The Ravalli Republican. [volume] (Stevensville, Mont.) 1894-1899, 1895-12-25

| the Monroe doctrine is something we
may justly claim, it has it.. place in
the code Of international law us Ger
tainly and us securely as if it were
specially mentioned, and where the
United States is a suitor before Il
high tribunal That administers inter
national law the question to be de-
tcrmincd is whether Or not VIC pre-
sent the claims which Justice Of that
code Of law can find to be right and
valid.
The Monroe doctrine finds it's re-
cognition in those principles Of inter
national law which arc based upon
the theory that every nation shall
have it's rights protected and it's Just
claims enforced OF course. this
government is entirely confident that
under the sanction Of this doctrine
we have clear rights and nndoubtcd
claims. Nor is this ignorcl in the
British reply. The prime minister,
while not admitting that the Monroe
doctrine is applicable to the present
conditions, states, in declaring that
the United States would resist any
such enterprise il it was contemplate
cd that President Monroe adopted
this policy Which received the entire
sympathy of the English government
of that date.
He further declares: although
the language OF President Monroe is
directed to the attainment Of obccts
which most Engli>llmcn would agree
to be Statutory, it is impossible to ad-
init THAT they have been inscribed by
an adequate authority in the code OF
international law Again he saws:
"'Ihcy (hcr majc,ty's governmcnD
fully concur with the view which
President Monroe apparently enter
tanned that any disturbance Of exist
ing territorial distribution in that
hemisphere by any fresh acquisitions
Oh the part Of any European state
would be Il highly incXpcdicnt
cllangc.''
In the belief that the doctrine for
which We contend was clear and def
mite, that it was founded upon
substantial considerations and i'll
volycd our safety and welfare, that it
was fully applicable to our present
conditions and to The state Of the
worlds progress, and that it was
rcctly related to the pending
controversy, and without any convc-
tiona to the final merits Of the dis
putc, but anxious to learn iu a salts
factory and conclusive manner Whc-
thcr Great Britain sought, under the
claim OF boundary, to extend her
possessions on this continent without
right, or whether she merely sought
possession Of territory facility incllld-
cd within her lines Of ownership this
government proposed to the govern
mcnt Of Great Britain to resort to
arbitration as the proper means of
settling the question:, to the end
that the vcXatious boundary dispute
between the contestants might be
made clear.
1t will be seen from the CORES
ponucncc herewith submitted that
this proposition has been declined by
the british government upon grounds
which. under the circumstances.
seem to me to be far from sutisfac-
tory. 1t is deeply disappointing that
such an appeal. actuatcd by the most
friendly feelings towards bot nations
directly concerned, addressed to Il
sense Of Justice and to the nlagnan-
unity Of one Of the great powers Of
tho word. and touching its relations
to one comparatively weak and small,
should have produced no better re-
suits.
The course to be pursued by this
government in vicW Of the present
condition does not appear to admit Of
strioui doubt. Having Iaborcd faith
fully for many years to induce Great
Britain to submit this dispute to i'm
partial arbitration, and having been
now finally appriscd Of her refusal to
do so, nothing remains but to accept
the situation, to recognize its plain
requirements and deal with it accord
llglE. Great BritAin's present pro-
position has never thus far been re-
gardcd as admissible BY Venezuela
though ANY uju>lilcnt Of the bound
airy which that country may deem
for her advantage and may enter into
Of her own free Will, cannot, Of
course. be objected to by the United
States. Assuming, however, that
the attitude Of Venezuela will re-
main unchanged, the dispute has
reached such Il stage as to make it
nav i,,t.,,b ,;nn,, IA. - ,pa.,