The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1895-12-25
WAR, IF NECESSARY.
CLEVELAND TAKES HIGH, STRONG
GROUND IN THeVENEzUELA CASE.
England Won't Arbitrate--Au American
Commission Must Now Fix the Disputed
Line and if John Bull Steps Over it, He

Commission Must Now Fix the Disputed
Line and if John Bull Steps Over it. He
Must Fight.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1.-THE Presi,
dent sent to congress today the Vene.
zuelan correspondence, accompanied
by the following significant message
To the Congress:
In my annual message addressed tc
the congress on the 3rd instant, l
called attention to the pendi,,g boun-
dary controversy between Great Bri-
tain. and the republic of Venezuela,
and recited the substance of a repre-
sentat;on made ty this government to
her Britannia majesty's government
suggesting reasons why such disputes
snouid be submitted to arbitration for
settlement and iuquiring whether il
would BE- so subritJed The answer
of the British government, which was
then awaited, has since been received
and together with the dispatch to
which II is reply is hereto appended.
Such reply is embodied in two com
munications addressed by the British
urine minister to Sir Julian PauHce,
fote, the British ambassador al this
capital. 1t will be seen that oae OF
..hese communications is devoted ex-
ciuslveiy 10 observations upoI the
Monroe doctrine and clairns that IN
the prese at instance, new aid strange
extensions and development of this
doctrine is insisted on by the United
States, that the reasons justifyirg an
appeal to the doc.rine enurciated by
President MoImre a-e generally inap-
plicarle ito tx" state OF !hirgs IL
witch VIZ live IT tha preS ): day,
aad especially :nspplicaDle to a con
trovcrsy involving the boundary line
betwaeO Great Br;>,,in aud Vcuezuela.
Without attempting extended argu,
ment in reply TO those positions, i:
may not be amiss II suggest that the
doctrine upon which we stand is
strong and sound because it's enforce
ment is important to our peace and
safety as nation and is essential to
the integrity Of our free institutions
ard the tranquil maintenance of our
distinctive form of government. II
was intended to apply to every stage
of our national life and cannot be.
come obsolete while our republic en-
dures. If the balance of power is justly
a cause for jealous anxiety among the
governments of the Old World and a
subject for our absolute non interfer.
ence, none the less is an observance
of the Monroe doctrine Of vital con.
Germ to our people and their govern
ment. Assuming, therefore, that we
probably may insist upon this doc
trine without regard to the ''state OF
things in which we live" or any
changed conditions here or elsewhere,
it is not apparent why its application
may not be involved in the present
controversy If a European power by
an extension of its boundaries, takes
possession of the territory of one OF
our neighboring republics, against its
will and in derogation Of its rights, II
is difficult to see why, to that extent
such European power does not thereby
attempt 10 extend its system of gov
ernment to that portion of this cont
nent which is thu, taken. This is the
precise action which President Monroe
declared to be dangerous to oul
peace and safety" and it can make nc
difference whether the European sys
tenn is extended by an advance of from
tier or otherwise. 1t is also suggested
in the British reply that we should moi
seek to apply the Monroe doctrine tc
the pending dispute because It does
not eubody any principle OF interna
tional law. which lis found. d on the
general consent of nations, andjthat
no statesman, however eminent, nc
nation however powerful, are com
petent to inset into the code of inter
national 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 il not eXclu
Sive relation to the United States. II
may not have been admitted IN sc
so many words to the code OF lnterua
tioual law, but siuce IN international
councils every nation is entitled to the
rights belonging to it, if the enforce,
meat of the Monroe doctrine is some
thius we may justly claim, it has its
place in the code Of international law
as certainly and as securely as if ii
We're specifically mentioned, and when
th,. United States is a suitor before the
high tribunal that administers inter,
national law, the question t. be deter,
mined is whether or not we present
claims which the justice of that code
of law eau find to be right and valid.
The Monroe doctrine finds its recog'
milton in those principles of interna
tional law which are based upon the
theory that every nation shall have is
rights protected and its just claims en-,
forced
OF course this government is entire.
ly confident that under the sanction OF
his doctrine we have clear rights and
undoubted >!aims. Nor is this ignored
in the British reply. The prime min
iEier, while nol admitting that the
Monroe doctrine is applicable 10 pres
ent conditions, safes: /, declaring
that The United Stats wV',sl resent
such enterprise if it was contemplated,
Pre@ideiit Monroe adopted policy
Which received tie entire sympathy
of the English government of thai
date" He further declares: Though
the language of President Monroe IS
directed to the attainment of objects
which most Englishmep would agree
to be salutatory, 1t is impossible to ad-
nit that they have been inscribed by
any adequate authority in the code OF
international law" Again he says:
They Cher majesty's government
fully concur with the view which
President Monroe entertained that any
disturbance OF the existing territorial
distribution in that hemisphere by any
fresh acquisitions on the part Of any
European state would be highly ex'