New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-12-19
SOME BRITISH COMMENTS.

Many OF the uttcranceS OF the British press
concerning the Venezuelan dispute would be
amusing were they not so ptiably astray from
the truth. Even "The London Times" which
has by far the most just Qnd serious conception
Of the matter, makes ~ strange mistake OF
speaking Of the present as new construction
of the Monroe Doctrine. II this British journal
regards Mr. Cleveland's-Or Mr.. Olneys-man-
ner in the controversy as "Overweening ana
offensive" that Is matter Of taste and opinion,
on which probably some Americans may agree
with It, II 1t looks upon the findings OF the
commission proposed by Mr. Cleveland as null
and void from the outset" that too Is matter
for judicial consideration. But when it speaks
of 1.-THE claims which the Monroe Doctrine has
for the first time been extended to cover that
is a mere matter Of fact on which we are bound
to take direct issue with 1t. The application or
the Monroe Doctrine TO tlis boundary dispute
IS no new pretenslon 1t is exactly what the
Doctrine was intended for seventy years ago,
and what all clear-sghted Americans have In
sisted upon ever since.
Another important journal, "The Chronicle,
which recently relapsed into something IKE
friendlness to America, falls into the same
error speaking OF IAN enlarged application or
a neglected doctrine; both the qualifying words
being quite inappropriate. 1t Is filled with blank
establishment, too. at hearing such words from
.the descendants Of the little shlpload OF Eng
lIsh folks who sailed in the Mayfower' Yes;
but descendants Of them by lines that pass
through Bunker Hill and Yorktown. If we are
70 indulge in historical illusions. let us not neg
lect the latter for the former Still wider from
,l1,, Tn ay,n To
News" which deems the Monroe Doctrine as
now purely Of historical interest" the situation
having entirely changed since 1898. Has 1t
never occurred to this British Radical that II
European Powers had no business to Cypress
American States and seize their territory when
the latter were mere fedglings, scarcely estab-
lished in Independent existence, they have still
less business to do SO now, when these States are
well established and are making commendaDle
progress in permanent civil culture? There can
be no doubt, adds THE Daily News that the
Doctrine dealt with the acquisition OF fresh
territory" Precisely and that Is just why 1t is
applicable to this case. BY England's own show
ing she is apparently aiming at the acquisition
Of fresh territory" She claims more now than
she did few years ago, and, II not interfered
with. will few years hence claim more than she
does to-day 1t is not Mr.. Cleveland who "begs
and m!srepresents the whole question in say
ing England Is seeking to extend the limits OF
British Guiana. 1t is England herself who has
proclaimed her purpose to make such extension.
In several papers the whole matter Is summed
up by saying that-in the words OF 1.-THE Stand
ard"-"as British subjects have settled up to
1.-The SchOmburgk line, we cannot possibly with
draw our protection" This sentiment has
creditable sound, but scrutiny shows IT to be
false and hollow. In the first place, those set
tiers have no business to be there. for Great
Britain solemnly promised, more than forty
years ago, not TO occupy that land. Next, the
settlers went there knowing perfectly we'll 1t
was disputed ground and might turn out to be-
long 10 Venezuela instead Of to British Guiana.
And finally, occupation Of land by settlers does
not and cannot determine its national proprietor
ship There are plenty Of British subjects set
tied in the United States. owning thousands Of
acres Of land Is that land therefore to be an
nexed to the British Empirei Such arguments
are intended to support the British claim and
commend IL TO the favor OF the world. We are
inclined to think they will rather weaken and
discredit it. II they are the best that can be
advanced, Englands reluctance to go into a
court Of arbitration is easily explained