The silver blade. (Rathdrum, Idaho) 1895-1903, 1895-12-21

Monroe adopted a policy which received
the entire sympathy Of the English gov
Of that date.
1.-THE dangers which were apprehcnded
by President Monroe have no relation to
the state Of things In which we live at
the present day.
There IL no danger Of any European
state treating any part OF the American
continent as a At subject for European
colonization It Is ineligible thar Mr..
Olney should invoke in defense OF the
views ON which he IL now insisting an
authority which enjoys 80 high popular.
ity with his fellow countrymen.
UNCLE SAM NOT, CONCERNED.
''Great Britain Is Imposing no system
upon Venezuela and Is not concerning her
self In any way with the nature of poht-
ical institutions under which the Venezue-
lans may prefer to live. 1t is contro-
versy with which the United States have
no apparent practical concern. The dle-
puted frontier of Venezuela has nothing
to do with any Of the questions dealt with
by President Monroe. 1t Is not question
of colonization by an European power OF
any portion Of America. 1t is simply the
determination of the frontier OF British
possessions, which belonged to England
long before the republic Of Venezueia
came into existence. The government OF
the United States does not say that Great
Britain or Venezuela is in the right IN the
matters at issue. But they lay down that
the doctrine of President Monroe when
he opposed the imposition Of European
systems or the renewal OF European colo
nization confers upon them the right OF
| demanding that when a European power
has frontier difference with South
American community, the European pow
err shall consent to refer the controv arsy
| to arbitration, and Mr.. Olney states that
unless her majesty's government accedo
! to this demand 1t will greatly cmbarass
the future relations between Great Britain
and the United States 1t follows OF ne
| cessity that If the United States will not
! control the conduct of these communities.
| neither can it undertake to protect them
from the consequences attaching to any
| misconduct OF which they may be guilty
towards other nations. IT they violate In
any way the rights Of another state. 1t Is
not alleged that the Monroe doctrine Will
assure them the assistance OF the United
States in escaping from any reparation
which they may be bound by information
al law to give. Mr.. Olney expressly dis
claims such inference from the principles
he lays down.
but the claim which he found upon
them is that IL any independent American
state advances demand for territory OF
which it's neighbor claims to be the owner
and that neighbor Is the colony OF q Eu-
ropean state. the United States have 3
right to insist that the European state
shall submit to arbitration.
II will not now enter into a discussion
|
ing international differences. Whether
, in any particular case 1t is q suitable
) method of procedure Is generally deli
cate and difficult question. The only par
ties who are competent to decide that
. question are the two parties whose rival
, contentious are in issue. The claim OF .
third nation. which Is unaffected by the
controversy, to impose this particular pro-
cedure on either Of the two others can
not be reasonably justified and has No
foundation in the law Of nations.
I'm the remarks which I have made,
l have argued on the theory that the Mon
, roe doctrine in itself is sound. must not,
) however, be understood as expressing any
! acceptance Of 1t on the part OF her ma
jesty's government. It must always be
mentioned with respect on account OF the
!, distinguished statesman to whom 1t is due
! ! and the great nations who have adopted
.. it. But International law is founded on
: the general consent of nations, and ne
statesman, however eminent, and no ma
, tion however powerful, are competent t.
: insert into the code Of International law Z
: novel principle which was never recogniz-
I ed before and which has not since been
E accepted by the government Of any other
5 country. Mr.. Olney's principle, that Amer
lean questions are for American decision,
! even II received any countenance from the
. language of President Monroe, can not
4 be sustained by any reasoning drawn from
g the law of nations Though the language
Of President Monroe is directed to at
t tainment Of objects which Englishme1
2 would agree to be salutary, 1t IL impos-
sible to admit that they have inscribed
by any authority in the code OF interna-
tional code and the danger which such adj
mission would involve is sufficiently ex-
hibited. both by the strange development
which the doctrine has received at Mr.