The daily morning journal and courier., 1895-12-21
TnN MONR0N pOcrRINN.
Does Clerolnnd lndcrstand Il2

"ueId dIa4f an election Dluff, or does he labor under the impression that his ac- ton is warranted by the principles of international law and the interprata- ton which the Monroe doctrine has re- ceiNed in this country in the past?
 Certainly the Monroe doctrine is not the only element in the principles of law governing this controversy, 10 be taken into consideration. And we have very serious doubts as to its application in this case at all, Have pae repeated in- situations of faVoritism to Great Brit ain placed President Cleveland in po- sltion where he gIasps the first oppor- tunity, far fetched as the theories on which his opportunity is founded may be drawn, to make himself right in the eyes of the American people by giving the tail of the British lion tweak, even at the cost of involving Us in a struggle which would not be confined to the three countries in question, but would be almost certain to draw in seV- eral other nations who would be only too glad of a preteXt for going to war with England?
 Now, what is the Monroe doctrine? The true theory of the Monroe doctrine is that at the time it was promulgated all the territory in America was occu- pied, and there was, therefore, no room for colonization by any foreign state by reason of any claims of discovery or exploration. Any attempt by any for eiSn power to dispossess an established state or territory on American soil was to be regarded by the United States as in contraVention of the principles laid down in the Monroe doctrine and was to be resisted by the United States as an atfront to this nation, not perhaps So much from the danger which might result to the United States from the close proximity, as one writer has said of foreign colonies, but rather because the peace of the American continent demanded it.
 Now, who has made Grover Cleve- land a judge to say that this contro- yersy involves the violation of these principles at all? The boundary line between an independent state of South America anGl a British colony down on the northern coast of South America is in dispute. British Guiana, adjoln- ing Venezuela on the east, is inhabited by an intelligent class of settlers, who, under British rule, have made for themselves homes and have progressed as we'll as could have been expected from any colony under like circum- stances. On the other hand, the popu- lation of Venezuela is not to be com pared with that of the British colony in intelligence or progr5 ssive ability Looking a { the map we shall see that this boundary line for a distance of perhaps a hundred miles is straight running directly north and south, while below that to the Brazilian border it is broken and ill defined. running in gen eral southwes terly direction. It has been suggested that recent discoveries of gold in the OTinoco valley, the influx of British subjects form British Guiana and their desire to remain in their new homes still under British rule, has has tened on this dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela over the bound ary. It may be that Great Britain is trying torob Venezuela of territory that
  ing if this Were so. It might be pos sible, on the other hand, that the bound- ary claimed by Venezuela is not the boundary at all, but that the one laid down by England is the correct one. Is there any probability that English set tiers are any more rapa2ious for the newly discovered gold fields than the Venezuelan people are? The contro- Versy is not by a good deal over the settlement and establishment of for eign colony on American soil, which would concern the American nations, but is a dispute between two nations which concerns themselves. and tham- selves alone, over a boundary line.
 President Cleveland, as we believe, from a mistaken interpretation of the Monroe doctrine. has assumed to die tate to England what the boundary line of her colony shall be, has asked con- gress for an appropriation of $100OOO to send a commission down there to lay down this boundary, when he has not been asked to do anything of the kind. It is customary, in disputes of this na- ture, if the contesting nations so desire, to submit the matter to arbitration, in some instances a disinterested mon- arch, iii others each contestant select ing an arbiter, and these two q third. The United States has not been re- quested to act in the capacity of medi- ator, and so far from being placed in that position, President Cleveland is to- day @ dictator.
 The principle of international law governing this case, so far as it has yet progressed, is not the Monroe doc trine, but non-intervention. Washing ton, in his farewell address, laid down the doctrine that these United States should not interfere with the affairs of a. state of Europe without a just cause. The same doctrine has been applied and repeated by Jefferson and Adams and Madison and Fillmore and Monroe him self, Calhoun was eloquent on this doctrine, and Daniel Webster expressed himself forcibly upon it several times. If President Cleveland is now going to attempt to dictate to England her pol icy regarding her American colonies ii is a question if he will be able to main- tain his dignity for any great length of time England has a right to settle her own disputes in any manner she may see fit, and at any time she may see f5 without interference by the United States, just as long as she does not step on our toes and does not at Iii,