Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1895-12-26

w
PRESIDENT CLEVELAND.
| lister to Sir Julian Pauncefote the British
| ambassador at this capital. It will be seen
| that one Of these communications is devot-
| ed exclusively to observations. upon the
| Monroe doctrine and claims that in the
| present instance a new and strange extern
sion and development of this doctrine is
insisted on by the United States; that the
enunciated by President Monroe are gen
| orally inapplicable Ito the state Of things
! in which we live at the present day. and
! especially inapplicable to controversy in
| yoiving the boundary line between Great
| Britain and Venezuela.
Without attempting extended arguments
J In reply to these positions, it may not be
/, amiss to suggest that the doctrine upon
! which we stand is strong and sound be-
| cause it's enforcement is important to our
| peace and safety as a nation and is essen
! tal to the integrity of our free institutions
and the tranquil maintenance Of our dis
, tended to apply to every stage Of our ma
, tional life and cannot become obsolete
while our republic endures. If the balance
! Of power is justly a cause for jealous anX-
| iety among the governments of the Old
| world and a subject for our absolute nom
interference, none the less is an observance
: of the Monroe doctrine of vital concern to
our people and their government.
May Properly Insist on the Doctrine.
| Assuming, therefore, that we may proper
| ly insist upon this doctrine without regard
or any changed conditions here or else
where, it is not apparent why it's applica-
| ton may not be invoked in the present
controversy. # a European power, by an
sion of the territory of one of our neigh
boring republics against it's will and in
! why, to that extent, such European power
| does not thereby attempt to extend its sys-
| tenn Of government to that portion of this
continent which is thus taken. This is the
! precise action which President Monroe de-
! clared to be dangerous to our peace and
safety" 1t can make no. difference wheth-
| er the European system is extended by an
| advance of frontier otherwise.
| 1t is also suggested in the British reply
! roe doctrine to the pending dispute because
i it does not embody any principle of interna-
ton law which lis founded on the general
man. however eminent. and no nation. how
| ever powerful, is competent to insert into
the code de, of international law novel prin-
and which has not since been accepted by
the government Of any other country
Practically the principle, for which we
ton to the United States. 1t may not have
| been admitted in so many words to the code
Of international law, but since in interna
| the rights belonging to it, if the enforce
ment of the Monroe doctrine is something
| we may justly claim, it has it's place in the
code Of International law as certainly and
as securely as If it were specifically men
| toned, and when the United States is a
sutton before the high tribunal that ad-
ministers international law, the question to
| be determined is whether or not we pre-
sent claims which the justice of that code
of law can find to be right and valid.
! The Monroe doctrine finds its recognition
| in those principles of international law
| which are based upon the theory that every
nation shall have it's rights protected and
eminent is entirely confident that under
, the sanction of this doctrine we have clear
! ignored in the British reply. The prime
/ minister. while not admitting that the Mon
roe doctrine is applicable to present CON
| ed States would resist any such enterprise
| If it was contemplated, President Monroe
| adopted a policy which received the entire
sympathy of the English government Of
| He further declares Though the Ian
Euage Of President f Monroe is directed to
| glishmen would agree to be salutary, it is
| Impossible to admit that they have been
inscribed by any adequate authority in the
''They cher majesty's government) fully con-
| cur with the view which President Monroe
| ance of the existing territorial distribution
| In that hemisphere by any fresh acquisi-
| tons on the part of any European state
| In the belief that the doctrine for which
| We contend was clear and definite that it
was founded upon substantial considera-
! that it was fully applicable to our present
| conditions and to the state Of the worlds
progress and that it was directly related
| any conviction to the final merits of
the dispute but anxious to learn in salts
factory and conclusive manner whether
Great Britain sought under claim Of
boundary to extend her possessions on
this continent without right. or whether she
merely sought possession of territory fairly
included within her lines of ownership, this
government proposed to the government of
Great Britain resort to arbitration as
the proper means of settling the question,
to the end that q vexatiOuS boundary dis
pute between the two contestants might be
determined and our exact standing and re-
lation in respect to the controversy might
be made clear
Britain's Reason Not satisfactory.
1t would be seen from the correspondence
herewith submitted that this proposition
has been declined by the British govern
ment upon grounds which under the cir
cumStanceS seem to me to be far from salts
factory. 1t Is deeply disappointing that
such an appeal, actuated by the most friend
~ feelings toward both nations directly con-
cerned, addressed to the sense of justice
and to the magnanimity of one Of the great
powers Of the world and touching its re-
lations to one comparatively weak and
small, should have produced no better re-
suits. The course to be pursued by this
government in view of the present condi-
ton does not appear to admit Of serious
doubt. Having labored faithfully for many
years to induce Great Britain to submit
this dispute to Impartial arbitration, and
having been now fully apprised of her re-