Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1895-12-25

about his case is true.
The Irishman is ever a patriot and
President Cleveland's reiteration of
the Monroe doctrine, makes him
long to cross swords with tho Enc.
llsh when there is q prospect of the
american being his backer. The
lrishman would make q race to be
frst enlisted in a war against Great
Britain.
Settle or Fight.
President Cleveland sent a mes
sage to Congress on the 18th inst =,
that must be read 10 be appreciated
Ii war takes place between England
and the United States of America,
which God forbid, you will want to
know something about the cause Of
the war. The quickest way to learn
the cause is to read the Presidents
message. Here it is.-"To tho Con-
gress: In my annual message ad-
dressed to congress on tho Sd instant,
called attention to the pending
boundary controversy between Great
Britain and the Republic of Vsne-
Zusla, and recited the substance of a
representation made by this govern
went to her Britannia Majssty's gov
ernment suggesting reasons why such
dispute should be submitted to ar
bitration for settlement, and inauir.
ing whether it would be so submit
ted. The answer of the British gov
ernment, which was then awaited,
has since been received, and, together
with the dispatch to which it is q re
ply, Is hereto appended.
such reply is embodied in two
communications addressed by the
British Prime Minister to Sir Julian
Paunceforte, tie British Ambassador
at this Capitol It will be seen that
one of these communications is de-
voted exclusively to observations up
on the Monroe doctrine. and clsilns
tnat in the present instance a new
and strange extension and develop
ment OF this doctrine is insisted on
by the United States, that the ressons
Iustlfying an appeal to the doctrine
enunciated by President Monroe are
generally incapplicable sto The state
OF things in which we live at the pre-
seat day. and especially inapplicable
to controversy involving the boun-
Diary line between Great Britain and
Venezuela.
without attempting extended
argument IN reply 10 these positions.
it may not be amiss to suggest that
the doctrine upon which ws stand is
strong and sound, because its en-
forcsment is important to cur peace
and safety .s nation, and is essen
tlGl to the integrity Of our free IL
stitutioDs and the tranquil nainten-
snce of our distinctive form of gov
ernment. 1t was intended to apply
to every stage Of our national life,
and cannot become obsolete while
our Republic endurcs II the balance
of power is Justly CAUSED for jealous
anxiety among the governments of
the Did world, and a subject for our
absolute non-interference, none the
less is an observance of the Monroe
doctrine of vital concern to our peo-
ple 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 changed
conditions here or elsewhere, it is
not apparent why its application may
not be invoked in the present con-
troversy.
NO FOREIGN INTERFERENCE
eff European Power, by an ex
tension Of its boundaries, takes pos
session of the territory of one Ct oul
neighboring republics against it's vii
and IN derogation of it's rights, it is
difficult to seo why, to that extent
such European Power does not there
by attempt to extend it system o.
government to that portion of this
continent which is thus taken. This
is the precise action which President
Monroe declares TO be dangerous t.
cur peace and safety, and it can max,
no difference whether the Europea,
system is extended by an advance O
frontier or otherwise
cit is also suggested in the British
reply that We should not seek to sp
ply the Monroe doctrine to the pen
ding dispute, becauge he does no
emoody any principle of information
al law which 'is founded Oh the gen
ersl consent of nations,' and tina. snt
statesman, however eminent, and nt
nation, however powerful, are com
petent to insert into the code of in
ternational law novel principl,
which was never recognized before
and which has not sincs been accep
ted BY the government of any otEel
country.
Practically the principle for which
we contend has peculiar, if not ex
elusive, relation to the United States
, 1t may not have been admitted in sC
. many words to the code of interna
tional law, but since in internnticna
counsels every nation is entitled tc
the rights belonging to it. if the en-
forcement of the monroe doatrine il
something we may justly claim, il
has its place in the code of interna
tional law as certainly and as securely
as if it Were specifically mentioned
ard when the United States is 6
suiter before the high tribunal that
administers international law, tht
question to be determinedis is whethe,
or not we present claims which the
ipstice OF that code of Low CON GnG