The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-12-18
OLNEY's CELEBRATED NOTE.
A Hfnging Enunciatfon and Definition
of the Monroe Doctrine.

Hfnging Enunciatfo and Definition
of the Monroe Doctrine.
accompanying the Presidents message is
the correspondence on the subject 1t starts
with Secretary Olney's now celebrated note
opening the negotiations with Great Britain
looking to the arbitration of the boundary
dispute. It bears date OF July 20, last, and
is addressed to Mr.. Bayard. The Secretary
begins by stating that the President has
given much anxious thought TO the subject
and has Tot reached a conclusion without
a lively sense Of its great Importance as
well as of the serious possibility involved
In any action now to be taken. He then
comments on the long duration of the
boundary dispute, the Indefinite claims OF
both parties and "the continuous growti,
OF the underlined British claims;' the fact
OF the various attempts at arbitration of
the controversy and the part in the matter
heretofore taken by the United States He
shows that the British claims since the
Schomburg line was run have moved the
frontier of British Guiana further and
further to the westward of the line pro-
posed by Lord Aberdeen, in 1874" The Sec
retary then summarizes the situation at the
beginning Of this year to be as follows:
"First-The title to territory of indefinite
but confessedly very large extent is in dis
pute between Great Britain and Venezuela.
"Second--The disparity in strength of the
parties is such that Venezuela can hope to
establish her claim only through peaceful
"Third-The controversy has existed for
half a century, despite Venezuela's efforts
to establish a boundary.
"Fourth-Venezuela has, for a quarter of
a century, striven for arbitration.
"Fifth-Great Britain has continuously re-
fused, except on the remuneration in her
70 nf lQ nnr RI n % tC
claims.
'The United States has made it clear to
San Of apa seT T be
troversy is one in which its honor and its
interests are involved, and the continuance
Of which it cannot regard with indiffer-
ence" This status, the Secretary says COM
pels those charged with the interests of
the United States Ito decide to what ex-
tent, if any, the United States may and
should intervene in controversy between
and primarily concerning only Great Brit
ain and Venezuela, and to decide how far
it is bound to see that the integrity, of Vene-
zuelan territory is not impaired by the
pretensions of its powerful antagonist. Are
any such right and duty, devolyed on the
has already done all, If not more than all,
that a purely sentimental interest in the
affairs of the two countries Justifies, and to
push it's interposition further would be un-
becoming and undignified, and might well
subject ii to the charge of impertinent In
termeddling with affairs with which it has
any such right and duty exist their due
exercise and discharge will not permit or
any action that shall not be efficient and
that if the power of the United States is
adequate shall not result in the accomp-
lishment of the end in view. The question
thus presented, as a matter of principle.
due regard being had to the settled national
policy, does not seem difficult of solution.
Yet the momentous practical consequences
dependent on its determination REQUIRE that hs
the grounds of the conclusion arrived at
should be fully and frankly stated"
THE RIGHT TO INTERPOSE.
The Secretary lays 1t down as a canon
of international law that a nation may
Justly interpose in a controversy between
other nations whenever what is done or
proposed by any of the parties primarily
concerned is a serious and direct menace
to its own integrity. tranquility or welfare"
The propriety of the rule, when applied
in good faith. will not be questioned in
any quarters. though, he says, 1t has been
given a wide scope and is often made a
cloak for schemes Of wanton spoilation ana
aggraniizement. This leads him up to an
elaborate review of the Monroe doctrine.
and Secretary Olney, stating that the rropo-
sition that America is in no part open to
coIonization has long been conceded, says
that our present concern is with the other
practical application of the Monroe doc
trine, namely; That american non .x .
European non-intervention In American al
fairs. the disregard of which by any
European power is to be deemed an act OF
unfriendliness toward the United States.
on this point the Secretary says:
"The precise scope and limitations OF
this rule cannot be too clearly apprehended.
1t does not establish any general protec-
torate by the United States over other
American States. It does not relieve any
American State from its obligations as
fixed by international law; nor prevent
any European power directly interested
from enforcing such obligations or from
inficting merited punishment forthe breach
of them 1t does not contemplate any in
reference in the internal affairs Of any
American State or in the relations be-
tween il and other American States. 1t
does not justify any attempt on our part
to change the established form of gov
ernment OF any American State or to pre-
vent the people OF such State from altering
that form, according to their own will and
pleasure The rule in question has but a
single purpose and object. 1t Is that no
European power or combination of Eu-
ropean powers shall fortfbly deprive an
American State Of the right and power