The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-12-18
EVEN IF WAR ENSUES.
Cleveland Demands That the Monroe
Doctrine Be Upheld.

WASHINGTON, ID. c., Dec. 1.-THE
President sent to Congress to-day the
Venezuelan correspondence, together with
a message on the subject. The reply of
the British Government consists of two
communications addressed by the British
Prime Minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote.
One is devoted to the Monroe doctrine and
claims that it is a strange extension of
this doctrine that is insisted on by the
United States. 1t says further that the
reasons justifving an appeal to the Monroe
doctrine are inapplicahle ''to the present
state of things"
The message is as follows:
''To the Congress of the United States {:
In my annual message addressed to Con-
gress on the Sd inst. I called attention to
The pending boundary controversy be-
tween Great Britain and the republic of
Venezuela, and recited the substance of
the representations made by thi3 Govern
ment to her Britannia Maiesty's Govern
ment, suggesting the reasons why such
disputes should be submitted to arbitra-
tion for settlement and inquiring whether
it would be so submitted.
''The answer of the British Government,
which was then awaited, has since been
received, and together with the dispatch
to which it is a reply is hereto appended.
Such reply is embodied in two commune
cations, addressed by the British Prime
Minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote, the
British ambassador at this capital. 1t
will be seen that one of these communica
tions is devoted exclusively to observa-
tons upon the Monroe doctrine, and
claims that in the present instance new
and strange extension and development
of this doctrine is insisted on by the
United States, and that the reasons iusti-
flying an appeal to the doctrine. as enun-
ciated by President Monroe, are generally
inapplicable to the late of things in which
we live at the present day. and especially
in their application to the controversy con-
-cerning the boundary line between Great
Britain and Venezuela.
without attempting extended argu-
ments in reply to these positions, 1t 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 and safety as a Nation, and is
essential to the integrity of our free insti-
tutions and the tranquil maintenance of
our distinctive form of government. 1t
was intended to apply TO every stage of
our National life, and cannot become obso-
lete while our Republic endures. If the
balance of power is Justly a cause for jeal-
Gus anxiety among the Governments of
the Old World and subject for our abso-
lutte non-interference, none the less is the
observance of the Monroe doctrine of vital
concern to our people and their Govern
ment.
Assuming, therefore, that we may
properly insist upon the doctrine without
regard to the state of things in which we
live or any changed conditions here or
elsewhere, it is not apparent why its ap-
pIication may not be invoked in the pres
ent controversy. If any European power;
by an extension of its boundaries, takes
possession OF the territory of one of our
neigh boring republics against its will, and
in derogation of It's rights, it is difficult to
see why, to that extent, such European
power does not thereby attempt to extend
lis system of government to that portion
of this continent which is thus taken.
This is the precise action which President
Monroe declared to be dangerous to our
peace and safety and it can make no
difference whether the European system
is extended by an advance of frontier or
otherwise.
at is also suggested in the British re-
ply that we should not seek to apply the
Monroe doctrine to the pending dispute,
because il does not embody any principle
of international law which is founded on
the general consent of nations and that
no statesman, however eminent, and no
nation, however powerful, is competent 10
insert into the code of international law
Practically the principle for which we
contend has peculiar, if not exclusive, re-
lation to the United States. 1t may not
have been admitted IN so many words TO
the code of international law, but since In
International councils every nation is en-
titled to the rights belonginging to 1t, IL
the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine is
something we may justly claim, it has its
place in the code of International law as
certainly and as securely as if it were spe-
cifcally mentioned. and when the United