The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-12-28
THE WEEKS NEWS.
THE VENEZUELAN MESSAGE.

nifcant message:
To THE CONGRESS-: In my annual mes
sage addressed to the Congress on the
third instant, called attention to the
pending boundary controversy between
Great Britain and the republic of Ven
ezuela and recited the substance of a
representation made by this government
to her Britannia majesty's government,
suggesting reasons why such dispute
should be submitted to arbitration for
settlement and inquiring whether it
would be SO submitted.
The answer of the British government
which was then awaited, but has since
been received. together with the dis
patch to which it is areply, is hereto ap-
pended.
Such reply is embodied in two COM
munications addressed by the British
minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote, the
british ambassador at this capital. 1t
will be seen that one of these communi-
cations is devoted exclusively to observa.
tions upon the Monroe doctrine, and
claims that in the present instance new
and strange extension and development
Of this doctrine is insisted on by the
United States; that the reasons justify
ing an appeal to the doctrine enunciated
by President Monroe are generally in
applicable ito the state of things in
which we live at the present day." and
especially inapplicable to controversy
involving the boundary line between
Great Britain and Venezuela.
The Monroe Doctrine Strong and Sound.
Without attempting extended argu-
ment 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 enforcement is i'm
portant to our peace and safety as a
nation and is essential to the integrity
of our free institutions and the tranquil
maintenance of our distinctive form of
government. 1t was intended to apply
to every stage of our national life and
cannot become obsolete while our repub
lie endures. If the balance of power is
justly cause for jealous anxiety among
the governments of the old world. and
subject for our absolute non-interference
none the less is an observance of the
Monroe doctrine of vital concern to our
people and their government.
Assuming, therefore, that we may
properly insist upon this doctrine with
out regard to 1.-The state of things in
which we liye," or any changed condi-
tions here or elsewhere, it is not appa-
rent why its application may not be in
voked in the present controversy.
If a European power, by an extension
of it's boundaries, takes possession of the
territory of one of our neighboring re-
publics. against its will and in deroga-
ton of it's rights, it is difficult to see why
to that extent. such European power does
not thereby attempt to extend its system
of government to that portion ofthis con-
tinent which is thus taken. This is the
precise action which President Monroe
declared to be dangerous to our peace
and safety"and it can make indifference
whether the European system is extend
ed by an advance of frontier or otherwise.
1t is also suggested in the British re-
ply that we should not seek to apply the
Monroe doctrine to the pending dispute,
because it does not embody any princi-
pie of international law which is founded
on the general consent of nations, and
that "no statesman. however eminent,
and no nation, however powerful, are
competent to insert into the code of in
ternational law novel principle which
was never recognized before, and which
has not since been accepted by the gov
eminent of any other country"
A Place in International Law
Practically the principle for which we
contend has peculiar if not exclusive re-
lation to the United States. 1t may not
have been admitted in 30 many words
to the code of international law, but
since in international counsels every ma
tion is entitled to the rights belonging
to it. if the enforcement of the Monroe
doctrine is something we may justly
claim it has its place in the code of inter
national law as certainly and as securely
as il it were specifically mentioned, and
when the United States is sutton be-
fore the high tribunal that administers
international law, the question to be de-
termined 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 recogni.
tion in those principles of international
law which are based upon the theory
that every nation shall have its rights
protected and its just claims enforced.
OF course this government is entirely
confident that under the sanction Of
this doctrine we have clear rights and
undoubted claims. Nor is this ignoredi in
the British reply The prime minister,
while not admitting that the Monroe
doctrine is applicable 10 present condi.
tions, states: "In declaring that the
United States would resist any such en-
terprise if it was contemplated, Presi-
dent Monroe adopted policy which re-
caived the entire sympathy OF the Eng