Daily independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 188?-1915, 1895-12-18
CLEVELAND'S VENEZUELAN MES
SAGE.
The Monroe Doctrine Upheld.
A STRONG DOCUMENT.

uenC transmitted 10 Congress to-day
the following message:
@To Congress: In my annual mes
sage addressed to Congress on the Sd
instant, l called attention to the pend
ing boundary controversy between
Great Britain and the Republic of
Venezuela, and recited in substance
the representation made by this gov
eminent to Her British Majesty's
government, suggesting reasons why
such disputes should be submitted to
arbitration for settlement, and inquir-
ing whether it would be SO submitted.
The answer of the British government
which was then awaited, has since
been received, and together with the
dispatch to which it is a reply, is
hearto appended.
Such reply is embodied in two
communication addressed by the
British Prime Minister to Sir Julian
Pauncefote, British Ambassador at
this capital. 1t will be seen that n
of these communications is devoted
exclusively to observations upon the
Monroe doctrine, and claims that in
the present instance a new and strange
extension and development Of this
doctrine is insisted upon by the
United States; that reasons justifying
IN appeal to the doctrine enunciated
by President Monroe are generally
inapplicable to the state of things in
which we live at the present day. and
especially i~napplicable to the contro-
versy involving the boundary line be-
tween Great Britain and Venezuela.
Without attempting extended argu-
ments in reply to these positions, it
may not be amiss to suggest that the
doctrine upon which we stand is
strong and sound, because its enforce
ment Is important to our peace and
safety as a nation, and is essential to
the integrity of our free institutions
and tranquil maintenance of our dis
tinct1ve form Of government. It was
intended to apply to every stage of
our national life and cannot become
obsolete while our republic endures.
"1f 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 the observance
Of the Monroe Doctrine of vital con-
Germ to u people and their Govern
ment. Assuming therefore that we
may properly insist upon the doctrine
without regard to the state Of things
in which we live or any changed con.
ditions here or elsewhere, it is not ap.
parent why it's application may not
be invoked in the present contro,
versy.
"If a European power, by the
extension of it's boundaries takes pos
session Of territory of one of our
neighboring republics against it's viii
and in derogation of it's rights, it II
difficult to see why, to that extent
such European power does not there
by attempt to extend it's system o.
Government to that portion of thit
continent which is thus taken. This
Is the precise thing which Presiden'
Monroe declared to be dangerous tx
u peace and safety and it a make
no difference whether the European
system is extended by an advance o
frontier or otherwise.
at is also suggested that we should
not seek to apply the Monroe doctrine
to the pending dispute because i
does not embody any principle Of in
ternatiopal law which is founded OF
the general consent Of nations anC
that no statesman however eminent
and no nation however powerful, art
competent to insert into a code Of in
ternational law a novel principle
which Was never recognized before