Weekly independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 1887-1914, 1895-12-22
CLEyELAND,s VENEZUELAN MES
SAGE.
The MonrOe DOCTRINE Upheld.
a II o DOCUMENT.

AAAoAhAAhr y NAASN
ing boundary controversy between
Great Britain and the Republic of
Venezuela, aud recited in substance
the representation made by this gov
eminent to Her British Maiesty's
government. suggesting reasons why
such disputes should be submitted to
arbitration for settlement, and inquir.
ing whether it would be SO submitted.
The answer OF the British government
which was then awaited, has since
been received. and together with the
dispatch to which it is n reply, is
hearto appended
Such reply is embodied in two
communication addressed by the
British Prime Minister to Sir Julian
Pauncefote, British Ambassador at
this capital. 1t will be seen that one
Of these communications is devoted
exclusively to observations upon the
Monroe doctrine, and claims that in
TIC plGSSul iAStdhSc new dIh SbidlSS
extension and development OF this
doctrine is insisted upon by the
United States; that reasons iustifying
an appeal to the doctrine enunciated
by President Monroe are generally
inapplicable to the state OF things III
which we live at the present day. and
especially inapplicable to the contro.
versy involving the boundary line be.
tween Great Britain and Venezuela.
Without attempting extended argu.
ments 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 enforce.
ment is important to our peace and
safety rs a nation, and is essential to
the integrity OF our free institutions
and tranquil maintenance OF our dis.
tinctlve form OF government. 1t was
intended to apply TO every stage of
our national life and cannot become
obsolete while republic endures.
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.intcrfer-
ence, none the less is the observance
OF the Monroe Doctrine OF vital con-
Germ to our people and their Govern.
ment. Assuming therefore that we
may properly insist upon the doctrine
without regard to the state of things
i'll which we live or any changed con-
ditions here or elsewhere, it is pot ap.
parent why its application may not
be invoked in the present contro
versy.
IF a European power, by the
extension OF its boundaries takes pos.
session of territory of one of our
neighboring republics against it's will
and in derogation OF its rights, it Is
difficult to c why, to that extent,
such European power does not there
by attempt 10 extend its system Of
Government to that portion of this
continent which is thus taken. This
is the precise thing which President
Monroe declared to be dangerous to
our peace and safety and it car make
no difference whether the European
system is extended by an advance of
frontier or otherwise.
ut is also suggested that We should
not seek to apply the Monroe doctrine
to the pending dispute because it
does not embody any principle OF in
ternatioDal law which is founded on
the general consent Of nations and
that no statesman however eminent,
and no nation however powerful, arc
competent to insert into a code OF in.
ternational law a novel principle,
which was never recognized before
and which has not since been accept.
ed by the government OF any other
country.
Practically tho principle for which
we contend has a peculiar, il not cx.
elusive relation to tho United States.
1t may not have been admitted in so
many words TO the code OF intcrna.
tional law, but since in international
councils every nation is entitled to
tho rights belonging to it, il the en-.
forcement of the Monroe doctrine is
something we may iustly claim, it has
it's place in the code OF international
law az certainly and as securely rs IL
it were specifically mentioned and
when the United States is a sutton be.
fore u high tribunal, that administers
international law, the question to
be determined is whether or not We
present claims which tho justice OF
that code of law can find 10 {.
and valid.
4IIo Monroe doctrine finds its
recognition in those principles OF in
t~crnational law which are based upon
r"r-v nation shal
...u'a and it's just
claims enforced. or course, this GOV
ernment is entirely confident that I'M
der sanction OF this doctrine We have
clear rights and uhdoubtcd claims.
"Nor Is this ignored in tho British
rcDly, Tho Primo M~iniaIpry while
not admitting that the Monroe doc
trine is not applicable to Tho present
conditions, states: "In declaring tina,
The United States would resist IN,
such interference If 1t was contem.
platod,H President Monroe adopted
the policy which received the entire
sympathy of the English government
OF that date.
a1ic further declares: Though the
Iunuiuun ~ prnptInnI Mnnrnn 4, "A;