Custer weekly chronicle. [volume] (Custer City, S.D.) 1890-1931, 1895-12-28
the case at issue and was followed on

the case at issue and was followed on
the same day by another note discuss
ing the boundary dispute per Sc. Al
the outset Lord Salisbury states tina
SO far as he is aware, the Monroe doc
trine has never been before advance
on behalf OF the United States in am
written communication addressed to the
government Of another nation. He adds
with thinly covered irony, that st is
ineligible that Mr.. Olney should invoke
in defense of the views on which he is
now insisting, an authority (Monroe)
which enjoys so high a popularity with
mis- w countryrnen."
THE dispute between Great Britain
and Venezuela" AYERS Lord Salisbury,
lis a controversy with which the United
States ave no apparent practical on.
germ
Continuing in short, pithy sentences,
he says 1t is difficult. indeed, to see how
the question i'm controversy can mater.
tally affect any state or community out,
side of those primarily interested; that
the disputed frontier of Venezuela has
nothing to do with any Of the questions
dealt with by President Monroe: that
1t is not a question Of the colonization
by any European power OF any portion
Of America nor of the imposition upon
the communities of South America OF
any system of government devised in
Europe. 1T u.s." he says simply the de-
termination of the frontier OF a British
possession which belonged to the throne
OF England long before the republic of
Venezuela came into existence"
As he proceeded in the discussion the
language of Lord Salisbury becomes
tart. lie argues in theory that the Mon
roe doctrine in itself is sound, but dis
claims any intention of being under
stood as expressing any acceptance Of 1t
on the part of her majesty's govern
ment. He quotes Mr.. Olney as saying:
THAT distance and 5000 miles Of inter-
vening ocean make any political union
between a European n an American
state unnatural and ine~xpedient Will
hardly be denied" and adds that 1.-THE
necessary meaning of these words is
that the union between Great Britain
and Canada; between Great Britain and
Jamaica and Trinidad; between Great
Britain and British Honduras or Brit
ish Guiana, are "ineXpedient and I'M
natural. President Monroe says his
l%ordship, "disclaims any such inference
from his doctrine; but in this, as in other
respects, Mr.. Olney develops 1t. He
lays down. says Lord Salisbury, that
the i~nexpedient and unnatural charac-
ter Of the union between a European
and an American state is so obvious
tina ii will hardly be denied. Her maj
rsty's government are prepared m
p~hatically to deny 1t on behalf OF both
the British and American people who
are subject to her crown. They main
tain that the union between Great Brit
ain and her territories in the western
hemisphere Is both natural and eXpedi-
INT. But they are not prepared to ad-
nit tina the recognition of that eXpe-
iiency is clothed with the sanction
which belongs TO adoption of interna-
.ional law. They are not prepared to
admit that the interests of the United
States are necessarily concerned in
very frontier dispute which may arise
between any two of the states who pos
Tess dominion in the western herii.
tphere; and still less can they accept the
doctrine th@t the United States are en-
titled to claim that the process of arbi-
lration shall be applied to any demand
for the surrender of territory which one
Of those states ma make against an
other"
Lord Salisbury concluded with the
statement that her majesty's govern
ment have not surrendered the hope
that the controversy between them
selves and Venezuela will be adjusted
by reasonable arrangement at an early
late.
The second note of November 26, is
wholly devoted TO a discussion Of the
boundary dispute exclusive of its rela-
ion to the Monroe doctrine.