The record-union., 1895-12-18


contribute to-
Mccall (Rep.) of Massachusetts:
The message of the President is
spirited and noble document. and
should receive the united support of
both parties"
Russell Rep.) of Connecticut: "The
message is good. Anything less would
be unpatriotic and cowardly in a Presi-
dent of the United States. Its sugges-
ton is prudent, perhaps, and allows
England a chance to retract. 1t is not
necessary, and we do not want to daily
any over this CONTROVERSY"
McCreary Oem.) of Kentucky, who
was Chairman of the Foreign Affairs
Committee in the last Congress: 1T is
vigorous, positive and able. I admire
the firm and positive course taken by
the President, and l believe the House
of Representative will support him in
his efforts to uphold the Monroe doc
trine, and prevent Great Britain from
making illegal encroachmentS on the
territory of Venezuela"
LONDON PRESS COMMENT.
LONDON, Dec. 1.-THE Daily News,
commenting On the Presidents message
on the Venezuelan question, will say:
The Presidents communication is a
remarkable document, though its con-
sequences are not likely to be serious.
Neither Mr.. Olney nor the President
seems to realize that the Monroe doc
trine cannot be quoted as authoritative
ip negotiations with a foreign Power.
Both of them are certainly as far as
possible from suspecting that the real
author of the doctrine was Canning, not
Monroe. Great Britain in Is was
jealous of the Spanish encroachments
in South America, and induced Monroe
to protest against European aggression
on American soil. The seventy-two
years that have since elapsed have en-
tirely changed the situation. The Mon
roe doctrine is now purely of historical
interest There can be no doubt that
the theory enunciated in 1923 dealt
with the acquisition of fresh territory,
and had nothing to do with disputes
regarding the boundaries of territories
already appropriated The definition of
the doctrine, however, is a matter for
Americans themselves. 1t binds nobody
else. The Venezuelan difficulty must be
considered on its own merits. This is
what Lord Salisbury has done in a mas
terly dispatch. AS he has refused gen
eral unrestricted arbitration, upon
which, by the way, the Monroe doctrine
is silent, it must be assumed that he
would not assent to the mode of ascer-
tanning the rights of the parties that
Mr.. Cleveland suggests.
THE concluding portions of Mr..
! Cleveland's message are not expressed
in the language usually employed by
one friendly Power to another They
are aggressive, even nlenacing. England
is threatened with war unless she per-
n1itS Mr.. Cleveland to arbitrate the
boundary of Venezuela Happily, there
is some sense of humor in the American
people. The message puts the Repub-
licans in hole. If they agree to the ap-
pointment of a commission they will
give Mr.. Cleveland such credit as be-
longs to it, and will enable him or the
Democratic candidate to pose as an ac-
complished tWiSter of the Lions tail.
If, on the other hand, they refuse to
agree to the commission, they will give
the Democrats a chance of accusing
them of being servile friends of the Brit
ish. but the great body of the American
public will not be led by any such mo-
tive or considerations"
The Chronicle will say: "The message
will be read in this country with blank
astonishment. The American commits
sion to determine what territory Brit
ish colony can call its own, and failing
our compliance with its findings war
by land and sea with Great Britain.
Can those be serious words addressed
to us by the descendants Of the little
shipload of English fork who sailed in
the Mayf1oWer? We will not take things
too seriously. We will suppose that the
President is engaged in the familiar
work of twisting the Lions tail. There
is one answer to President Cleveland
and America. If an enlarged applica-
tion of neglected doctrine is to be en-
forced with all the might of the United
States, at least let us be assured of the
correlative that the United States will
make itself responsible for the foreign
policy of all the petty, impetuous little
States on the two continents of Amer
lea. There is no international right
without corresponding outy."
The paper concludes thus: 1--WE can
only express genuine regret at the tone
of the document, which meets no argu-
ment made by Lord Salisbury, and
which applies a threat of force from
daughter State to the mother land over
an obscure, trumpery dispute in which
the United States has no right but the
message cannot obscure or defeat the
affection which subsists between the
two countries, the ties of blood that
must needs bind them in in indissoluble
union.''
The Standard will say: Most Eng-
lishmen will read the message with un-
feigned astonishment. The position ia
ken up by Mr.. Cleveland is preposter-
GUS No citizen of the United States
would for a moment dream of admit
ANALOGOUS
case in which the interest or honor of
his own country was concerned The
most appropriate comment on the situa-
ton that would arise from recognition
of the Cleveland dogma is presented by
the concluding words of the message
The language may be a trifle turgid
but the sentiment is wholesome Yet
it is to this act of self -abasement that
the President imagines he is entitled
| bring ri foiY
only one answer to such a demand We
decline to humiliate ourselves and re-
| fuse to accept the decision OF the United
States Executive in matters altogether
outside of his Jurisdiction"
The Telegraph will say: ''Yhe United
States have no practical concern in the
| controversy. The invocation of the
| Monroe doctrine seems, on our side Of
the water, to be irrelevant and absurd. ."
The Graphic says: Lord Salisbury
has written the epitaph of the Monroe
/ doctrine. Self-respecting Americans
Will not read President Cleveland with
either pride or pleasure
| The Times will say: 'It is impossible
/ to disguise the gravities of the differ
| ences that have arisen between this
| country and the United States. The
| message of President Cleveland trans
| mitted to Congress, and the reception of
! 1t by both sides in the Senate give ad-
! dit1onal Importance to the dispatcbes
| that have passed between the State
! Department at Washington and the
| Foreign Office. The details of the
| boundary dispute with Venezuela are
| insignificant in comparison with the
| far-reaching claim put forward in Mr.
! Olney's dispatch and emphasized in
| Mr. Cleveland's message. Convinced
| as we are that a rupture between the
| two great English-speaking communi-
! ties would be calamity not only to
| themselves, but to the civilized world
we are nevertheless driven to the con-
! clusion that the concessions that this
country is imperiously summoned to