Daily independent. [volume] (Elko, Nev.) 188?-1915, 1895-12-18

country.
practically the principle for which
we contend has a peculiar, il not ex.
elusive relation to the United States.
1t may not have been admitted in so
many words to the code of in~terna-
tlonal law, but since in international
councils every nation is entitled to
the rights belonging to it, if the en-
forcement Of the Monroe doctrine is
something We may justly claim, it has
its place in the code Of international
law as certainly and as securely as if
it were specifically mentioned and
when the United States is a sutton be-.
fore a high tribunal, that administers
international law, the question to
be determined 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 it's
recognition in those principles of in
ternational law which are based upon
the theory that every nation shall
have its rights protected and it's Just
claims enforced. OF course, this gov
eminent is entirely confident that un-
der sanction of this doctrine we have
clear rights and undoubted claims. ;
"Nor is this ignored in the British
reply. The Prime Minister, while
not admitting that the Monroe doc
trine is not applicable to the present
conditions, states: AIN declaring that
the United States would resist u
such interference if 1T was contem-
plated" President Monroe adopted
the policy which received the entire
sympathy of the English government
of that date.
Gle further declares: Though the
language Of President Monroe is di
rected to the attainment of objects
which most Englishman could agree
to be salutary, it is impossible to ad-
NIT that it has been inscribed by any
adequate authority in the code of in
ternational law
again he says: They (Her Males
tvs government fully concur with
the view which President Monroe
apparently entertained that any dis
turbance Of the existing territory
distribution in that hemisphere by
any fresh acquisition ON the part of
any European State would be a high
ly inexpedient change In the belief
that the doctrine for which we con-
tend was clear and definite; that it
was founded upon substantial con-
siderations and involved our safety
and welfare; that it was fully appli-
cable to Il present conditions and
to the state of the worlds prog ress,
and that it was directly related to the
pending controversy, and without any
conviction MS to the final merits of the
dispute; but anxious to learn in a sat
isfactory and conclusive manner
whether Great Britain sought. under
the claim of boundary, to extend her
possessions IN this continent without
a right, or whether she merely sought
the possession Of territory included
within her lines of ownership, this
government proposed to the govern,
ment Of Great Britain to resort tc
arbitration as a means of settling the
question, to the end that the vexa
tious boundary dispute between the
two contestants might be determined
and our exact standing and relation il
respect to the controversy might bC
made clear.
at will be seen from the cores
pondence herewith submitted tha'
this proposition has been declined b.
the British government, upon ground
! which, under the circumstances, seer
to me TO- be. far from satisfactory. 1
10 deeply Disappointing that such al
appeal actuated by most friendl.
feelings toward both nations directl,
concerned, addressed to the sense o
justice and to the magnanimity of on