Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1895-12-25
PRESIDENT CLEVELAND'S MESSAGE.
THE QUESTION OF SETTLING THE
DAIRY DISPUTE BY ARBITRATION.
England REFUSES and Danger of war i
Threatened Between England and
the United states.

President Cleveland sent to Congress
the Venezuelan correspondence, &C
companied by the following special
and important message
In my annual message. addressed to
Congress on the Sd instant. l called
attention to the pending boundary
controversy between Great Britain
and the Republic of Venezuela, and
recited the substance of representa-
| ton made by this Government to her
Britannia Majesty's government, sug-
costing reasons why such dispute
| should be submitted to arbitration for
settlement, and inquiring whether it
| would be 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 en-
bodied in two communications ad-
dressed by the British Prime Minister
to Sir Julian Pauncefote, British Am
bassador at this capital. 1t will be
seen that one of these communications
is devoted exclusively to observations
| 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, that reasons justifying
an appeal to the doctrine enunciated
by President Monroe are generally
| inapplicable Ito the state of things in
| which we live at the present day." and
especially inapplicable to controver-
sy involving the boundary line between
Great Britain and Venezuela.
| Without attempting extended argu-
ment in reply 10 these positions, it may
not be amiss to suggest that the doc
trine upon which we stand is sound
and strong, because it's enforcement is
important to our peace and safety as a
nation, and is essential to the integrity
of our free institutions and the tran
quill maintenance of our distinctive
| form of government. 1t was intended
to apply to every stage of our national
life and cannot become obsolete while
our Republic endures. If the balance
of power is justly cahse for jealous
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
government.
| Assuming, therefore, that we may
probably insist upon this doctrine
| without regard to the Estate of things
in which we hve," or any changed con-
| ditions here or elsewhere, it is not ap-
| parent why it's application may not be
involved in the present controversy.
If the European power, by extension
of it's business, takes possession OF the
territory of one of our neighboring
Republics against it's 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 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 of international law
which sis founded on the general con-
sent of the nations" and that mo
statesman, however eminent, and no
5nation, however powerful, are compe-
tent to insert into the code of inter
|
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. Ii
may not have been admitted in sc
many words to the code of information.
al law, but since, in international
counsels every nation is entitled to the
rights belonging to it, if the enforce
ment of the Monroe doctrine is some
thing we can 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 Uuited Stated is sutton before
the high tribunal that administers
international law, the question to be
determined is whether or not we pre-.
sent claims which the justice of that
code of law can find to be right and
valid.
The Monroe doctrine finds it's recog-
milton in those principles of inter
national law which are based upon
the theory that every nation shall
have it's rights protected and it's just
claims enforced.
| OF course this government is entirely
confident that under the sanction of
this doctrine we have clear rights and
undoubted claims. Nor is this ignored
in the British reply. The Prime Min
lister, while not admitting that the
Monroe doctrine is applicable to pres
emit conditions, states: I'm declaring
that the United States would resist
any such enterprise, if it was contem-
plated, President Monroe adopted
policy which received the entire SYM
pathy of the English government of
that date"
He further declares: Though the
language of President Monroe is di-
rected to the attainment of objects
which most Englishmen would agree
to be salutary, it 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 ap-
parently entertained, that any dis
turbance of the existing territorial
distribution in that hemisphere by
any fresh acquisitions on the part of
any European State would be highly
inexpedient change"
In the belief that the doctrine for
WHICH we COuCOuu was CLEAR ana
definite, that it was founded upon
substantial considerations and involv-
ed our safety and welfare, that it was
fully applicable to our present con-
ditions and to the state of the wrold's
progress. and that it was directly re.
lated to the pending controversy, and
without any convictions as to the final
merits of the dispute, but anxious to
learn in satisfactory and conclusive
manner whether Great Britain sought,
under a claim of boundary, to extend
her possessions on this continent with
out right, or whether she merely
sought possession of territory fairly
included within her lines of owner
ship, this government proposed to the |
government of Great Britain resort
to arbitration as the proper means of
settling the question, to the end that
vexatious boundary dispute between
the two continents might be determin-
ed, and our exact standing and relation
in respect tothe controversy might be
made clear !