The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1895-12-18

prevented-such resistance and proven
| ton must come from the United States
| They would come from it. of course
were it made the point of attack. But,
| if they come at ALL they must also come
from it when any other American State
| is attacked, since only the United
States has the strength adequate to the
| exigency. Is it true, then, that the
safety and welfare of the United States
are SO concerned with the maintenance
Of the independence of every American
State as against any European Power
as to justify and require the interposi-
ton of the United States whenever that
| independence is endangered? The
question can be candidly answered in
| but one way
To-day the United States is practi-
cally sovereign on this continent, and
| its fiat is law upon the subject to which
ii confines its interposition. Why? 1t
is not because of the pure friendship or
good-w felt for it; it is not simply by
reason Of its high character as civil
lied State, nor because wisdom and JUS
| tice and equity are the invariable char
acteriStics of the dealings of the United
| States; it is because, in addition to all
other grounds, its infinite resources,
combined with its isolated position, rem
der it master of the situation and prac-
| tically invulnerable. This superiority
| is at once imperiled if the principle be
admitted that European Powers may
convert American States into colonies
| or provinces of their own. The prin-
ciple would be eagerly availed OF, and
every Power doing so would immedi-
ately acquire a base of military opera
lions against us
Mr.. Olney says in conclusion: In
these circumstances the duty of the
| President appears to him unmistaka-
BILE and imperative. Great Britain's as
sertion of title to the disputed territory,
combined with her refusal to have that
title investigated being a substantial
appropriation of the territory to her
own use, not to protest and give warn
| ing that the transaction will be re-
garded as injurious to the interests of
the people of the United States, as well
as oppressive in itself would be to ig-
more an established policy with which
the honor and welfare of this country
are closely related. While the measures
necessary or proper for the vindication
OF that policy are to be determined by
another branch of the Government, it
is clearly for the Executive to leave
nothing undone which may tend to rem
der such determination unnecessary.
you are instructed, therefore, to pre-
sent the foregoing views to Lord Sails
bury by reading to him this communi-
cation, and to reinforce them by such
pertinent consideration as will doubt
less occur to you. They call for a def
mite decision upon the point whether
Great Britain is to consent or will de-
cline to submit the Venezuelan bound
airy question in it's entirety to impartial
arbitration. 1t is the earnest hope OF
the President that the conclusion Will
be on the side of arbitration, and that
Great Britain add more to the conspic-
uouS precedentS she has already fur
nished in favor of that wise and just
mode of adjusting international dis
putes If he is to be disappointed in
that hope, however, result not to be
anticipated, and in his judgment cal
cuIated to greatly embarrass the future
relations between this country and
Great Britain-it is his wish to be made
acquainted with the fact at such early
date as will enable him to lay the whole
subject before Congress in his next an
nual message. RICHARD OLNEY."
Lord Salisbury's answer, dated Nov.
26th, says the Monroe doctrine has un-
dergone notable development" since
its enunciation by President Monroe,
which had originally received the en-
tire sympathy Of the English Govern
ment. The dispute over the boundary
has nothing to do with any questions
dealt with by Monroe. The latter did
not claim for the United States the
novel prerogative of the settlement Of
frontier difference of this kind, nor did
he seek to establish protectorate over
Mexico or the Central American States
If the United States will not control the
conduct of these communities, it can
not undertake to protect them from the
consequences attaching to misconduct.
Arbitration is not free from defects,
and the claim of third nation to i'm
pose it on two interested nations can
not be reasonably justified and has no
foundation In the law of nations.
International law being founded on
the general consent of nations, no
statesman and no nation, however pow
erful, can inject a novel principle not
acceptable to any other Government,
and Secretary Olney's principle that
American questions are for American
decision" unsustained by Monroe, can
not be sustained by international law.
MonrOe's language was never admitted
to be international law, and the danger
of such an admission is shown by the
strange development which the doc
trine has received at Secretary Olney's
hand.
In conclusion, Lord Salisbury says he
hopes the difficulty, made more difficult
by Venezuelans' inconSiderate action in
breaking diplomatic relations, will be ad-
justed by reasonable arrangement at an
early date.
Lord Salisbury's second note, dated
also July 10Th, deals entirely with the
boundary dispute on its merits. 1t be-
gins with the statement that Great
Britain does not recognize that any
other country has material interest in
the controversy, yet makes state
ment in this fashion because, owing to
the rupture of diplomatic relations, it
is not POSSIBLE otherwise to communi-
cate il to the Venezuelan Government
Salisbury asserts that Secretary Oh
ney, acting on an exparte presentation
OF the case by Venezuela, has fallen
into much miSaDprehenSion