The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-12-18

relative that the United States will make
itself responsible for the foreign policy OF
all the petty, impetuous little states on
the two continents of America. There is
no international right without correspond
ing duty"
The Chronicle describes Lord Salisbury's
dispatch as most temperate and refers to
the limitation 10 the Schomburg line as
concession that only strong state could
have granted TO weak one. at adds:
I'VE cannot abandon our settlers any more
than President Cleveland would his"
The paper concludes thus:
I'VE can only express genuine regret at
the tone OF the document, which meets no
argument made by Lord Salisbury and
which applies a threat of force from
daughter state TO the motherland over an
obscure, trumpery dispute in which the
United States has no right; but the mes
sage cannot obscure or defeat the affection
which subsists between the two countries
the ties OF blood that must needs binds
them in indissoluble union"
The Morning Post will say: president
Cleveland has outdone the Republican
party in his efforts to show dislike for this
country, yet he has not committed himself
to anything. The message does not make
the slightest attempt to grapple with Lord
Salisbury's argument that the United
States cannot find any excuse in the
language of the Monroe doctrine for their
appearance on the scene, or that if they
could give the old Presidents words any
such extension, his declaration has no
authority. The international law tribunal
ho4 IT.
gress to set up can have no more binding
effect in this country than would decis-
, ion by the Supreme Court at Washington"
The Standard will say:
"Most Englishmen will read the mes
sage with unfeigned astonishment The
position taken by Mr.. Cleveland is prepos-
ferrous. No CITIZEN of the United States
would for a moment dream of admitting
its soundness in any analogous case in
which the interest or honor of his own
country was concerned. The most appro-
pirate comment on the situation that
would arise from the recognition OF the
Cleveland dogma is presented by the con-
Guiding words of the message" which the
paper quotes, adding:
1.-THE language may be trifle turgid,
but the sentiment is wholesome. Yet it is
to this act OF establishment that the Pres
ldent imagines he is entitled to bring pres
sure on Great Britain. There can be only
one answer to such a demand. We decline
to humiliate ourselves and refuse to accept
the decision of the United States execu-
tive in matters altogether outside of his
jurisdiction. If it could be reasonably
made out that the pretension of the State
Department to enforce arbitration through
out the American continent had any color
in the Monroe doctrine, such an applica-
ton would be a reductio ad absurdum of
a cherished maxim. Happily, however,
for the sobriety and endurance of the ira
ditions of American diplomacy Lord
Salisbury has effectively disposed of the
delusion that the Monroe doctrine is IN
any way pertinent to the question of the
Guiana-Venezuelan frontier.
GAS regards the precise cause of the diff
ference with Venezuela, we believe we
have perfectly stainless record. Mr..
Olney, to do him Justice. refuses to take it
for granted that Venezuela has substan-
tiated her case against US, though Mr..
Cleveland, with a loss of perception,
chooses to assume that our action is in
public.
las British subjects have settled up to
the S3homburg line, we cannot possibly
withdraw our protection and leave them
to the risks of the revolutions and misrule
of the republic, but beyond the pale of
settlement, we are quite willing to accept
arbitration. This, however, would be of
no avail.
Venezuela sets up pretensions which
if found valid would involve the ahsorp-
ton of half of our colony if not territory
of our Dutch and French neighbors. By
the same rule the United States might be
asked to submit their title to Alaska to the
judgment of impartial umpires. Congress
would Indignantly reject such demand.
So will the British Government reject the
present demand
The Telegraph will say: 1.-The United
States have no practical concern in the
controversy. The invocation of the Mon
roe doctrine seems, on our side of the wa
ter, to be irrelevant and absurd. If it is
in any sense true that all this jealous sup
port of Venezuela owes its origin TO parti-
san intrigues there is still less reason for
submitting to what from the British
standpoint is a wholly perverse and mad
Missile claim"
The Times will say: at is impossible
to disguise the GRANTEES of the differences
that have arisen between this country and
the United States. The message that
President Cleveland transmitted to Con-
gress and the reception it met from both
sides in the Senate give additional i'm port
ance to the dispatches that have passed be-
tween the State Department at Washing
ton 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.. Cleve-
and's message.
Convinced as we are that rupture be-
tween the two great English speaking
communities would be calamity not only
to themselves but to the civilized world,
we are nevertheless driven to the conclu-
sion that the concessions that this country
is imperiously summoned to make are
such as no self-respecting nation and least
OF all one ruling an empire that has roots
in every quarter of the globe could posi-
bly, submit to. The United States them
selves would never for a moment dream of
old 70 4, l. oE