The Windham County reformer. (Battleboro, Vt.) 1876-1897, 1895-12-20
~iLIsBtEA's REPLY
He Refuses to Admit the validity OF IN,
Monroe Doctrine. or 10 Conscntto Any
Arbitration over What Has Already
Been Grabbed

! Been Grabbed.
| Lord Salisbury reply to Sccretar,
Olney is in two parts. the first devoted
10 the general question of the scope
and validity Of the Monroe doctrine
and the second to an argument of Eng
| lands side of the boundary question.
He denies that the doctrine has an,
force in international law, or that i,
was ever intended to cover such q
| question as the present.
( AS far as | am aware. he says,
lit has never been before advanced on
/ behalf of the United States in any
written communication addressed 10
! the government of another nation. but
I it has been generally adopted and as
sumed as true by many eminent
writer's and politicians in the United
States. 1t is said to have largely in
( fluenccd the government of that coun.
try in the conduct of its foreign
affairs though Mr.. Clayton. who was
Tayor, expressly stated that that adj
ADMINISTRATION had in no way adopted
it," II Olney is right. he argues. it
would mean practically a United
States protectorate over North and
a
United States responsible for their
conduct. When Olney says American
questions are for American decision. -
the necessary meaning Of these words
is that the union between Great Britain
and Canada. between Great Britain
and Jamaica and Trinidad between
Great Britain and British Honduras
or British Guiana are inexpedient
and unnatural " President Monroe
disclaims any such inference from his
doctrine.
The dangers which were apprehended
by President Monroe have no relation
TO the state of things in which We
live at the present day. There is no
danger of an holy alliance imposing
its system upon any portion of the
American continent, and there is no
danger of any European state treating
any part of the American continent as
a fit object for European colonization.
The British empire and the republic
of Venezuela are neighbors and they
have differed for some time past and
continue to differ as to the line by
which their dominions are separated.
II is q controversy with which the
United States have no apparent prac
teal concern. 1t is difficult, indeed,
to see how il can materially affect any
state or community outside those
primarily interested, except perhaps
other parts of her ma jesty's dominions, |
such as Trinidad. England, which |
approved of the Monroe doctrine when |
first enumerated. still concurs with the !
view which President Monroe apparent !
ly entertained, that any disturbance of
the existing territorial distribution in |
that hemisphere by any fresh acquisi- |
tons on the part of any European /
state would be highly inexpedient /
change. But they are not prepared TO |
admit that the recognition of that cx
pediency is clothed with the sanction |
which belongs to Il doctrine of inter
national Jaw.
In the second note Lord Salisbury /
Secretary Olney's first |
that the dispute dates back
TO 1914, and asserts that il did not be
gin until 1910. He attacks the Spanish
title to the lands AZ vague and i'll
and contends that to the
validity of the Dutch title under
which Great Britain now claims. there
exist the must authentic declarations.
As far back as 1853 Holland had pro
tested against Spanish incursions into
their settlements in the basin OF the
Cuini, and to this claim the Spanish
never attempted 10 reply.
Ii may reasonably be asked whether
Mr.. Olney would consent to refer t"
the arbitration of another power pre-
teutions raised by the government of
Mexico. raised on such a foundation,
to large tracts Of territory which had
ong been comprised in the federation.
He charges that Venezuela has re
1eatedIy violated tho treaty Of 1870,
)v the terms of which both govern
nents agreed to refrain from aggression
mon the territory in dispute. for