The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-12-18
ENGLISH COW MENT
"The HOnroe Doctrine win Never Be Allowed
fO preyaii.'

to Prevail
LONDON, Dec. l7.-All the morning
papers tomorrow morning will devote more
or less of their editorial space to a discus
sion of President Cleveland's message on
the Venezu eian question and to the merits
OF mat question itself.
THE TELEGRAPH
The Daily Telegraph tLiberaD will puo-
lish an editorial Coniending that America
has no concern in the Venezuelan dispute.
The editorial goes on to say: I'm truth this
inversion of he Monroe doclrEic seems on
this side OF the wLter to he ire evaut. be-
cause there is no question of terrlt rial
greed or the imposition OF an FL
ropean system. 1t is absurd, bs-
Cause a statement of an American policy
can hardly claim to attain the rank OF
principle OI international law. by VIII
right does the Washing on government de-
mand that a bitraiiOn of this matter when
the very theory which guides the ir in.erfer-
euce has absolutely noeilins to do with the
points in dispute: VIII 1t nstiou has ever
agreed to the Monroe doctrine? How oft
Oh has the Washington government itself
vcntured to advance it?
I'VE say nothing the process OF twist
ing the lions tai generally resorted to at
times of electoral excitement. Yet it 1t be
true that all this Jealous support OF Nene-
zuela originated IN partisan intrigues there
is still less reason why we should submit to
what, from the British standpoin is a
wholly perverse and inadmissiDle claim"
THE GRAPHIC.
The Daily Graphic says in an editorial:
The epitaph of the Monroe doctrine has
been written in the Venezuela correspond
ence. Mr.; Cleveland's message is docu-
ment which self-respecting Americans
will not read with either pride or pleasure
1t only serves to illus rate another of the
inherent absu, dities of the Monroe doc
trine. President Cleveland does not pro-
pose to instruct Mr.. Bayard to demand his
passports. nor does he contemplate an in
vasion OF Canada or an expedition to
Denarara. He is struck by the awkward
fact that he must first asc ertain what there
is TO fight about.
Does President Cleveland seriously
think that we can admit the proposition
tina the frontiers of European colonies in
the Two Americas are to be held al the
good pleasure of committee of WASH
ington gentlemen. What would the
United States have said in 1S4S if, as an
American power, she had advanced the
claim, based on this principle, 20 protect
Mexico from wan,ouly aggressive war
by which President Cievelaud's predeces-
sors settled the Texas boundary dispute?
THE TIMES.
The Times says: 1t is impossible to dis
guise the gravity of the diff ,uities that
have arisen between Great Britain and the
United States. President Cleveland =
mes.a2e and it's reception by both sides of
the senate & YES additional importance to
the dispatches between Washington and
London. The details of the bou ldary dis
pute are insignificant in comparison with
the far reaching claims advanced in Mr.
Olney's dispatch and emphasized in presi-
dent Cteveland's message.
Convinced as we are that rupture be-
tween the two great Eng lish-speaking cop-
munities would be a calamity not only 10
themselves, but to the civilized world, we
are, nevertheless, driven to the conclusion
that the concessions this country is so inn
periOusly summoned to make are such as
no sclf-respecting nation, least of all one
ruling an empire that has its roots in every
quarter of the globe, could possibly sub
init to. The United States themselves
would never for a moment dream of
yielding to this kind of jictation. We are
of the same blood and shall not be- less
careful of our national honor.
We can hardly believe the course threat
ened by President Cleveland will be Sc
riously adopted by the American govern
ment, but II 80 it will be incumbent on us,
without entering upon any aggressive
measure, protect our imperial interests
and 20 stand up for our rights under inter-
national law.
The Times then proceeds to argue
that the Monroe doctrine has never
been recognized as International law
and quotes Lord Salisbury's admission
that any disturbance of the existing terri
torial d stribu ion in the western hemis-
phere by any European state would be
highly ,neXpedient, and then continues:
But the recognition of this eXpediency
does not cover the preposterous deductions
which Mr.. Olney's despatch advances, and
which Mr.. Cleveland makes the basis of
The most astounding proposal that has
perhaps ever been advanced by any gov
erntnent in times of peace since the days
of Napoleon.
We desire to speak with all proper re-
serve, but we can confidently predict that
Great Britain will not permit the preten-
sions put forward by President Cleveland.
Noconnission appointed by power which
is not party to the dispute will he
recognized by lis as having title of
any sort co pronounce upon boundary
question. 1t will receive no assistaucs
from European authorities. Its decision
will be nu and void from The outset, even
if its origin did not tain it with par
TALLY. Ne shall be very much astonis ned
If there is any disagreement am ing the
organs of public opinion i'll this country as
to the manner in which a claim should be
coifron Ell"
The Times contends further that Eng
land Is bound To resist the extended claim
Ot Molroeism and says:
"A power which has command of the
sea does not regard 5000 miles of inter-
vening ocean as seve ing il from its sub
jects."
THE STANDARD
The Standard, the Conservative organ,
in an editorial, says: This extraordinary
document will receive from English pub.
iicists more disp ts-ionate treatment Than
The decidedly prov cative nature of its
conteuts renders alt%rether easy. 1t was
pre- ,red by The Responsible head OF
state and will probably receive the formal
assent of congress. Englishmen must
therefore take 1t seriously and refrain
from speculations that would otherwise be
presidential election, of twisting the lions
tail
1.-The position President Cleveland as
su les is preposterous. No American citi-
zen would for u moment dream of admit
ting it's soundness in analogous case in
which the honor and interests of America
were concerned. There can be but one
answer. We decline to humiliate our
selves. and we refuse to accept the de-
clsion of Washington in matters alto
gether GU of it's jurisdiction
The remainder of the Standards article
is an echo of Lord Saisbury's argument,
and it concludes by saving:
Great Britain will reject the demand as
indignantly as congress would If America
were asked to sub nit her title to Alaska TO
the Judgment of iinoartiii npires."
----