The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1895-12-24

u0ubS VI Am0ElC8. I06r0 IS 10 1nE0E"
national right without corresponding
duty"
Tue Chronicle describes Lord Sails
bury's dispatch as most temperate, and
refers to the Limitation to the Schom
burgk line as q concession that only a
strong State could have granted to a
weak one. It adds: Eve cannot
abandon settlers any than
| President Cleveland would his"
The Daily News says:
1.-THE Presidents communication is q
remarkable document, though it's con
sequences are not likely to be serious
Neither Mr.. Olney nor the President
seems to realize that the Monroe dec
tr1ne cannot be quoted as authoritative
In negotiations with a foreign power.
Both Of them are certainly as far as
possible from ~suspecting that the real
author of the doctrine was Canning not
Monroe5 Great Britain in 1823dWas
jealous of the Spanish enGrOachments
In South America, and induced Monroe
to protest against European aggression
on American soil.
"The seventy two years that had
since elapsed have entirely changed the
situation. The Monroe doctrine is now
purely of historical interest. There
can be no doubt that the theory enuncI-
ated in 1923 dealt with the acquisition
of fresh territory, and had nothing to
do with disputes regarding the bOun-
daries of territories already appro
priatcd.
The definition of the doctrine, how
ever, ts a matter for the Americans
themselves. 1t binds nobody else.
The Venezuelan difficulty must be con
sidered on it's own merits. This is what
Lord Salisbury has done in a mastery
dispatch. The ordinary American citi
zen are nothing for Venezuela, and
has no feeling against this country. He
might be very Jealous for the Monroe
doctrine when iGreally defended Ameri
can interests, but the idea of making
himself responsible for the concerns
Of every South American republic is
too absurd for him to regard it seriOusly.
1T is not correct to say that Lord
Salisbury has altogether rejected the
idea of arbitration. On the contrary,
he has partially accepted it
The Morning Post says:
President Cleveland has outdone
the Republican party in his efforts to
show dislike for this country, yet he
has not committed himself to anything.
The message does not make the slight
est attempts to grapple with Lord Sails
bury's argument that the United States
cannot find any excuse in the language
of the Monroe doctrine for their appear
anCe on the scene, or that, If they
could give the old Presidents words
any such extension, his declaration has
no authority. The international law
tribunal that President Cleveland asks
the Congress to set up can have no
more binding effect in this country
than would a decision by the Supreme
Court at Washington"
The Graphic says:
Lord Salisbury has written the
epitaph of the Monroe doctrine. Self
respecting Americans will not read
President Cleveland's message either
with pride or pleasure" ?
THE CORRESPONDENCE
In order that the reader may fully
comprehend the situation we append
some, or rather q gist of the CORES
pondence on the Venezuelan question,
which has been in progress since last
July.
Mr.. oLNEY's NOTE.
Mr.. Olney's note to MI. Bayard con
Icerning the threatening aspect of af-
fairs between Great Britain and Vene.
zuela is first in the correspondence. 1t
is dated July goth last, and deals with
the boundary question at great length.
Beginning at the very inception of
the dispute which has now assumed so
serious an aspect, Mr.. Olney carries
his argument of the American claim
for arbitration, based on the Monroe
doctrine, down to the present time,
and gives emphasis to his statements
by quoting the sentiments of President
Monroe in full, and notes that it's
pronouncement by the Monroe admin
istration at that particular time was
PROFESSIONALLY due to the inspiration
of Great Britain, who at once gave to
it an open and unqualift d adhesion,
which has never been Withdrawn"
Mr.. Olney gives in his note q firm
endorsement to the principle enunci
ated by Monroe. and defines Great
Britain's position in this frank and
umambiguous manner:
"She Great Brittany says to Vene-
zuela: You can get none of the de
batable land by force, because you are
not strong enough; you can get none
by treaty, because / will not agree,
and you a take your chance of get.
ting a portion by arbitration, only if
you first agree to abandon to me such
portions as | may Designate"
INDISPENSABLE ATTITUDE
Continuing, Mr.. Olney says it is not
perceived how such an attitude can be
defended, nor how it is r~econciliable
with that love of justice and fair play
so eminently characteristic of the En-
glish race, and holds that if such po-
sition be adhered to it should be re
garded as amounting in substance to
an invason and conquest of Venezuelan
territory.
In conclusion, Mr.. Olney says that
IN these circumstances the 6TfT Of the