The Kootenai herald. [volume] (Kootenai, Idaho) 1891-1904, 1895-12-21


the boundary line between Great Britain
and Venezuela
Without attempting any extended ar
guments to reply to these positions II may
not be amiss to suggest that the doctrine
upon which we stand is strong and sound,
because its enforcement is important to
our country and our safety a nation
and is essential to the integrity of our
free institutions and the tranquil main
tenance of our distinctive form of gov
eminent. II was intended to apply to
every stage of our national life and cannot
become obsolete while our republic en-
dures. If the balance of power is justly
cause for Jealous anxiety among the
governments of the old world and a SUBJ
Ject for our absolute noninterference,
none the less is the observance of the
Monroe doctrine of vital concern to our
people and their government.
Assuming, therefore, that we may prop
erly insist upon the doctrine without re-
gard to 1.-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
power, by the extension of it's boundar-
les, takes possession of the territory of
one of our neighboring republics against
its will and in derogation of its rights,
ii is difficult to see why to that extent
such European power does not thereby
attempt to extend its system OF govern
ment to that portion of this continent
which is thus taken. This is the precise
action which President Monroe declared
to be dangerous to our peace and safe
ty," and 1t can make no difference wheth-
er the European system is extended by
an advance of frontier or otherwise.
1t is also suggested in the British re-
ply that we Should not seek to apply the
Monroe doctrine to the pending dispute,
because ''it does not embody any prin-
ciple of international law which is found
ed on the general consent of nations"
and that no statesman, however eminent,
and no nation however powerful. are
competent to insert into the code of inter-
national law novel principle which was
never recognized before, and which has
not since been accepted by the govern
ment of any other country"
A RIGHTEOUS PRINCIPLE.
Practically the principle for which we
contend has peculiar, If not exclusive
relation to the United States 1t may
not have been admitted in so many words
to the code of international law but since
in international counsels every nation is
entitled to the rights belonging to it,
of the enforcement of the Monroe doc
trine is something we may justly claim.
1t has its place in the code of international
law as certainly and as securely as if it
were specifically mentioned: and where
the United States is the sutton before the
high tribunal that administers interna-
tional law. the question to be determined
is whether or not we present claims
which the justice of that code of law can
find to be right and valid
The Monroe doctrine finds it's recogni-
ton in those principles of international
law which are based upon the theory that
every nation shall have its rights pro-
tected and its just claims enforced. OF
course this government is entirely con-
fdent that under the same sanction of
this doctrine we have clear rights and
undoubted claims.
Nor is this ignored in the British reply.
The prime minister, while not admitting
BILE to the present conditions, states
in declaring that the United States
would resist any such enterprise
Il 1t was contemplated, that
President Monroe adopted a policy which
received the entire sympathy of the En-
glish government of that late.
He further declares: Though the Ian
guage of President Monroe is directed to
the attainment of objects which most
Englishmen would agree to be salutary,
it is impossible to admit that they have
been inscribed by any adequate authority
in the code Of International law" Again
he says: They cher majesty's govern
menD fully concur with the view which
President Monroe apparently entertained
that any disturbance of existing terri
torial distribution in that hemisphere by
any fresh acquisitions on the part of any
European state would be a highly mex
pedient change"
ARBITRATION REFUSED.
In the belief that the doctrine for which
we contend was clear and definite; that 1t
was founded upon substantial considera-
tions and involved our safety and welfare;
that it was fully applicable to our present
conditions and to the state of the worlds
progress, and that it was directly related
to the pending controversy and without
any conviction as to the final merits of the
dispute, but anxious to learn in a salts
factory and conclusive manner whether
Great Britain sought, under the claim of
boundary, to extend her possessions on
this continent without right or whether
she merely sought the possession Of the
territory included within her lines of
ownership, this government proposed to
the government of Great Britain to re-
sort to arbitration as the proper means
of settling the question, to the end that
the vexatious boundary dispute between
the two countries might be determined and
our exact standing and relation in respect
to the controversy might be made clear
1t will be seen from the correspondence
herewith submitted that this proposition
has been declined by the British govern
hShN upon BIOuHuS WnlCn unuer the cir
Gums stances seem to me to be far from
satisfactory. 1t is deeply disappointing
that such an appeal, actuated by the most
friendly feelings toward both nations di-
rectly concerned, addressed to the sense
OF justice and unaniminity of one of the
great powers of the world, and touching
its relations to one comparatively weak
and small. should have produced no better
results.
The course to he nilrsiad nv, tbts e,o,,
eminent, in view of the present condition.