The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-12-18
A WILLFUL AGGRESSION
So Cleveland DesignaiGs England's Propo.
sItion to EnGrOaCh on Venezuela.
VIGOROUS AND SIGNIFICANT LANGUAGE.
England Declines Arbitration Upon
Host Unsatisfactory GrounIs-DIs-
appointing shnt Our Appeal Pro-
duccd No Better NcsuIt-Sugge ests u
Commission 10 Define True Line.

Washington, Dec. 1.-THE President
sent TO Congress to-day the Venezue-
IAN correspondence, accompanied by the
following significant message
To the ConSress--In my annual mes
sage addressed to the Congress on the
Sd instant, called attention to the
pending boundary controversy between
Great Britain and the RcpuhlLc of Nene-
zuela, and recltcd the substance OF n
representation made by this Govern
mcnt to hea' Britannia Majestys Gov
ernment. suggesting reasons why such
dispute should be submitted to arhitra-
t on FOR sett emcnt, and inQuirns whe h :.
- II wouIu Ls 50 submitted.
The answer of the British Government
which was then awaited has since
been received, and together with II dis
patch. to which is n reply. Is hereto ap-
pended. Such reply is embodied in the
two communications addressed by the
British Prime Miniater to Sir Julian
Paunceforte, the British Ambassador ut
this Capital.
1t will be seen that one of these COM
municatlons is devoted exclusively to
observations upon the Monroe doctiinc.
and claims that in the present instance
new and strange extension and de,
velopment of this doctrine is insisted on
by the United States: that reasons JUS
trying an appeal To the doctrine cnun.
ciated by President Monroe are gene
rally inapplicablc TO the state of things
and especially inapplicablc to u con-
uoversy involving the boundary line
between Great Britain and Venezuela.
Without attempting an extended ar
Sument In reply to these positions il
may not be amiSS TO suggest that the
doctrine. upon which we stand Is strong
and sound. because its enforcement is
important to our peace ana safety as
nation. and is essential to the integrity
Of our free institutions and the tranquil
viynf fnI sf .l ttr-z
Of Government. 1t was intended to
apply to every stage OF our national life,
and cannot become obsolete While our
republic endurcss. II the balance of
power Is justly u cause for jealous an
XietyN among the Governments of the
old world. and n subject for our nbso-
lutte non-interfcrcnce. none the less is an
observance OF the Monroe doctrine of
vital concern 10 our people and their
Government.
badly insist upon this doctrine with
out regard to the state of things in
which we live" or any changed condi-
tons here or elsewhere, it is not appar-
eat why its application may not be in
vokcd I'm the present controversy.
If q European power, by extension of
its boundaries, takes possession of the
territory of one of our nciEhboring re-
publicS against its will and In deroga
tton of Its rights. 1t is difficult to see
power does not thereby attempt to ex-
tend its system Of Government to that
portion of this Continent which is thus
taken? This is the precise action which
President Monroe declared to be dan
Ecrous to our peace and safety" and
it can make, no difference whether the
European system is extended by an ad-
vance of frontier or otherwise.
1t is also suggested in the British reply
that we should not seek to apply the
y a.
because II does not GmDody any princi-
pie of international law which "is found.
ed on the general consent OF nations"
ncnt, and no nation. however peace
ncnt. and not nation, however peace
ful. is competent TO insert into the code
of international law a novel principle
which was never recognized before, and
which has not since been accepted by
the Government OF any other country"
Practically the principle for which we
contend has peculiar if not exclusive
relation to the United States. 1t may
not have been admitted in so many
words 20 the code of International law,
but since in International counsels every
nation is entitled to the riEhtS; belong,
ing to II. If the enforcement of the Mon
roe doctrine is something we may justly
claim il has its place in the code of
international law as certainly and as
securely as if it We're specifically men
toned. and when the United States is a
suitor before the high tribunal that ad-
ministers International law, the ques-
ton to be determined is whether or not
we present claims which the justice of
that code Of law can find to be right
and valid. The Monroe doctrine finds
its recognition in those principles OF in
ternational law which are based upon
the theory that every nation shall have
its rights protected and it's just claims
enforced -
OF course this Government is entire
ly confident that under the sanction of
this doctrine we have clear rights and
undoubtcd claims. nor is this ignored in
the British reply. The Prime Minister,
while not admitting that the Monroe
doctrine is applicable to present condi-
tiOnS. states: in declaring that the
United States; would resist any such en-.
terprise If II was contemplated, Presi-
dent Monroe adopted a policy which
received the entire sympathy of the
English Government of that date"
He further declares, though the Ian
guage OF President Monroe is directed
to the'attainmcnt of objects which most
Englishmcn would agree to he saIutary,
il Is impossible TO admit that they have
been inscribed by any adequate authori-
ty in the code Of International law"
Again he says: They Uicr Majesty's
GovcrnmcnD. fully concur with the view
which President Monroe apparently en-
tertained that any disturbance of ex-
hemisphere by any fresh acquisitions on
the part of an European State would be
n highly inexpedient change"