Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1895-12-20
ARBITRATB OR FIGHT.
Cleveland to England About
the Venezuela Dispute.
WAR IS EASILY POSSIBLE.

Controversy, Concludes That he
is Right, and Says There is no
Calamity Equal to Supine Sub
mission to Injustice.
President Cleveland submitted re-
markable message to congress last
Tuesday. 1t is in relation to the
boundary dispute between Venezuela
and Great Britain and sounds pretty
nearly like a declaration of war uuless
Great Britain shall agree to submit the
matter to arbitration. Here is the
message in full
TO the Congress: In my annual mes
sage addressed to the congress Oh the
Sd instant, 1 called attention to the
pending boundary controversy between
Great Britain and the republic of Ven
ezuela and recited the substance of a
representation made Ly this govern
ment to her Britannia majesty's gov
ernment, suggesting reasons why such
dispute should be submitted to arbitra-
ton for settlement and inquiring
whether it would be so submitted.
The answer of the British govern
ment, which was then awaited, has
since been received and, together with
the dispatch to which it is reply, is
hereto appended.
Such reply is embodied in two COM
munications addressed by the British
prime minister to Sir Julian Paunce-
fote, the British ambassador at this
capital. 1t will be seen that one OF
these communication is devoted ex-
clusively to observations upon the Mon
roe Doctrine, and claims that in the
present instance a new and strange
extension and development of this doc
trine is insisted on by the United
States that the reasons justifyiDg an
appeal to the doctrine enunciated by
President Monroe are generally inap-
plicable "to the state of things in which
we live at the present day." and es-
pecially inapplicable to controversy
involving the boundary line between
Great Britain and Venezuela.
Without attempting extended argu-
mept in reply to this position, it may
not be amiss to suggest that the doctrine
upon which we stand is strong and
sound because its enforcement is impor-
tant to our peace and safety as nation,
and is essential to the integrity of our
free institutions and the tranquil main
tenance of our distinctive form of
government. 1t was intended to apply
TO every stage of our national life and
cannot become obsolete while our re-
public endures. If the balance of
power is justly a cause for jealous
anxiety among the governments ofthe
old world and a subject for our absolute
non-interference, none the less is an
observance of the Monroe Doctrine of
vital concern to our people and their
government.
Assuming, therefore, that we may
properly insist upon this doctrine with
out regard to "the state of things in
which We live," or any change in the
conditions here or elsewhere, it is not
apparent why its application may not
be involved in the present controversy.
If European power, by an extern
sion of its boundaries, takes possession
of the territory of one of our neighbor-
ing 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 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
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.
1t is also suggested in the British
reply that we should not seek to apply
the Monroe Doctrine to the pending
dispute because it does not embody any
principle ofinternational law which "is
founded on the general consent of
nations" and that "no statesman how.
ever eminent" and no nation however
powerful, are compentent 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 exclu-
sive, relation to the United States. 1t
may not have been admitted in so
many words to the code of information
al law; but since in international law
counsels every nation is entitled to the
rights belonging to it, if the enforce.
ment of the Monroe Doctrine is some
thing we may justly claim, it has its
place in the code of international law
as certainly and as securely as if it
were specifically mentioned, and when
the United States is a suitor before the
high tribunal that administers interna-
tional law, the question to be deter
mined is whether or not we present
claims which the justice of that code
of law cannot 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 its