The islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1891-1899, 1895-12-26
THE MONROE DOCTRINE
Reasons why Disputes Should
Be Arbitrated.
INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDED

INVESTIGATION RECOMMENDED
Into the Claims of Both England and
Venezuela by Commission APP
pointed for This Purpose.
Washington, Dec. 10. President
Cleveland submitted to congress today
the following message on the Venezela
question:
In my annual message addressed to
congress on the Sd instant, called at.
tention to the pending boundary con
troversy between Great Britain and the
republic of Venezuela, and recited the
substance of the representation made by
this government to her Britannia ma
jesty's government, suggesting the rea.
sons why such disputes should be SUBJ
mitted to arbitration for settlement,
and inquiring whether it would be
submitted.
The answer of the British govern
ment, which was then awaited, has
since been received. 1t will be seen
that one of these communications is de-
voted exclusively to observations upon
the Monroe doctrine, and claims are
made that in the present instance a
new and strange extension and develop
ment of this doctrine is insisted on by
the United States, and that the reasons
justifying an appeal to the doctrine
enunciatd by President Monroe, are
generally inapplicable ito the state of
things in which we live at the present
day." and especially inapplicable to
the controversy involving the boundary
line between Great Britain and Vene-
zuela.
Assuming that we may properly in
sist upon the doctrine without regard
to 1.-The state Of things in which we
live," or to any changed conditions,
here or elsewhere, it is not apparent
why it's application may not be invoked
in the present controversy. II Eu-
ropean power, by extension OF its
boundaries, takes possession of the ter
ritory of one of our neighboring repub
lies against it's 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 ex-
tend its system of government to that
portion of this continent 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 no difference whether
the European system is extended by
an advance of frontier or otherwise.
1t is also suggested in the British re-
ply that we would not seek to apply the
Monroe doctrine to the pending dispute
because it does not embody any prin-
oiple of international law which is
founded on the general consent Of ma
tions," and no nation, however pow er-
full, are competent to insert into the
code of international law a novel prin-
ciple which was never recognized be-
fore and which has not since been &C.
oepted by the government of any other
country. Practically, the principle for
which we contend has a peculiar, If
not exclusive relation to the United
States.
The Monroe doctrine finds its recog-
milton in those principles Of interna-
tional law which are based upon the
theory that every nation shall have its
rights protected and its just claims en-
forced. Of course, this government is
entirely confident that under the sane
ton of this doctrine we have clear
rights and undoubted claims.
In the belief that the doctrine for
which we contend was clear and def
mite, that it was founded upon suOstan'
tial considerations, and involved our
safety and welfare; that it was fully
applicable to our present conditions and
to the state of the worlds progress, and
that it was directly related to the
pending controversy, and without any
conviction as to the final merits Of the
dispute, but anxious to learn in a Salts
factory and conclusive manner whether
Great Britain sought, under the claim
of boundary, to extend her possessions
on this continent without the right, or
whether she merely sought possession
of territory already included within her
lines of ownership, this government
proposed to the government OF Great
Bitain to resort to arbitration as the
proper means of settling the quetion,
to the end that the vexatious bound
ary dispute between the two contest.
ants might be determined, and our ex-
act standing and relation to the con-
troversy might be made clear.
It will be seen from the correspond
ence herewith submitted that this
proposition has been declined by the
British government, upon grounds
which, under the circumstances, seem
to me to be far from satisfactory. Hav.
ing labored faithfully for many years
70 induce Great Britain to submit this
dispute to impartial arbitration, and
having been now finally apprlsed Of
her refusal to do so, nothing remains
but to accept the situation, to recognize
its plain requirements, and to deal
with it accordingly.
Assuming that the attitude OF Vene
zuela will remain unchanged, the dis
mite has reached such stage as te
make it now incumbent upon the Uni
ted States to take measures to deter
mine with sufficient certainty for iti
justification what is the true divisional
| line between the republic of Venezueis
and British Guiana. Inquiry to thai
end should, of course, be conducted
carefully and judicially. and du'
weight be given all available evidence
records and facts in support OF TIT
claims of both parties
In order that such an examination
should be prosecuted in thorough ant
satisfactory manner. I suggest that con