The herald., 1895-12-18
certainly do not express any opinion upon
the actual merits of the dispute.

certainly do not express any opinion upon
the actual merits of the dispute.
WHAT THE UNITED STATES CLAIMS.
The government of the United States
does not say that Great Britain or vene-
zuela is in the right in the matters at issue.
But thew lay down that the doctrine of
President Monroe, when he opposed the
imposition of European systems or the
renewal of European colonization. confers
upon them the right of demanding that
when a European power has frontier diff
ference with South American com
munity the European power sha consent
to refer the controversy to arbitration;
and Mr.. Oiney states that unless her
majesty's government accefe to this de-
mand it will! ''grea ly embarrass future re-
lations" between Great Britain and the
United States.
Whatever may be the authority for the
docir ine laid down by President Monroe.
there is nothing in his language 10 show
that he ever thought of claiming this novel
prerogative for the United states. 1t 10
admitted that he did not seek to assert
prOtectorate over Mexico or the safes of
Central and ,uth America. Such a claim
would have imposed upon the United States
the duty of answering for the conduct of
these states and consequently the respon-
sibiity of controlling it. His sagaclous
foresight would have led him theoretically
to deprecate the addition of 81 serious a
burden to those which the United States
has TO bear.
PROTECTION AND RESPONSIBILITY
1t follows of necessity that if the govern
ment of 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
u, atI Nnr
nations. If they violate in any way the
rights of another state or of It's subjects. it
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 bv international
law to give. Mr.. Olney expressly dis
claims such an inference from the prin-
ciples he lays down.
But the claim which he POUNDS upon
them is that, If any independent American
state advances a demand for territory of
which it's neighbor claims to be the owner
and that neighhor is the colony of an Flu.
rcpean state. the United States have a
right to insist that the European state
shall submit the demand, and its own inn
pugned rights, to arbitration.
MERITS OF ARBITRATION
will not now enter into a discussion of
the merits of this method of terminating
International differences. 1t has proved
itself valuable in many cases, but it Is not
| free from defects, which often operate as
q serious drawback on its value. 1t is not
| always easy to find an arbitrator who is
competent and who, at the same time, is
wholly free from bias; and the task
of insuring compliance with the
award when it is made is not tx
empt from difficulty. 1t is a mode of
settlement of which the value varies much
according to the nature of the controversy
to which it is applied and the charac or of
the litipan who will appeal to 1t. Whether
i'm anv particular case 1t is suitable
method of procedure is generally a 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 a
third nation, which is unaffected by the
controversy, to impose this particular pro-
cedure of either of the two others cannot
be reasonably justified and has no found l.
ZION in the law OF nations.
A NOVEL PRINCIPLE.
In the remarks which nave made, | ar
gued ON the theory that the Monroe doc
trne in itself is sound. l must not, how
ever, be understood as expressing any
acc ,ptance of l. on the par of her majes-
rvs government. 1t must always be mem
Toned wi h respect, on account Of the dis
nguished statesmen to whom il il due,
and the great nation VINO have adopted it,.
But International law is founded on the
general consent OF the nations, and no