The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-12-18


 tmctiVe fonm of government,
 Tt was intended to apply to every stage of our national life and cannot become obsolete while our republic ondures If the balance of power Is justly a cause for jealous anxiety among the governments of the Old World, and a subject for our absolute non-interfer- ence, none the less Is an observance of the Monroe doctrine of vital con cern to our people and their govern ment,
 Assuming, therefore, that we may properly insist upon this doctrine with out regard to the state of things in which We live, or any charged condi- tions here or elsewhere, 1t is not appar- ent why it's application may not be in- voked in the present controversy.
 ALL ADVANCE OF EUROPEAN
 SYSTEM WRONG,
 'If European power, by an eXten- sion of it's boundaries, take5 possession of the territory of one of our neighbor- ing republics against it's will and in derogation of it's rights, it is difficult IO ESt "llSr lO llljl C-NlS llN, SllCl4 lI LII p- pean power does not hereby 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 danger ous to our peace and safety and it can make no difference whether the Euro pean system is extended by an advance of frontier or otherwise.
 ''Is is also suggested in the British reply that we should not seek to apply the Monroe doctrine to the pending dis pUte because it does not embody any principle of international law which is founded on the general consent of nations and that no statesman, how ever eminent, and no nation, however powerful, are competent to insert into the code of interhationa law a novel principle which was never recognized before, and which has not since been accepted by the government of any other country
 THE PRINCIPLE AT STAKE.
 Practically the principle for which we contend has peculiar, if not exclu-
  may not have been admitted in SO many words to the code of international law, but since in international counsels every nation is entitled to the rights belonging to 1t, if the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine is something we may justly claim it has it's place in the code of international law as certainly and as securely as if it were Specifically mentioned, and when the United States is euitor before the high tribunal that administers international law the uues- ton 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 it's recog- milton in the principles of international law, which are based upon the theory that every nation shall have it's rights protected and it's just claims enforced, LORD SALISBURY AND THE MON
 ROE DOCTRINE.
 "Of course, this government is entire y confident that under the sanction of this doctrine we have clear rights and undoubted claims. Nor is this ignored in the British reply. The prime minis ter, while not admitting that the Mon- roc doctrine is applicable to present conditions, states;
 Tn declaring that the United States would resist any such enterprise if it waa contemplated, President Monroe adopted policy which received the en- tire sympathy of the English govern | ment of that date
 He further declares: Though the language of President Monroe is direct cd to the attainment of objects which l most Englishmen would agree to be sal utary, it is impossible to admit that they have been inscribed by any ade- quata authority in the code of inter- national law
 Again he says: They (her majesty's government fully concur with the view which President Monroe apparently en- tertained, that any disturbance of the l existing territorial distribution in that hemisphere by any fresh acquisitions on the part of the European states would be higaly ineXpedient change: ''In the belief that the doctrine for which we contend was clear and defin- 1 ite that it was founded upon substan- tial considerations and involved our safety and welfare. that it was fully | applicable to our present conditions and to the state of the world s progress, and that it was directly related to the pend- l ing controversy, and without any con- Viction as to the final merits of the dis pute, but anxious to learn in a satis- factory and conclusive manner whether | Great Britain sought under a claim of boundary to extend her possessions on 1 this continent without right, or whether | she merely sought possession of terri | tory fairly included within her lines of ownership, this government proposed 1 to the government of Great Britain a resort to arbitration as the proper means of settling the question. to the end that a veXatiOus boundary dispute between the two contestants might b. determined and cur exact standing and relation in respect to the controyersy might be made clear,
 OUR PROPOSITION DECLINED. l Tt will be seen from the correspond. ence herewith submitted that this prop 1 ositiOn has been declined by the British | government, upon grounds which in tho 1 circumstances seem to me to be far from l satisfactory. It is deeply disappointing ! that such an appeal, actuated by the 1 most friendly feelings toward both n2. | 4