_Dear Sir_:
I have just returned to my office from the house of Mr. Washburn, where
I had the honor to meet Madame de Lesseps,—an honor and pleasure wholly
unexpected to me.
I went to see Mr. Washburn for the purpose of conferring with him in
relation to yourself and the great International Canal through the
Isthmus of Panama.
Mr. Washburn was absent. But Mrs. Washburn very kindly invited me to
stay and lunch with them. As we had been in Congress twelve years
together, he in the House, and I in the Senate from Wisconsin, and as
our families were so well acquainted at Washington, I could not decline
her invitation, especially as it would give me such an opportunity to
make the acquaintance of your excellent wife.
But what I wanted to say to Mr. Washburn and have him join me in saying
to you, is thus: I am not satisfied with the Message of President Hayes
upon the subject of the Isthmus routes.
While I am, as an American citizen, prepared to stand by the Monroe
doctrine, so far as it opposes the _control_ of these routes by Great
Britain or any other power, I do not think the Monroe doctrine goes so
far as to assert that we as the great Republic of the New World propose
to take the control into our hands.
While we may be more interested in that route than any other nation, we
cannot assert for ourselves what we are unwilling to allow to other
nations,—the domination of the route, which, from its position on the
earth, of right belongs to all mankind.
So long as we assert the doctrine of President Monroe we stand upon the
defensive. We stand for the freedom of the seas. Our policy, our
traditions, our arms will maintain that.
But if we assert the doctrine of President Hayes, we leave the ground on
which Monroe stood and upon which our people would stand solid, even to
the point of war, and we place ourselves in antagonism to the very idea
which makes the Monroe Doctrine strong among our own people, and strong
throughout the world.
If we follow Mr. Hayes, instead of defending the freedom of the seas we
dominate the Isthmus ourselves, and lay our hands upon the commerce of
the World.
When this subject comes to be discussed, calmly (but I fear that cannot
be until the next President election is over), the sound sober thought
of our people will repudiate this new departure of Mr. Hayes, and will
sustain the Monroe Doctrine, in its true meaning, viz:
That the routes across the Isthmus, between North and South America,
shall not pass under the domination of any foreign power to levy tribute
upon our commerce nor upon the commerce of any other nation.
The Isthmus of Panama, the Isthmus of Suez, and the Bosphorus, ought to
be free channels of commerce to all nations in peace, and in war; and no
less in war than in peace. And the law of nations should provide that if
any nation shall attempt to close or blockade them in peace _or in war_,
that nation should be treated as having made war upon the commerce of
all other nations.
As I go to my home in Wisconsin this evening and shall not be able to
meet you, I beg to say that I hope you will not be discouraged in your
great work. The people of America will be in sympathy with you, upon the
basis that no control shall ever be permitted to any government, and
that its freedom shall be guaranteed by the civilized nations, both in
peace and in war.
With great respect,
I am very truly yours,
J. R. DOOLITTLE.