Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1895-12-20
MONROE DOCTRINE UPHELD.
A Patriotic Message of the President

A@SAN ASSAN SSSA ASAAN - - . - A@~30'
A Patriotic Message of the President.
President Cleveland on Tuesday sent to
Congress the following message:
70 the Congress In my annual message
addressed TO the Congress on the Sd instant
| called attention to the pending boundary
controversy between Great Britain and the
republic Of Venezuela, and recited the sub.
stance OF a representation made by this gov.
eminent TO her Britannia majestys govern
ment suggesting reasons why such dispute
should be submitted TO arbitration for set
tlement and inquiring whether it would be
so submitted.
The answer of the British government,
which was then awaited, has since been re-
| ceived, and together with the dispatch to
which il is a reply is hereto appended.
Such reply is.embodied in two communi
cations addressed by the British prime min
lister TO Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British
ambassador at this capital. 1t will be seen
that one OF these communications is devoted
exclusively to Observations upon the Mon
roe 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 the reasons JUST
lying an appeal TO the doctrine enunciated
by President Monroe are generally inappli-
cable ito the state of things in which we live
at the present day." and especially inapplica
Bile To controversy involving the boundary
line between Great Britain and Venezuela.
Without attempting extended argument
in reply to these positions, it may not be
amiss To suggest that the doctrine upon
which we stand is strong and sound because
its enforcement is important to our peace
and safety as u nation, and Is essential TO
the integrity Of our free institutions, and the
tranquil maintenance of our distinctive form
of government. 1t was intended to apply
To every stage of our national life, and can.
not become obsolete while our republic en-
dures. Ii the balance of power is justly a
cause for jealous anxiety among the govern
ments OF the 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 proper
ly insist upon this doctrine without regard to
1.-THE state OF things in which we live" or
any changed conditions here or elsewhere
1t is not apparent why Its application may
not be invoked in the present controversy.
II u European power, by an extension OF
| Its boundaries, takes possession of the terri
tory Of one OF our neighborlng republics
against it's will and in derogation of its rights,
1t 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 differ
ence whether the European system is extend
ed by an advance of frontier or otherwise.
II is also suggested in the British reply
that we should not seek TO apply the Mon
| roe doctrine to the pending dispute because
II does not embody any principle of interna-
tional law which "s founded on the general
consent Of nations" and that mo statesman,
however eminent, and no nation, however
powerful are competent TO insert iuto the
code of inter national law 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 il not exclusive, rela-
ton TO the United States. 1t may not have
been admitted in 80 many words to the code
| Of International law, but since in iuterna,
tional councils every nation is entitled to
the rights belonging to ii, if the enforcement
of the Monroe doctrine is something we may
justly claim, it has its place in the code OF
International law as certainly and as secure
| ly AS II IL were specifically mentioned, and
when the United States is sutton before the
high tribunal that administers international
law the question to be determined is whether
or not we present claims which the Justice
OF that code of law can find to be right and
valid.
| The Monroe doctrine finds its recognition
in those principles of International law
which are based upon the theory that every
nation shall have its rights protected and
| its Just claims enforced.
OF course, this government is entirely
confident that under the sanction OF the doc.
trine We have clear rights and undoubted
claims. Nor is this ignored in the British
reply. The prime minister, while not ad-
hitting that the Monroe doctrine is applica
Bile to present conditions, states "in declar
ing that the United States would resist any
such enterprise il it was contemplated Presi
dent Monroe adopted policy which re-
ceived the entire sympathy of the English
government OF that date" He further de,
clares, though the language of President
Monroe is directed to the attainment o. OBJ
jects which most English would agree to be
salutary, it is impossible TO admit that they
have been inscribed by Inadequate authority
in the code OF international law"
Again he says: "rhey (her majesty gov
ernmenO fully concur with the view which
President Monroe apparently entertained,
that any disturbance of the existing terrific
rial distribution in that hemisphere by any
fresh acquisition on the part of any Euro
pean state, would be highly inexpedient
change"
In the belief that the doctrine for which
we contend was clear and definite, that it
was founded upon substantial considerations
and involved our safety and welfare, that it
was fully applicable to our present condi-
tons and to the state OF the worlds pro-
gress, and that it was directly related to the
pending controversy, and without any con-
victions as TO the final merits OF the dispute
but anxious to learn in satisfactory and
conclusive manner whether Great Britain
sought, under claim of boundary, to extend
her possessions on this continent without
right, or whether she merely sought possess
ion Of territory fairly included within her
lines of ownership, 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 contest
ants might be determined and our exact stand
ing and relation in respect to the controver-
sy might be made clear.
Ii will be seen from the correspondence
herewith submitted that this proposition has
been declined by the British government,
upon grounds which, in the circumstances,
seem 10 me TO be far from satisfactory. II is
deeply disappointing that such IA appeal, ac-
tuated by the most friendly feelings toward
both nations directly concerned, addressed
to the sense of justice and to the magnanim-
ity of one of the great powers of the world
and touching its relations TO one COMPARE
lively weak and small, should have produced
no better results.
The course to be pursued by this govern
ment, in view of the present condition, does
not appear to admit of serious doubt. Having
labored faithfully for many years TO induce
Great Britain to submit this dispute to i'm
partial arbitration, and having been now
finally appraised Of her refusal to do So moth
inc remains but to accent the situation TO