The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-12-18

this country and Great Br1taln--lt Is his
wish TO be made acquainted with the fact
at such early date as will enable him to lay
the whole subject-matter before Congress
in his next annual message"
Lord Salisbury's answer to Mr.. Olney's
note is addressed to Sir Julian Pauncefote,
the British ambassador at Washington,
and is in two installments, both under
date of November 26 last. The first note
deals with the enunciation of principles
laid down by Mr.. Olnev on the Monroe
doctrine, while the second merely dis
cusses the boundary question between
Great Britain and Venezuela. The first
note follows in part:
Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian Paunce-
tote:
Foreign Office, November 26, 1895. Sir:
On the 18th Of August transmitted to Lord
Cough copy of the dispatch from
Mr.. Olney which Mr.. Bayard had left
with me that day and of which he had
read portions to me. l informed him at
the time that it could not be answered
until it had been carefully considered by
the law officers of the crown. / have
therefore deferred replying to it until after
the recess.
1.-THE contentious set forth by Mr.. Olney
in the latter part of his dispatch are repre-
sented by him as being an application of
the political maxims which are we'll
known in American discussion under the
name of the Monroe doctrine. AS far as
am aware this doctrine has never been
before advanced on behalf of the United
States in any written communication
addressed to the Government of another
nation, but it has been generally adopted
and assumed as true by many eminent
writers and politicians in the United
States. The two propositions which in
effect President Monroe laid down were,
first, that America was no longer TO be
looked upon as a field for European
colonization, and, secondly, that Europe
must not attempt to extend its political
system to America or to control the
political condition of any of the American
communities who had recently declared
their independence.
1.-The dangers against which President
Monroe thought it right to guard were not
as imaginary as they would seem at the
present day. The formation of the holy
alliance, the congresses of Laybach and
'
for the purpose of forcing upon the Span
ish people form of government which
seemed likely to disappear, unless it was
sustained by external aid, were incidents
fresh in the mind of President Monroe
when he penned his celebrated message.
1.-THE dangers which were apprehended
by President Monroe have no relation to
the state of things in which we live at the
present day. The circumstances with
which President Monroe was dealing and
those to which the present American Gov
eminent is addressing itself have very few
features in common. Great Britain is i'm
posing no system upon Venezuela, and
is not concerning herself in any way with
the nature of the political institut ions
under which the Venezuelans may prefer
to live.
"Bat the British empire and the re
public 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. 1t is a
controversy with which the United States
has no apparent practical concern. 1t is
difficult indeed to see how it can ma
terially affect any state or community out
side of those primarily interested, except
perhaps other parts of her Maiesty's do
minions, such as Trinidad. The disputed
frontier of Venezuela has nothing to do
with any of the questions dealt with by
President Monroe. 1t is simply the de-
termination Of the frontier of British
possession which belonged to the throne
of England long before the republic of
Venezuela came into existence.
1.-THE Government of the United States
does not say that Great Britain or that Ven
ezuela is in the right in the matters that
are in issue. But it lays down that the
doctrine of President Monroe when he OPP
posed the imposition of European systems
or the renewal of European colonization
conters upon them the right of demanding
that when European power has frontier
difference with a South American com
munity the European power shall consent
to refer that controversy to arbitration,
and Mr.. Olney states that unless her Maj
esty's Government accedes to this demand
it will greatly embarrass the future rela-
lions between Great Britain and the United
States
Whatever may be the authority of the
doctrine laid down by President Monroe
there is nothing in his language to show
that he ever thought of claiming this
novel prerogative for the United States.
1t is admitted that he did not seek to
assert a protectorate over Mexico or the
states of Central and South America
Such claim would have imposed upon
the United States the duty of answering
for the conduct of these states, and con-
sequently the responsibility of controlling
It, Mr.. Olney expressly disclaims such an
inference from the principles he lays down.
sin the remarks which l have made I
have argued on the theory that the Mon
roe doctrine in itself is sound. must not,
however, be understood as pressing any
acceptance OF it on the part of her Males
tvs Government. 1t must always be
mentioned with respect, on account of the
distinguished statesman to whom It is
due and the great Nation who have gen
orally adopted it. But international law
is founded on the general consent of ma
tons, and no statesman, however emil
nent, and no nation, however powerful, |
are competent to insert into the code of
international law novel principle which
was never recognized before and which
has not since been accepted by the Gov
=