Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1895-12-18

ing itself with the phase of the matter
most agreeable to IT, MIR, 1ronsides OF
the British staff went to the capitol
today to witness the reading of the
message, but was not present during
the demonstration In the senate. BE-
yond the Salisbury letter the embassy
has received no communication on the
subject, so the case rests on the sub
mission OF the correspondence sub
mitted today.
Following is the substance of the
message as read to congress:
Washington, Dec. Ito the Con-
gress: In my annual message address
ed to congress on the predicament OF
the pending boundary controversy be-
tween Brazil and the Republic of Nere-
zuela recited the substance OF rep
resenta tlon made by this government
to her Britannia matesty's government
suggesting reasons why such dispute
should be- submitted to arbitration for
settlement and inquirtng whether II
would be so submitted. The answer
from the British government. which
has been long awaited. has since Leen
received, together with the reply, ind
III herewith appended. Such reply Is
embodied in two communications nd
dressed by the British prime minister
to Sir Julian Paunccfotc, the Sritlsh
ambassador at this capitol. II VIII
De seen tnhI one OI tlltft
lions is devoted exclusively to obssrVa-
lions upon the Monroe doctrine. and
presents n new and strange extension
OF the DEVELOPMENT of this doctrine rs
insisted on by the United states; tfnt
the reasons Justify an appeal 10 the
doctrine enuncated by President hon-
roe are denied implicably ito the state
CT things at which we live at the pres
emit" and especially lmplicable TO n
controversy involving the boundary
line between Great Britain and Nenc-
zuela. Without attempting EXTENDED
arguments in reply to these positions
| II may not be amiss to suggest thnt
the doctrine upon which we stand IL
strong and sound, because Its enforce
ment is important to our peace and
safety as nation 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 national life and cannot become
| obsolete while our republic endures.
| II 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 great con-
! Germ 10 our people and their govern
ment.
I
properly Insist upon this doctrine with
| out regard to the state OF things in
| which we live" or any changed condl-
| lions here or elsewhere. II is not appar-
ent why It's application may not be In
volsed In the present controversy.
The Principle Discussed.
It is also suggested In the British
reply that we should not seek to apply
| the Monroe doctrine TO the pending
dispute because IL does not embody
any principle OF international law,
| which is founded on the great con-
cert of nations" and mo statesman.
however eminent" and mo nation.
however powerful, are competent to
insert into the code OF International law
n novel principle, which was never
recognized, and which has not since
been accepted by the government OF
any country
Practically the principle which we
contend for is not peculiar to inter
national law. 1t may not be admitted
in so many words into the code OF
international law, but since, In inter
national councils every nation IL en-
titled to the rights belonging TO II, II
the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine
is something we may justly claim, ]!
has its place in the code OF information
law as certainly and securely as u II
was specially mentioned and when the
limited states IL n sultor before the
high tribunal that admires interna'
tional law the question to be deter.
mined is whether or not we presen'
claims which the Justice OF that code
of laws can be found to be right and
valid The Monroe doctrine finds it'
recognition in those principles of inter.
national laws based on the theory that
every nation shall have Its rights pro
tected md it's Just claims enforced.
OF course this government IN en-
tirely confident that under the sane
tion OF this doctrine we have cleai
rights and undoubted claims. nor u
this ignored In the British reply. Th'
urine minister, while not admitting
mat the Monroe doctrine Ii applicable
10 present conditions, states: In de
claring that the United States wouit
resist any such enterprise II IL wal
contemplated, President Monroe ndop
ted policy which received the enlir'
, sympathy OF the English government
~ that day" He further declares
, "Through the Language OF Presiden
: Monroe is directed TO the attainment o
/ objects which most Engllshmen woult
, agree to be salutatary II is ifnpossiDi'
TO admit that they have been inscribed
: by any international law In the coa'
, OF intetna tional law" Again he says
"They cher majesty's government
: fully concur with the view which Presi
: dent Monroe apparently ENTERTAINED
, that any disturbances of the ex!Htini
territorial distribution In that heniis
! phere BY any such acquisitions on IN
nart OF any European state would b.
an Impending charge"
Clear and Definite.
, In the doctrine for which we conten'
n was clear and definite that 1t wa
, founded upon Substantial eonsicera
,, tons and involved our safety and wei
, fare: that II was fully applicable I
our present conditions and TO the stat
t Of the worlds powers; and ra .na c wn
, troversy and without any contentio
: =. 10 the final merits OF the dispute
. but anxious 10 learn In . sausfActor