The Kinsley graphic. [volume] (Kinsley, Kan.) 1890-1940, 1895-12-20
President Cleveland Sends a
Communication to
Congress.
The Dispute Between Venezuela
and Great Britain Is
Reviewed.
The Observance Of the Monroe
Doctrine Of Vital Concern to
the United States
the President Suggests That Congress Ap.
point Commission to Determine
the True Divisional Line Be-
tween the DIsputants.

tween the Disputants.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17.-Soon after
both houses of congress met to-day.
the president sent. by Executive Clerk
Pruden, the expected message in re-
gard to the British Venezuelan compli.
cation. It was at once read in both
houses, as follows:
To the Congress:
In my annual message, addressed to the con.
gress on the Sd inst, I called attention to the
pending boundary controversy between Greai
Britain and the republic Of Venezuela, and re.
cited the substance Of q representation made
by this government to her Britannia majestyf
government suggesting reasons why such dis
pute should be submitted to arbitration FOL
settlement and inQuiring whether it would b.
SO submitted.
The answer Of the British government,whici
was then awaited, has since been received and
together with the dispatch to which 1t Is re-
ply. Is hereto appended.
Such reply is embodied in two communica-
tions addressed by the British prime minister
to Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British ambaS-
sador at this capital 1t will be seen that one
OF these communications is devoted ex-
clusively to observations upon the Monroe
doctrine and claims that in the present
instance new and strange extern
sion and development OF this doctrine is in
sisted on by the United States that the rea-
sons justifying an appeal to the doctrine enun-
ciated by President Monroe are generally In
applicable Ito the state of things in which we
live at the present day. and especially map
plicable to a controversy involving the bound
airy line between Great Britain and Venezuela ,
Without attempting extended arguments in
reply to these positions, it may not be amtss to
suggest that the doctrine upon which We stand
is strong and sound, because its enforcement
is important to our peace and safety as ma
ton 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 ma
uonal life and cannot become obsolete while
our republic endures If the balance of power
is justly a cause for jealous anxiety among the
governments Of the old world and 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 properly
Insist upon this doctrine without regard to
the 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 a Euro
pean power, by an extension Of its boundaries,
takes possession of the territory Of one Of our
neighboring republics against its 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 It's system
Of government to that portion Of this continent
which is thus taken. This is the precise &C
ton which President Monroe declared to be
dangerous to our peace and safety" and 1t
can make no difference whether the European
system Is extended by an advance Of frontier
or otherwise.
1t has been suggested in the British reply
that we should not seek to apply the Monroe
doctrine to the present dispute, because it
does not embody any principle of interna-
tional law which lis founded on the general
consent Of nations" aad that mo statesman,
however eminent. and no nation. how
ever powerful, are competent to insert
into the code Of international 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, re-
lation to the United States 1t may not have
been admitted in SO many words to the code Of
International law. but since, in in.
entitled to the rights belonging tc
II, II the enforcement Of the Monroe doc
trine is something we may justly claim 1t has
It's place in the code OF international law as GER
tainly and securely as it has II 1t were specif-
rally mentioned. and when the United States
Is O sutton before the high tribunal that adj
ministers international law the question to be
determined is whether or not we present
claims which the justice Of that code Of Law
ran find to be right and valid.
hose principles Of international law which IL
based upon the theory that every nation shall
have its rights protected and its just claims
enforced OF course this government is en-
tirely confident that under the sanction OF this
doctrine we have clear rights and undoubted
elnims- Nor is this ignored in the British reply.
The prime minister, while not admitting thai
The Monroe doctrine is applicable to present
conditions states: I'm declaring that the
United States would resist any such enter
or prQcidont
Monroe adopted q policy which received
the entire sympathy Of the English govern
ment OF that date" He further declares:
Though the language Of President Monroe
Is directed to the attainment Of objects
which most Englishmen would agree to be
salutary, 1t is impossible to admit that they
have been inscribed by any adequate authority
In the code of internotionaf law" Again he
says: "They (her majesty's government
finally concur with the view which Presiden'
Monroe apparently entertained that any dis
turbance Of the existing territorial diStribu.
ton in that hemisphere by any fresh acQuisi.
lions on the part of any European 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 an6
involved our safety and welfare. that 1t was
fully applicable to our present conditions ant
to the state of the worlds progress, and thai
It was directly related to the pending contro-
versy and without any conviction as to thu
nnal merits Of the dispute. but anxious L
learn in O satisfactory and conclusive man
ner whether Great Britain sought under
claim of boundary to extend her possession.
on this continent without right, whethe
she merely sought possession OF terri
tory fairly included within her lines o.
ownership, this government proposed {,
the government Of Great Britain a resort t,
arbitration as the proper means Of settling tn,
question, to the end that . vexatious boundar,
dispute between the two contestants might b,
determined and our exact standing and rela
made clear. It will be seen from the CORE
spondence herewith submitted that this prop
ositiou has been declined by the British gov
eminent upon grounds which, under the cir
pumstances, seem to me to be far from salts
factory. 1t is deeply disappointing that sucl
an appeal. actuated by the most friendly feel
tngs toward both nations directly concerned
addressed to the sense Of justice and TO tn
maguanimity of one OF the great powers Of tn
world and touching its relations to one com
parntively weak and small. should have pro-
duced 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 Havins
labored faithfully for many years to inducs
Great Britain to submit this dispute to impair
tial arbitration. and having been now finally
Hpprised of her refusal to do So. nothing re
z mains but to accept the situation. to recognise
al < s. 49, 8 ~. 5, 80