”

to enter a caveat against her expansion in India; “ The author then contends that the principle and for the sufficient reason that the enlargeof the doctrine is merely a rule of self-defense, ment of her power in one place is no more to wit : ‘The United States will oppose any dangerous to us than in the other.' interference on the part of a European power

"We venture to say that many members of the in the affairs of this hemisphere which it may | American Bar agree in the main with Mr. Dun. deem, under all the circumstances of the par- nell's contention, and that many more, if they ticular case, dangerous to its life or interests.' would give the merits and gravity of the situaHe further says :

tion due consideration, would exert all their " It follows that each case of interference l influence towards proceeding deliberately, and

ness.

[ocr errors]

ness.

[ocr errors]

at least give the present popular ebullition time of the character and acts of Napoleon Bonaparte to subside. Granting, of course, that an in magazines and newspapers. And we fear ostensible movement to settle a just boundary that, incidental to legitimate utterances of line may conceal a design for territorial en loyalty and love for the American flag as the croachment, and admitting, for the sake of symbol of our national unity and life, there has argument, that such is England's intent in been a large amount of uncalled for bellicose Venezuela, it still must be conceded that any declamation. It would seem that the essential proposed apprehension of actual danger from need of the hour is a spirit of calm reasonablean encroachment in that quarter is not bona fide. We believe that the policy suggested by With our whole Canadian frontier exposed and the President's message involves a very material accessible, alarm at the possibility of Great extension of what thoughtful students of AmeriBritain making war on us from Venezuela is

can history bave understood as the Monroe absurd. The only object in resorting to force Doctrine.” Whether the nation is to be finally to determine the Venezuela boundary line, ac- committed to such extension certainly should cording to our interpretation of the rights of not be determined without bringing to the the primarily interested parties, would be minds of the people, after some measure of to settle an abstract principle. And such sobriety shall have returned, the historical bear principle is not one recognized by interna- ings and theoretical merits of the question, the tional law. The British government is the possible benefit to accrue from our success and only European power that has ever given its probable cost. even a qualified assent to the Monroe Doct

The difference of views of lawyers and layrine, and the substantial purport of Lord Salis

men is well exemplied by an article in the Nabury's remarks on the subject seems to be that, tion, which said : according to English interpretion, such recognition as was given by England extended only to in this world is well exemplified in an article in

The difficulty of getting things exactly right the application of the doctrine to the peculiar circumstances existing when it was promulgated the last number of the Forum, by Mr. Cassatt In insisting on a general right of supervision in of the Cincinnati bar, on the Monroe Doctrine. the United States, co-extensive with the hemis- He shows easily enough that it was a doctrine phere, our government would, therefore, not produced for purposes of defence under cirhave the moral sanction of settled international cumstances which have totally changed, and law. We would have to be prepared to main that no contemporary expositor thought of givtain our position perpetually by force, and cer- ing it the offensive, aggressive character which tainly such a burdensome extension of our some of our present preachers claim for it, and foreign policy should not be adopted without a that the Congress to which Monroe presented fair presumption of practical utility, and, in any it, as a suggestion of his own, never acted on event, not without sober second thought. it, nor took any notice of it; so that, in fact, it

“Undoubtedly, the great avidity with which has no legal status and is no part of American the proposition for interference in Venezuelan polity. In tracing the history of it, however, affairs has been caught up is due to the intoxi- he says that 'the general principles of the cating effect upon the popular imagination Holy Alliance were in harmony with the monwhich the possibility of war always has. With- archical institutions and ideas of Great Britain, out in the least deprecating patriotic enthusi- but the possession of Central America by asm, or a legitimate sentiment of national pride, Spain would have been injurious to the comwe believe there has been of late far too much mercial interests of Great Britain, and therestimulation of mere national braggadocio. We fore she joined us in the protest known as the may always look for such element as a political ‘Monroe Doctrine.' It would be difficult to expedient, but there are special causes which give a more misleading account of the whole have contributed to ingrain the warlike spirit transaction. England refused to admit that into the popular mind. For instance, there has the Alliance after the Congress of Vienna been during the past year or two a great deal meant anything more than the maintenance of of undiscriminating and intemperate laudation the territorial divisions then made. She denied

out.

by formal circular the right of interference in no right to set itself up as a protecting power the internal affairs of the States then carved over all the States of North, Central and South

She refused to enter into the Holy Alli- America. ance, and when, in pursuance of the policy of "Furthermore, the interpretation that the interference the Alliance traced out, the French Washington government now gives the Monroe entered Spain to put down the revolution there, doctrine does not at all agree with the text of Canning declared he would call the New the address of President Monroe, on December World into existence to redress the balance of 2, 1823, where he expressly states that the er: the Old' by acknowledging the independence isting colonies or dependencies of any European of the Spanish colonies then in revolt. But

Power shall not be interfered with. this famous saying was anticipated by Lord

“ Besides, the Monroe doctrine is not a dogma Castlereagh in his instructions to the Duke of of international law, but only a political proWellington when, going as a delegate to the gramme. The United States has interpreted it Congress, he said, “it was evident from the as it pleased — sometimes more and sometimes course which events have taken that their recog

less vigorously. I have merely to recall the nition of the revolted colonies as independent treaty regarding the Panama Canal; also its states was merely a question of time.' But

attitude in the Mexican question of 1863. Only Canning's action in this hemisphere was really in 1865 did the United States government at taken in furtherance of a European policy, and last find strength and occasion to remember was intended as

a counterstroke against the about the Monroe doctrine.
Holy Allies.
The view that it was due to a

The doctrine might become even prejudesire to get the Spanish-American commerce

dicial to the United States, for only the little away from Spain is original with Mr. Cassatt, South and Central American States would deas is also the view that the general principles rive benefit from it. It was indeed these States of the Holy Alliance were in harmony with the which, in 1826, following the lead of Peru, monarchical institutions and ideas of Great showed forthwith an intention of rendering efBritain.' It was because the contrary was true

fective the presidential declaration of December that Great Britain refused to enter into the

2, 1823 Alliance, although Castlereagh and Wellington

Calvos, in his international law, writes that would probably have liked to do so."

the republics of South America at once under

stood the advantages of associating themselves Professor Lammasch is to day the greatest

with the cause of the United States and of comauthority on International Law in Austria and bining in this respect in one exterior policy for in discussing the Monroe Doctrine he said:

the entire New World. ". In the first place, a word about that curious

“But the power that did not participate in motto. · America for Americans,' from which

the congress convoked by the government of Americans now deduce the conclusion that no

Peru at Panama was the United States; and European State can intervene in American

Mr. Adams who, in 1825, became President, affairs in general. This theory does not appear made personal efforts to weaken as much as to me to be sustainable from any point of view. possible the Monroe doctrine over the creation

“ It recalls a similar motto that of the of which, in his capacity as Secretary of State, Eastern Empire, in which all Europeans were

he had exercised as essential influence. He called collectively Franks, because France was

declared that it was not the duty of the United then, in the twelfth century, the principal States to see that the territory of other Ameripower of the west.

It goes without saying that can states remained in an unaltered condition, that circumstance would not give France the “The agreement among all the parties repre. slightest right to assert a protectorate over all sented at the meeting to the effect that each the Franks of the Levant.

will guard by its own means against the es“Such a case, however, would be just as tablishment of any future European colony valid as that of the United States. The fact within its borders may be found desirable. that it is now the custom to speak of the “I resume, then. The Monroe doctrine conUnited States collectively as 'America' gives it tradicts the principles of non-intervention if it

:

acts.

looks upon every intervention in every Ameri Schuyler requested the defendants to abandon can affair as an act against the United States. the making of the statue, but they denied his President Monroe has even declared that the right to prevent them. United States ought not to mix itself up in the The lower court found that the acts of deaffairs of existing European colonies.

fendants constituted an unlawful interference “It derives no advantage from doing so, but with the right of privacy, and that the relatives on the contrary incures serious prejudice, for of the deceased were specially injured by the on this very basis it might be rendered responsible by the European Powers, if any American Upon the trial the defendants showed that states failed to fulfil their obligations."

Mrs. Schuyler was a very charitable woman,

was a member of many private charitable asA curious case has been recently decided

sociations; that in 1852 she was one of the by the Court of Appeals, and is that of Philip founders of the School of Design for Women Schuyler against Ernest Curtis and the mem

in New York, and one of its managers until it bers of the Women's Fund Association. It is was adopted by the Cooper Institute; that some highly interesting as shedding light on the of the female defendants were members of the “right of privacy," and is as follows:

School of Design for Women and had frequently Schuyler brought this action to prevent the met Mrs. Schuyler and were on terms of intidefendants from making a statue or bust of his macy with her; that the “ Ladies' Art Associaaunt, the late Mrs. Mary M. Hamilton Schuy tion ” was founded about 1867, partly at the ler, in any form, and from causing it to be made suggestion of Mrs. Schuyler made to some of or exhibited at the World's Fair. The lower the defendants, who were members of the court granted the injunction and found that School of Design for Women; that the “Woman's Schuyler is the only son of George L. Schuyler Memorial Fund Association” was composed and of Eliza Hamilton Schuyler, who was a largely of members of the “Ladies' Art Assodaughter of the late James A. Hamilton and ciation,” and that Mrs. Schuyler was prominently grand-daughter of Major-General Alexander identified with the United States Sanitary ComHamilton.

mission during the late war; and also that she Mrs. Schuyler died in 1863, and the plaintiff's was one of the vice regents for the State of father, for his second wife, married Mary Morris New York of the Mount Vernon Association, Hamilton, a younger sister of his first wife. which was organized for the purpose of securThe second Mrs. Schuyler died in May, 1877, ing the preservation of the home of Washington. and her husband died in July, 1890, and her In deciding this case the Court of Appeals only brother died in December, 1889. The says in part: only immediate relatives now living of the

“ This action is of a nature somewhat unsecond Mrs. Schuyler are certain nephews and usual. Briefly described, it is founded upon nieces, an uncle and aunt, all of whom approved an alleged violation of what is termed the right of the commencement and maintenance of the of privacy. action.

'It may, perhaps, be somewhat difficult for The defendant's avowed object was the com the ordinary mind to perceive any reason for pletion of two sculptures to honor “Woman as the plaintiff's distress, arising out of this conthe Philanthropist " and "Woman as the Re-templated action by women of respectability former," to be placed on exhibition at the who are desirous of honoring the memory Columbian Exposition in 1893. They an woman whom they regarded in life as a friend nounced in May, 1891, that “as the typical and benefactor of their sex.

For the purpose philanthropist ” Mary M. Hamilton, who died we have in view it is unnecessary to wholly Mrs. G. L. Schuyler, had been chosen as the deny the existence of the right of privacy, to subject, and that they intended to place the which the plaintiff appeals as the foundation of statue on exhibition at the same time and place his cause of action. as a statue of Miss Susan B. Anthony, whom " In the present case the grounds of the they had chosen as the subject of the statue plaintiff's objection are not very many, and of the “Representative Reformer.”

have been stated in the complaint and by the

of a

plaintiff on the witness stand. They are would have, in our judgment, the least ground these :

of complaint that an action, confessedly meant 1. The persons concerned in getting up the to do honor to the memory of a noble woman, proposed statue were not friends of the plain- was proposed by those who in her lifetime had tiff's deceased aunt, and, as plaintiff alleged, not the honor of her personal acquaintance or did not know her.

friendship, but whose proposed action was ner2. They were proceeding with their plan ertheless the outgrowth of admiration of her without consulting with the plaintiff or other character as a friend and benefactor of the ser immediate members of the Schuyler-Hamilton of which she was herself so great an ornament, family, and without their consent to the mak “The second ground of objection, we think, ing of any statute.

is equally untenable. The fourth ground mäy 3. The circulars issued by or in behalf of properly be considered as a part of it. It is the defendants contained a statement that Mrs. true that these defendants have assumed to Schuyler was the founder of or the first woman take the preliminary steps leading to the makin the enterprise for securing the home of ing of the proposed statue without having con: Washington, and that this statement was inac- sulted with or obtained the consent of the curate, because a prominent woman in South plaintiff. The whole of the plaintiff's claim of Carolina was in fact such founder and justly the right of privacy in this case rests upon the entitled to the honor arising therefrom. This lack of this consent. mistake, it was asserted, has caused adverse “It is stated that Mrs. Schuyler was not in comment in the newspapers as to the attitude any sense a public character during her life, of the family of plaintiff in permitting such a and consequently had not surrendered to any claim to be made when they must have known extent whatever her own right of privacy. it was without foundation,

“ It is not a question of what right of privacy 4. It was disagreeable to the plaintiff, be- Mrs. Schuyler had in her lifetime. The plaintiff cause the making of such a statute would have does not represent that right. Whatever right been disagreeable and obnoxious to his aunt or privacy Mrs. Schuyler had died with her. were she living. She had, as plaintiff said, a Death deprives us all of rights in the legal great dislike to have her name brought into pub- sense of that term, and when Mrs. Schuyler lic notoriety of any kind, as she was a singu- died her own individual right to privacy, larly sensitive woman and of a very retiring na- whatever it may have been, expired at the same ture, anxious to keep her name from the public time. prints or newspapers.

“A woman like Mrs. Schuyler may very well 5. That plaintiff's aunt had not been person in her lifetime have been most strongly adverse ally acquainted with Susan B. Anthony, and he to any public notice, even if it were of a most was quite sure she had not sympathized with flattering nature, regarding her own works or or approved the position taken by Miss An- position. She may have been (and the evithony upon the question of the proper sphere dence tends most strongly to show that she was) of woman and her treatment by the law, and it of so modest and retiring a nature that any was disagreeable and annoying to have the publicity, during her life, would have been to memory of Mrs. Schuyler joined with princi- her most extremely disagreeable and obnoxious. ples of which she did not approve.

All these feelings died with her. "After taking all the objections into careful “It is therefore impossible to credit the existconsideration, we cannot say that we are in the

ence of any real mental injury or distress to a least degree impressed with their force. The surviving relative grounded upon the idea that first ground of objection, even if well founded the action proposed in honor of his ancestor in fact, is not of the slightest importance. would have been disagreeable to that ancestor Whether the defendants were friends or not of during his life. Mrs. Schuyler in her lifetime does not seem to “We cannot assent to the proposition that us to have any legitimate effect upon the ques one situated as the plaintif in this case can tion. No surviving relative, male or female, properly enjoin such action as the defendants

[ocr errors]
« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »