The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-12-18

Venezuela and her majesty's govern
ment in regard to the boundary which
separates their boundaries. The con-
tentions set forth by Mr. Olney in this
part of his dispatch are represented by
him as being an application OF the DO
htical maxims which are well known
in American discussion under the name
of the Monroe doctrine.
AS far as / am aware, this doctrine
has never been advanced on behalf Of
the United States in any written COM
munication directed to the government
of another nation. but II has been gen.
/ orally adopted and assumed as true by
many prominent writer's in the United
states. 1t Is said to have largely in
fuenced the government of that coun-
try in the conduct OF Its foreign af-
fairs. though Mr.. Clayton. who was
secretary OF state under President Tay-
lor. expressly stated that that admins
tration had in no way adopted II. But
during the period that has elapsed
since the message of President Mon
roe was delivered. In 1923. the doctrine
has undergone a very notable develop
ment. and the aspect which IL now
presents in the hands of Mr.. Olney diff
fers widely from its character when II
first issued from the pen OF its author.
Dangers against which President
Monroe thought II right to guard were
not as imaginary as they would seem
at the present day. The system OF
which he speaks. and which he so res
olutely deprecates the application to
the American continent. was the sys-
tenn then adopted by certain powerful
states on the continent OF Europe. of
combining TO prevent. by force of arms.
the adoption in other countries of polit-
ical institutions which they disliked.
and to uphold by external pressure
those which they approved. Various
portions of South America had recently
declared their independence. and that
independence had not been recognized
by the governmnts OF Spain and Por-
tugal. to which. with small exception.
the whole OF Central and South Amer
lea were nominally subject. II was not
an imaginary condition that he fore
saw, IL he feared that the same spirit
which had dictated the French expedi-
tion into Spain might inspire the more
powerful governments of Europe with
the idea OF imposing, by the force OF
European arms. upon the South Amer
ican communities the form of govern
ment and the political connection which
they had thrown of. In declaring that
tnt I nlltu Ctdttr ItHtrN ahg o0~H
enterprise. II contemplated. President
Monroe adopted a policy which receiv-
ed the entire sympathy of the English
government of that date.
THE dangers which were apprehend-
ed by President Monroe have no reia-
tion 10 the state OF things In which we
live at the present day. There Is no
danger OF any European state treating
any part of the American continent as
a NJ object for European colonization.
IL is ineligible that Mr.. olney should
invoke in defense OF the views on
which he Is now insisting, an authori-
~ which enjoys so high a popularity
with his fellow countrymen. Great
Britain Is imposing no system upon
Venezuela, and II not concerning her
self I'm any way with the nature OF the
political institutions under which the
venezuelans may perfer TO live. IL Is
a controversy with which the United
States have no apparent practical con-
Germ.
The disputed frontier of Venezuela
has nothing TO do with any OF the ques-
tions dealt with by President Monroe.
II Is not a question OF colonization by
an European power of any portion of
America. IL is simply the determine
ton of the frontier of the British pos
sessions which belonged to England
long before the republic OF Venezuela
came into existence. The government
of the United States does not say that
Great Britain or Venezuela is In the
right I'm the matters at issue. but they
lay down that the doctrine OF Presi-
dent Monroe. when he opposed the inn
position of European systems or the
renewal OF European colonization. con-
fers upon them the right of demanding
that, when a European power has
frontier difference with a South Ameri-
can community. the European power
shall consent to refer the controversy
TO arbitration; and Mr.. Olney states
that unless her majesty's government
accede to this demand. 1t win greatly
embarrass the future relations between
Great Britain and the United States
1T follows OF necessity that IL the
United States will not control the con-
duct OF these communities. neither can
IL undertake to protect them from the
consequences attaching to any miscon-
duct Of which they may be guilty to-
wards other nations. II they violate
I'm any way the rights of another state.
IL Is not alleged that the Monroe doc
tr1ne Will assure Nucul the dcSlStdntc VI
the United States in escaping from any
reparation which they may be bound
by international law to give. Mr.. OIL
ney expressly disclaims such inference
from the principles he lays down. But
the claim which he POUNDS upon them
is that. IL any independent American
state advances a demand for the terri
tory of which its neighbor claims TO be
the owner. and that neighbor Is the
colony OF a European state. the United
States have a right TO insist that the
European state shall submit TO arbi-
tration. l will not now enter into a
discussion of the merits OF this method
OF determination of International diff
ferences. Whether in any particular
case IL Is a suitable method OF pro-
cedure. is generally delicate and diff
ficult question. The only parties who
are competent 10 decide that question
are the two parties whose rival con-
tentiOns are In issue. The claim Of a