Iowa state bystander. [volume] (Des Moines, Iowa) 1894-1916, 1895-12-20

the United States to another government, al
though It has largely Influenced American
foreign relations Lord Salisbury says tina,
this doctrine has undergone notable de-
velopment" since It's enunciation by Presi-
dent Monroe. which had originally received
the entire sympathy OF the English govern
ment. Hut the dangers apprehended by Pres
ident Monroe, lord Salisbury says have no
relation to the conditions Of the present day,
when there is no danger OF holy alliance
or OF attempts at European colonization OF
America Great Britain is imposing no ''sys-
tenn Upon Venezuela, nor concerning her
self with Venezuelan political institutions.
The dispute over boundary has nothing
to do with any OF the Questions dealt with by
Monroe. The latter did not claim for the
United States the "hovel prerogativc" OF
setting frontier difference of this kind, nor
did he seek to establish a protectorate over
Mexico or the Central American states So,
If the United States will hot control the con-
duet OF these communities It cannot under
take to protect them from the consequences
attaching to their misconduct. Arbitration
is hot free from defects. and the claim Of
third hatioh to impose 1t on two interested
nations cah6t be reasonably Justified, and has
no foundation in the law OF nations
Declines to Accept Monroe Doctrine.
Lord Salisbury expressly declines to be
understood as accepting the Monroe doc
tfihe. International law being founded
ON the general consent Of nations no
statesman and n6 nation however, power
ful, cat inject d novel principle not ac-
ceptable to ahy bther government, and
Secretary Olneys principle that Amer
lean Questions are for American decision
(unsustaified by Mohrbel' cannot be sus-
tanned by International law. The United
states cannot affirm that its interests are
CONCERNED ia American states because
they are American, no more than If they
were iii japan Or China, Mohroe's lam
guage was never admitted to be inter-
national law, and the danger of such adj
mission is shown by the Strange develop
ment" which the doctrine has received at
Secretary Olney's hands.
fair inference, from Mr.. Olney's ar
Eumefts, Lord Salisbury says. is that the
union between Great Britain and her
colonies in America is .inexpedient and
unnatural" something. disclaimed by
Monroe and emphatically denied by her
majcsty's government and the American
people subject to the crown.
Concurring in Monroe's views that a dis
tnrbance of territorial distribution in the
western hemisphere would be inexpedient,
1t does not admit this to be international
law and cannot accept the doctrine that
the United states is entitled to demand ar
btration of territorial disputes between
states.
In conclusion, Lord Salisbury says that
he hopes that the difficulty made more
difficult by Venezuela's inconsiderate ac-
ton IN breaking diplomatic relations, will
he adjusted by d reasonable arrangement
at an early date
Declines to Arbitratc.
Lord Salisburys second note deals en-
tirely with the boundary dispute on its
merits. beginning with the statement that
Great Britain does not recognize that any
other country has material interest in
the controversy, get makes the state
ment in this fashion because. owing to the
rupture of diplomatic relations. 1t is not
possible to communicate it to
the Venezuelan government Lord Sails
bury asserts that SECRETARY OIney, acting
on an eX-parte presentation of the case
by Venezuela, has fallen into much mis-
apprehension. He enters into an elaborate
history Of the British claim, founded on
the Dutch cessibn, tells how the cele-
brated Schbmburg line was run. of many
concessions offered by Great Britain to
Venezuela to reach an arrangement, and
suggests that the Venezuelan insistence
upon the arbitration of the whole terri
tory would be paralleled by a refusal of
Great Britain to arbitrdte tie Alaskan
boundary line; unless half of Alaska were
I hrntur, iflf1 a rhIt rd} inn gs2.