Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1895-12-27

4 continent as fit subject for European
| colonization. 1t Is intelligible that Mr.
Olney should invoke in defense of the
views on which he Is now insisting an
| authority which enjoys so high popular
| ity with his fellow countrymen.
Great Britain Is imposing no system
upon Venezuela and is not concerning her
| self in any way with the nature OF point
| ical institutions under which the Venezue-
lans may prefer to live. 1t is contro-
versy with which the United States have
| no apparent practical concern. The as
puted frontier of Venezuela has nothing
| to do with any of the questions dealt with
| by President Monroe. 1t is not question
| of colonization by an European power OF
| any portion of America. 1t Is simply the
| determination of the frontier of British
A., possessions, which belonged TO England
| long before the republic of Venezuela
came into existence. The government OF
| the United States does not say that Great
| Britain or Venezuela Is in the right in the
| matters at issue. But they lay down thai
| the doctrine of President Monroe when
| he opposed the imposition of European
| systems or the renewal of European COLO
nization confers upon them the right OF
| demanding that when European power
| has a frontier difference with a South
| American community, the European pow
| er shall consent to refer the controversy
|
unless her majesty's government accede
| to this demand it will greatly embarass<
the future relations between Great Britain
and the United States 1t follows of ne.
cessity that II the United States will not
control the conduct of these communities
neither can 1t undertake to protect them
from the consequences attaching to any
| misconduct of which they may be guilty
towards other nations. If they violate In
any way the rights of another state, II Is
l ~ trim w
assure them the assistance of the United
States in escaping from any reparation
| which they may be bound by information
al law to give. Mr.. Olney expressly dis
claims such inference from the principles
| he lays down.
"But the claim which he found upon
| them is that II any Independent American
state advances a demand for territory OF
| which its neghbor claims to be the owner
and that neighbor is the colony of a Eu-
ropean state. the Omitted States have
right to insist that the European state
, shall submit to arbitration.
, Il will not now enter into discussion
, of the merits of this method of terminal
, ing International differences. Whether
r | in any particular case 1t Is suitable
method of procedure Is generally a dell
cate and difficult question. The only par
ties who are competent to decide thai
question are the two parties whose rival
| COHtentlOHS are III iSSuc. HS Nihiiii " :"
S third nation. which is unaffected by the
n | controversy, to impose this particular pro
0 cedure on either of the two others can
e not be reasonably justified and has NO
+ foundation In the law of nations.
/ I'm the remarks which / have made,
+ have argued on the theory that the Mon
Y roe doctrine in itself is sound. l must not
4 however, be understood as expressing any
n acceptance of 1t on the part of her ma
4 jestys government. 1t must always be
e mentioned with respect on account OF the
distinguished statesman to whom 1t Is due
4 and the great nations who have adopted
e 1t. But International law is founded OF
o the general consent of nations, and M
d | statesman, however eminent, and no ma
e ton, however powerful, are competent t.
l. insert into the code of International law {
= novel principle which was never reoogniz
t. ed before and which has not since beer
d accepted by the government of any othe
/ country. Mr. Olney's principle. that Amer
IL lean questions are for American decision.
N even II received any countenance from tn
language of President Monroe. can no
be sustained by any reasoning drawn from
Id the law of nations. Though the languag
G. of President Monroe is directed to at
IS tainment of objects which Englishmei
lie would agree to be salutary. it Is impos
ID sible to admit that they have inscribe
C. by any authority In the code of interna
ie tional code and the danger which such ad
N mission would involve is sufficiently ex
II, hibited. both by the strange development
20 which the doctrine has received at Nj
" Olneys hands and the arguments fror
is which 1t is supported In the dispatch un
at | der reply"
Of I'VE are not prepared to admit that tn
r interests of the United States are Ell
,e tirely concerned in every frontier dis
a. pute which may arise between any tw
m states who possess dominion in the west
ed ern hemisphere, and still less can the
es accept the doctrine that the United State
m are entitled to the claim that the process
e. of arbitration shall be applied to any dc
at mand for the surrender of territory whic
re one of those states may make agains
RS another
nd II have commented in the above RI
he marks only upon the general aspect {
CHI Mr.. Olney's doctrines, apart from III
lis special considerations which attach
is the controversy between the United Kins
N dom and Venezuela in It's present phas
nd This controversy has undoubtedly bee
le- made more difficult by the inconsdera
IS. action of the Venezuelan government
breaking off relations with her majesty
government and its settlement has bee
correspondingiy delayed but her majesty
~ | government have not surrendered the hoI
that it will be adjusted by reasonab
81. arrangement at an early date.
Il request that you will read the SUI
of stance of the above dispatch to Mr. Olnt
I'm ana leave MN copy II he desires II.
tie, The correspondence closes with anoth
ed note from Salisbury to Julian Pauncefo
,te for delivery to Secretary Olney of Il
same date. 1t deals freely with the meri
'rd of the British claim to territory in di
icy | pute.