Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1895-12-18
AalishurY,s RenlY.

Neutrality-suspicious. salisbury answers
Secretary Olney in two notes, both of
date July 26.
The first is devoted entirely to reply
to that portion of the note relating to the
Monroe doctrine, which he says has never
before been made the subject of written
communication by the United States to
another government, although it has
largely influenced American foreign rela-
tions.
Lord Salisbury says that this doctrine
has undergone "notable development"
since it's enunciation by President Mon
roe, which had originally received the en-
tire sympathy of the English government.
But the dangers apprehended by Presi-
dent Monroe, Lord Salisbury says, have
no relation to the conditions of the pres
ent day, when there is no danger of holy
alliance, or of attempts at European col
onization of America. Great Britain is
i'm posing no System" upon Venezuela,
nor concerning herself with Venezuelan
political Institutions.
NOT APPLICABLE.
The dispute over boundary has moth
ing to do with any of the questions dealt
with by Monroe. The latter did not claim
for the United States the novel preroga-
tive of settling frontier difference OF
this kind, nor did he seek to establish
protectorate over Mexico, or the Central
American states. So If the United States
will not control the conduct of these
communities, II can not undertake to pro-
teot them from the consequences attach
ing to their misconduct. Arbitration is
not free from defects and the claim of
third nation to impose it on two inter-
ested nations can not be reasonably JUS
titled and has no foundation in the law of
nations.
THE MONROE DOCTRINE DECLINED.
Lord Salisbury expressly declines to be
understood as accepting the Monroe doc
trine. International law being founded
on the general consent of nations, no
statesman and no nation, however power
ful, can inject novel principle not ac-
ceptable to any other government, and
Secretary Olney's principle, that "Amer-
lean questions are for American decision"
(unsustained by Monroe), can not be sus-
tained by international law. The United
States ran not affirm that its interests are
concerned in American states because
they are American, no more than if they
were Japan or China. Monroe's Ian
guage was never admitted to be interna-
tional law, and the danger Of such admis-
sion is shown by the "strange" develop
Secretary Olney's hand.
STREAMING THE DOCTRINE.
fair inference from Mr.. Olney's arRu-
ments, Lord Salisbury says, is that the
union between Great Britain ard her
colonies in America is sinex pedient and un-
natural, something denied by Monroe and
emphatically denied by her majesty's
government and the American people
subject to tbs crown.
Concurring in Monroe's view that
disturbance Of territorial distribution in
the Western hemisphere would be inex-
pedient, it does nor admit this to be in
ternational law, and can not accept the
doctrine that the United States is en-
titled to demand arbitration of territorial
disputes between South American states.
In conclusion Lord Salisbury says that
he hopes that the difficulty, made more
difficult by venezuela's inconsiderate ac-
tion in breaking diplomatic relations,
will be adjusted by reasonable arrange
ment at an early date.
Lord Salisbury's second note, dated
also July 26, deals entirely with the boun-
Diary dispute on its merits, beginning
with the statement that Great Britain does
not recognize that any other country has
a material interest in the controversy,
vet makes the statement In this fashion
because, owing to the rupture Of diplo-
matic relations, 1t is not otherwise pos
gible to communioate 1t to the Venezuelan
government. Lord Salisbury asserts that
Secretary Olney, acting on an ex parte
presentation of the case BY Venezuela,
has fallen into much misapprehension.
He enters into an elaborate history OF the
British claim, founded on the Dutch ces-
sisn, tells how the Schomberg line was
run, of many concessions offered by
Great Britain to Venezuela to reach an
arrangement, and suggests that the We
nssuelan insistence upon the arbitration
OF the whole territory would be paral.
leled by refusal of Great Britain to ar
bitrats the Alaskan boundary line, unless
half Of Alaska we're thrown into arbitra-
tion.