The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-12-18

WASHINGTON, Dec 17.-Following
q the message of President Cleveland
On the Venezuela dispute:
To Congress:
In my annual message addressed to
Congress on the 9rd inst, I called at
tention to the pending boundary con-
troversy between Great Britain and
the republic of Venezuela and recited
the substance of the representation
made by this government to her Brit
tanic majesty's government, suggest
ing the reason why such disputes
fJAould be submitted to arbitration for
tement, and inquiring whether it
Mould be so submitted.
The answer Of the British govern
ment which has been awaited has
since been received and together with
the dispatch to which it is a reply, is
hereto appended. Such reply is embod
fed in two communications addressed
by the British prime minister to Sir
Julian Pauncefote, the British ambas-
sador at this capital. 1t will be seen
that one OF the communications is de-
voted exclusively to observations upon
the Monroe doctrine and the claims
that in the present instance new
and strange eXtention and development
United States, and that the reasons OF
1ustifying an appeal to the doctrine
enunciate6 by President Monroe are
generally applicable Ito the state of
things in which we live at the present
day. and especially inapplicable to the
controversy, involving the boundary
line between Great Britain and Ven
ezuela.
Strong and Sound.
ments in reply to these positions, 1t
may not be arniss to suggest that the
doctrine upon which we stand is strong
and sound because its enforcement is
inportant to our peace and safety as
a nation and is essential to the lntegrl-
ty of our free institutions and the tran
ouil maintenance of our distinctive
form, of government. 1t was intended
10 apply to every stage OF our ndtloIidi
life and cannot become obsolete whlle
oIlr I,eDlblic endures. If the balance OF
mower is Justly a cause for jealous ahS-
ietv among the governments OF the ola
world and subject for our absolute
non-interference, none the less Is liIS
.ohse,.va aea of the Monroe doctrine Oh
1,i+o1 conce,-n to our people and their
government
Aee,n1i7g. therefore, that we may
,,-onerIv insist upon the doctrine with
ont regard to the state OF thlngs III
which we live" or any changed con-
55+fors here or elsewhere, 1t as not
ornorent why its application may not
he invoked in the present controversy
Il a European power, by extension OF
;ts boundaries takes possession OF the
,an,,biics against its will and in dero-
<seietion Of its rights, 1t is dlIllcult 10
= why, to that extent, such european
mower does not thereby attempt 10 eA.
tend its system of government 10 that
,oortior7 of this continent which is thus
faLen- This is the precise action which
PRESIDENT Monroe declared to be dan
.yero1s to our peace and safety, ana IL
San make no difference whether the
European system is EXTENDED by an
advance of frontier or otherwise.
Peculiar, il Not Exclusive
II is also suggested in the British re-
ntv that We should not seek TO apply
+ha Monroe doctrine to the penolnS us
pute, because 1t does not eHlpouy any
n,.;1cinle of international law which
ssis founded or the general consent of
nations" and that no statesman,
however eminent, and no nation, how
ever powerful, are competent TO insert
into the code of international law d
novel principle which was never recog-
Tized before and which has not since
been accepted by the government Oh
anv other country"
Practically, the principle Tor winner,
rve contend has a pecullar IL not eX-
nI1lsiye relation to the United States.
NJ may not have been admitted in so
-,,arv words to the code Of information
al Law. but since in international coun-
cils every nation is entitled TO the
rights belonging to it, if the enforce
15ent of the Monroe doctrine is some
ssstI1p we may justly claim, it Gas its
71llace in the code of international law
as certainly and as securely as If 1T
were specifically mentioned ana When
the United States is a suitor before the
nigh tribunal that administers inter-
rational law, the question to be de-
ternined is whether or not we present
CLAIMS which the justice of that code
of law can find to be right and valid.
The Monroe doctrine finds Its recog-
milton in those principles OF interna-
tional law which are based upon the
theory that every nation shall have its
rights protected and its just claims en-
forced
Clear Rfghss and UndOubted Claims.
Of course, this government is en-
tireiy confident that under the sanction
OF this doctrine we have clear rights
and undoubted claims Nor is this
3tnored in the British reply. The
prime minister, while not admitting
rhat the Monroe doctrine is not APP