The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1895-12-20
SALISBURY'S VIEW
SYNOPSIS OF THE LATTER PAPER.

Gn8 b0n0N Gl8lhn OuAlinc0 ~ ~ ARVtoIv W
Our state Department The Marquis Says
the Monroe Doctrine Has Nothing to DO
with the Case. and n 1t Had the Doctrine
L. Not International Lsw-summary Of
His Lordship's Argument.
WASHINGTON, Dec. ls.-The correspond
snce- sent ~ congress with the presidents
Eiessage ON the Venezuelan dispute con-
sists Of the note sent to England by
Secretary Olney and the reply Of the Brit
ish premier. In Secretary Olney's note to
Salisbury he says:
"The United States has made IL clear to
Great Britain and the world by
frequent interposition of good offices that
the controversy Is one In which its honor
and it's interests are involved, and the con-
tinuance Of which 1t cannot regard with
indifference" He then says that the
Monroe doctrine is an American public
law "well-founded in principle and abun-
dainty sanctioned by precedent, which en-
titles and requires the United States to
treat as injury to herself the forcble as
sumption by a European power Of polit-
ical control over an American state. The
application of the doctrine to the boun-
dairy dispute between Great Britain and
Venezuela remains TO be made, and pre-
sents no real difficulty"
Question of Political Control.
The secretary argues that though relat-
ing to the boundary line the question is
one Of political control over domain of
great extent the British claim apparently
expanding in two years some $4,000
square miles, and directly involving the
command of The mouth of the Orinoco, of
immence consequence in connection with
the whole river navigation of the interior Of
South America. 1t is not admitted, and
therefore cannot be assumed, that Great
Britain is in fact usurping dominion over
Venezuelan soil While Venezuela
charges such occupation Great Britain de-
MES IL, and the United States, until the
merits are authoritatively ascertained, can
take sides with neither.
Rights OF the United States.
But 1t may demand that the truth shall
be ascertained. Being entitled to resent
and resist any sequestration of Venezuelan
soil by Great Britain 1t Is necessarily en-.
titled to know whether such sequestration
has occurred or Is now going ON. There
Is but one feasible mode of determining
the merits of the question and that is
peaceable arbitration. Great Britain adj
mits that there IS controversy which
should be adjusted by arbitration. but
nullifies this admission by her insistence
that the submission sh al cover but part
of the controversy. If it were e. point to
a boundary which both parties either ex-
pressly or tacitly had ever agreed TO the
demand that the territory within that
line should be excluded from the dispute
might rest upon reasonable basis but
there is no such line
Founded on British Ipse Dixit.
The secretary says that the British de-
mand for recognition Of her right to Il
portion of the disputed territory before
arbitration seems to stand upon nothing
but her own ipse dixit. She says (com-
ments Olney) TO Venezuela in substance,
"You can get none of the debatable land
by force, because you are not strong
enough; you can get none by treaty, be-
cause will not agree; and you can get
your chance at getting portion by arbi-
tration only if you first agree to abandon
to me such other portions as / may desig-
nate"
Canon Of International Law.
The secretary lays it down as a canon OF
international law that nation may justly
interpose in controversy between other
nations whenever what is done or pro-
posed by any of the parties primarily con-
cerned is a serious and direct menace to
its own integrity, tranquility, or well
fare"