The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1895-12-21


aInhaS>ador at this capital 1t will be seen
that one Of these communications is dcyot-
ed exclusively to observations unou the
Monroe doctrine and claims that in the
present instance new ana strange cXtcu-
SION and development Of this doctrine is
insisted on 10y the United States; that the
reasons juStifying an appeal TO the doctrine
cnUnclatcd 10y President Monroe are gen
orally inappIicahIc ITO the state of things
in which we live at the present day" and
especially iHapplicabie to controversy in
NolyInG the boundary line between Great
Britain ana Venezuela
Without attempting extended arguments
In reply to these positions, il may not be
amtSS to suggest that the doctrine upon
which we stand iS strong and sound be-
cause its enforcement is important to our
peace and safety aS a nation and is essen
tlal TO the integrity of our free institutions
aud the tranquil maintenance of our dis
tlnctve form OF government. 1t was in
tended 70 apply to every stage Of our ma
bOndl life and cannot become obsolete
while our republic Cndurcs If the balance
or power is justly Il cause for jealous anX-
lety among the governments of the Old
world ana q subject for our absolute non
interference. none the less il an observance
Of the Monroe doctrine Of vital concern to
our people and their government
May Properly Insist on the Doctrine.
Assuming. therefore, that we may proper
20 the state Of things In which we live"
or any changed conditions here or else
where, II Is not apparent why its appiica-
ton may not be invoked in the present
controversy. If n European power, by an
extension Of ITS boundaries takes posses
sion Of the territory of one of our neigh
boring republics against its will and in
dcrogatloH of its rights, il is difficult to see
why. To that extent such European power
does not thereby attempt to extend its Sys-
TEN of government to that portion of this
continent which is thus taken. This is the
precise action which President Monroe de
clirrd to be dangerous to our peace and
safety" 1t can make no difference wheth-
er 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 Mon
roe doctrine to the pending dispute because
Il does NOT emb"dH any pTInripIe OF mteFn1,,
consent OF nations anl that no states
man. however eminent. and no nation. how
ever powerful is competpnt to insert into
the code of international law a novel prin-
ciplc which was never recognized before
aud which has not since been accepted ny
the government of any other country
Practically the principle for which we
contend has peculiar. If not exclusive. rcIa-
ton to the United states Ii may not have
been admitted in 50 many words to the code
Of international Law. but since in internal
tiOnal COunSelS every nation is entitled to
the rights belonging t0 it, if the enforce
mcut OF the Monroe doctrine il something
we may justly claim. il has its place In the
code Of International law as certainly and
lS securely as if il were specifically men
toned. and when the United States is 4
Sultor before tn" high tribunal that ad-
ministers international law, the question to
hc determined is whether or not w, pre-
sent claims which tho Justice of that code
of law can find to he right and valid
The Monroe doctrine nudS its recognition
In those principles OF international Jaw
which are based upon tn" theory that every
nation shall have its rights protected and
its Just claims enforced OF course this GOV
prHmeut is entirely confident thar under
The sanction Of this doctrine We have clear
rights and unidentified claims. Nor is this
ignored in the British reply The prime
minister. while not admitting TINT the Mon
roe doctriu" l. applcahlr to present con
ditiunS, states. IN declaring ihAf the MT
ed States would resist any such enterprise
il il was contemplated. President Monroe
aduptcd policy which received the entire
sympathy IF the English government of
that date.
re ihrtnrf ut'aFeS. Lhpu-t iHp IAN.
EhaEe q lFrstdttt H"',ior Z u'l',l." . :"
t nmt ,l5 n - br ya',tmrv II is
h,trt.',i h,t,,t,'fira - al,,7it tbat Tho h9,a hon
ir.i.ribad nv an,-. .gIeouate authority in fha
M a. = - -. - - - 80 i q, 80
..-I,h 49,, ,,,,ft,,.s ,,.,r,,,,,,T,tt f'rry .on
- .Ef-t Nv -, -! t;.b I,-osfla,, Nf,,,r,o
.n, ,,, ,,,, i'll tb-+ .1T 5isrurh
~ of Tho ayfSrin- frrrftnriar distribgfiou
~, +h,+ hnrrTS TSDb..ra hy any frpsb o,aTIfSi-
tio-,s Gn rho nYrr Of any Europcan state
,yorfl h, a bi,-bry fnryDeifcut change
~ tr bari.f n tba Jn.frfr, fnr which
a., .,,,,t,rl ,.as ,.f.3r ami drHDIte that il
y, .,,,3I -, t,1Iti,i ,,,rSi,irra.
WIS I""I'!," ,,-.If,,r..
tinuS alu ;,ir, , ~ ,,r.s.,,,f
,If,i,r,L ,'lJ !, no state of rha worlds
progress ana that il was directly related
to The nrudiug controversy. and without
my rauyirtinn rs to me final merits of
rhf. dfspute but anxious to learn in salts
flrrory and conclusive manner whether
Great Britain sought under q claim of
boundary TO extend her possessions on
this continent without right. or whether she
merely sought possession of territory fairy
iDrlrl,icd within her lines Of ownership ms
rnyrrnucut proposed to the government Of
Great Rritain 4 resort 10 arbitration rs
no Drnper means Of settling the question.
"a.
~ -, .'T Letz,on tho Two contestants might be
ffntermin"d and our exact standing and re-
f,rinr i'm respect 10 the controversy might
i,o a., w.. ,.,o5a 10 cIo5r