The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1895-12-24
THIS SOUNDS A NOTE OF WAR.
THE VENEZUELAN TROUBLE BE-
COMES SERIOUS.

Britain Must Arbitrate or Figh
The President transmitted to Coz
| gress on the 17th inst. the correspor
dence between the governments Of tn
United States and Great Britain wit
regard to Venezuela, together wit
the following special message:
To the Congress In my annua
message addressed to the Congress o.
the third instant, called attention t.
the pending boundary controversy be
tween Great Britian and the Republi,
OF Venezuela and recited the su bstanc,
OF representation made by this gov
ernment to her oBrittanic Majesty
government suggesting ereasons why
such dispute should be submitted tt
arbitration for settlement and inquir
| ing whether it would be so submitted
The answer OF the British govern
ment, which was then awaited, has
since been received and, together with
the dispatch to which it is reply, is
hereto appended.
Such reply is embodied in two com
munications addressed by the British
Prime Minister to Sir Julian Paunce-
fote, the British Ambassador at this
capital. 1t will be seen that one of
these communications Is devoted ex-
clusively to observations upon the
Monroe Doctrine and claims that in
the present instance q new and strange
extension and development,uof this
doctrine is insisted on by the United
States; that tho reasons justifying an
appeal to the doctrine enunciated by
President Monroe are generally inap-
plicable "tC the state of things in
which we live at the present day."
and especially inapplicable to CON
troversy invoking the boundary line
between Great Britain and Venezdela.
Without attempting extended argu-
mont in reply to this position, it may
not be ainiss to suggest that the doc
trine upon which we stand is strong
and sound because it's enforcement is
important 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 for m of
government. 1t was intended to ap-
ply to every stage of our national life
and can not become obsolete while our
republic endures. II the balance of
power Is justly a cause for jealous anx-
iety among tho, governments OF the
old world and II subject for our abso-
Lutte non -interfe ence, 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
without regard to "the state of things
in which we live" or any change in
the conditions here or elsewhere, it is
not apparent why it's application may
not be invoked In the present cOntrO-
versy.
If European power, by an extern
sion of its boundaries, takes possess ion
Of the territory Of one of our
neighboring republics against it's will
and in derogation of it's rights, it is
difficult to see why, to that extent
such European power does NOT there
government to that portion of this
continent which is thus taken. This
Is the preciss >aGettfSooa >aGettfSooa 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
reply that we should not seek to apply
the Monroe Doctrine to the pending
dispute because it does not embody
any principle of International law
which is founded on the general con-
sent of nations" and that "no states
man however eminent and no nation
however powerful are competent to in
sert into the code of international law
novel principle which was never re-
cog nized before, and which has not
since been accepted by the govern
ment of any other country"
Practically the principle for which
we contend has peculiar, If not exclu-
sive, relation to the United States. 1t
may not have been admitted in SO
many words to the code OF internation-
al law. but since in International
counsels every nation is entitled to the
rights belonging to it, IL the enforce
ment of the Monroe Doctrine is some
thing we may justly claim it has its
place In the code of International law
as certainly end as assuredly as II II
were specifically mentioned, and when
the United States is o suitor before the
high tribunal that administers interna
tional law, the question to be determine
ed 20 whether or not we present claims
which the justice OF that code of Law
can not find to be right and valid.
The Monroe Doctrine finds its recog
milton In those principles of interna
tional law which are based upon tht
theory that every nation shall have it
rights protected. and its just claim.
enforced.
OF course this government Is entire
ly confident that In the sanction o
this doctrine we have clear right
and undoubted claims. Nor Ia thi
ignored in, the British reply. Th
Prime Minister, while not admitting
that the Monroe Doctrine Is applica
BILE to present conditions, states:
! "In declaring that the Unite
States would resist any such enter
prise II it was contemplated, Presi
. dent Monroe adopted policy whicl
I received the entire sympathy OF tn
3 English government of that date.
: He further declares: "Though tn
> language OF President Monroe is d
. rected to the attainment of object
3 which most Englishmen would agre
to be salutary, 1t is impossible to adm
4 that they have been inscribed by inat
: dequate authority In the code of inte
+ national law" Again he says |" The
a (her Majesty's government fully Col
a cur with the view which Presidei
n Monroe apparently entertained whe
o disturbance OF the existing territ
i, rial distribution In that hemisphei
by any fresh acquisition on the part
o any European State would be high
o inexpedient change"
. In the belief that the doctrine I,
j. which we contend was clear al
i. definite, that 1t was founded upc