Birmingham state herald., 1895-12-18

Washington, Dec. 17.-The president
 sent to congress today the Venezuelan correspondence, accompanied by the fol- lowing significant message:
 To the Congress: In my annual mes sage addressed to the congress on-the Sd instant I called attention to the pending boundary controversy between Great Britain and the republic of Venezuela, and recited the substance of a repre- sentation made by this government to her Britannic majestys government sug-
 gesting reasons why such dispute should
 be submitted to arbitration for settle
 ment and inquiring whether it would be so submitted. The answer of the Brit ish government, which was then await
 ed. has since been received, together
 with dispatch to which a reply is hereI to appended.
 Such reply is embodied in two commit
 nications addressed by the British prime
 minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote, Brit ish ambassador at this capital It will be seen that one of these communica- tionS is devoted exclusively to obserVa- tions upon the Monroe doctrine, and claims that in the present instance a new and strange extension and develop ment of this doctrine is insisted upon by the United States that the reasons jus tifying appeal to the doctrine enunciated by President Monroe are generally inap- plica ble ito the state of things in which we live at the present day" and especial ly inapplicable to controversy involv- ing the boundary line between Great Britain and Venezuela.
 Without attempting extended argu- ment in reply to these positions, it may not be amiss to suggest that the doctrine upon which we stand is strong and sound because its enforcement is important to our peace and safety as nation, and
 is essential to the integrity of our free institutions and the tranquil mainte- nance of a distinctive form of govern
 ment. It was intended to apply to ev- cry 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 sub ject for our absolute non-interference, none the less is an observance of the Monroe doctrine of vital concern to our people and their government.
 Assuming, therefore, that we may prob- a ably insist upon this doctrine without re- gard to "the state of things in which we live" or any changed conditions here or elsewhere it is not apparent why its ap- plication may not be invoked in the pres ent controversy.
 If a European power, by extension Of it's boundaries, takes possession of the territory of one of our neighboring re- publics against its will and in derogation of its rights, it is difficult to see why to that extent such European power does
 not thereby attempt to extend its sys- tenn of government to that portion of this continent which is thus taken.
 This is the precise action which Presi- dent Monroe declared to be dangerous
 to our peace and safety" and it can make no difference whether the european
 system is an extension by an advance Of frontier or otherwise.
 It 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 principle
 of international law which is founded on
 "the general consent of nations, ana
 that no statesman, however eminent,
 and no nation, however powerful, are competent to insert into the code of in-
 ternational law a novel principle which
 was never recognized before, and which
 has not since been accepted by the gov-
 ernment of any other country.
 Practically, the principle for which we
 contend has a peculiar if not extensive
 relation to the United States. It may
 not have been admitted in so many
 words to the code of international law,
 but since international counsels every
 nation is entitled to the rights belonging
 to it. If the enforcement of the Monroe
 
 claim 1t has it's place in the code of in-
 ternational law as certainly and as se-
 curely as if it were specifically men, toned, and when the United States is suitor before the high tribunal that ad-
 ministers international law the question
 to be determined is whether or not we
 present the claims which the justice of
 that code of law can find to be right ana
 valid.
 The Monroe doctrine finds its recogni-
 tion in those principles of international
 law which are based upon the theory
 that every nation shall have its rights
 protected and just claims enforced. Of
 course, this government is entirely con-
 fdent that under the sanction of this
 doctrine we have clear rights and un-
 doubted claims. Nor is this ignored in
 the British reply. The prime minister,
 while not admitting that the Monroe
 doctrine is applicable to the present con
 ditions, states "in declaring that the
 United States would resist any such en-
 terprise if it was contemplated, that President Monroe adopted policy which received the entire sympathy of the Brit
 ish government of that date"
 He further declares: Though the lan-
 guage of President Monroe Is directed
 to the attainment of the objects which
 most Englishmen would agree to be salu-
 tary, 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
 government fully concur with the view
 which President Monroe apparently en-
 tertained that any disturbance effecting
 territorial distribution in that hemis-
 phere by any fresh. acquisition on the
 part of any European state would be highly inexpedient change"
 In the belief that the doctrine for