The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-11-07

| \ JyNGOIsT BEGs TIE QUESTION.
| We print elsewhere a calm and con-
sentative statement from the LONDON
| Times Of the English case against Eene-
\ zuela. as the same is involved In the
| uItimaturn that Great Britain has sent 10
| that country. We cannot say there Is
anything new in this statement OF the
| case 10 readers of The Times. The Times
| has already stated it's main features but
| # js q matter Of interest TO have this re-
| liable statement of the English side OF
| the case from an authority that always
| makes sure IL is right before making an
| important announcement of this soi'.
| we cannot see how the most advanced
| Jlnroist can censure Great Britain Tor
| calling Venezuela to account for the as
| saut made upon England's dignity ana
| authority. whether we should ever set
| the Monroe doctrine into operation
| against Great Britain. or whether We
! should not. we certainly would never
undertake to shield one Of the South
American States from the results OF rs
| conduct when It had deliberately re-
sorted to force as the forum in which II
They who live by the sword may expect
10 die by the sword, and If Venezuela
proposes TO make war upon Great Britain
while the questions pending between them
are still sub judice. she must take care
of herself and cxonerate her neighoors
from all obligation of any sort to look
into her affairs and see what can be done
for her This seems TO be so obviously
an elementary principle OF natural Jusuoe
that one might expect 1t 10 so upon It's
bare statement.
That pre-eminent Jingoist, the New
York Tribune. is not satisfied with this
view OF the case. however. In preced-
ing article, OF which we have already
stated the substance. the London Times
argued the boundary question as related
TO the Monroe doctrine thus: IL SAID
that England acquired British Guiana by
conquest from the Dutch in 1873. and ac-
auired thereby all of the Dutch rights
that the Dutch had been claiming for
many years prior thereto against Nene-
zuela the whole OF the territory now
claimed by Great Britain; that the case
is TO be looked a now, therefore, exactly
ing the whole of that territory during
the whole time that the Dutch have
claimed it: that the Monroe doctrine aims
at preventing foreign powers setting up
some new government in South America,
but does not concern itself with govern
ments already there when that doctrine
was announced in 1899. and that as the
Dutch and English together had been
claiming all the territory now claimed
by England for many years prior 10 1873.
the Monroe doctrine plainly was not in
tended TO apply to Venezuelas contro-
versy over the boundary with Great Bri-
tain.
The New York Tribune replies 10 this
case by undertaking to argue Nenezuela's
side Of the case in her controversy with
Great Britain. II endeavors to show that
Venezuela is right and Great Britain
wrong in respect TO the boundary lines
Of the two countries, and as the seizure
by Venezuelans OF British officers was
within the territory claimed by Venezuela,
on the argument presented by the Tri-
bune. therefore. IT argues. the Monroe
doctrine presents itself as bar TO Great
Britain demanding reparation from Nene-
zuela for her attack.
This is so plainly a petitio princpii-a
begging Of the question-that we are sur
prised at a leading Jingoist even resorting
TO IT, The Tribune wholly ignores the
case made by the London Times. Its con-
tention is that the Monroe doctrine was
not intended to apply to a case where a
foreign country was actually claiming
territory when that doctrine was an
nounced. and the Tribune replies that
the foreign country will be unable to
sustain its claim when IL comes before
the trial court. The Tribune. therefore. is
talking of one thing. the London Times Of
another
The Times has frequently said that the
Monroe doctrine is obsolete. There may
have been virtue in it when it was an
nounced, but conditions have so changed
that it would simply make us absurd to
present IL now as the basis Of action by
this country in the end of the nineteenth
century
But whether IL should ever be invoked
or not, it is perfectly plain that it should
not be invoked in the present controversy.
The case presented by the London Times
is a perfectly plain one. IL was not in
tended by Mr.. Monroe TO direct his doc
trine at any such conditions, and IL is
will prevail with our rulers and that we
shall hear no more about that doctrine in
this connection.