Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1895-12-23
PRESS COM N ENTS.
Has Read Salisbury's Reply.
IN. Y, Evening Post dem. y

The full text of Lord Salisbury's reply
TO Secretary Olney on the merits of the
boundary dispute itself, as distinct from
the Monroe fantasticsltes, is printed in
the Congressional Record Of December II.
II is a statement of the British case, such
as has never before been made public.
Mr.. Olney, rs Salisbury justly observes,
had proceeded upon the basis Of purely
eX-parte Venezuelan representations; his
historical argument is taken over bodily
from the Nenezuelans, us anyone may see
who will consult Senate Elk. Doc No.
226, 50th Congress, where the whole of it
appears in substance. That argument is
now tray crsed by Lord Salisbury in way
sufficiently to account for Mr.. Olney 5
turning tail. He set out by rOundly
affirming that the Ncnezuelans were
right. After reading Salisbury 5 reply,
be says he will have an investigation and
see if they We're right. An argument
that has thus mado the valiant secretary
cat his own words is surely worthy of
consideration even by the war-crazed.
International Law and Monroe Doctrine.
Chicago Times Herald.J
thing but the temporary agreement of
nations, the tenure of its articles being
dependent upon the power of nations to
depart from them in their own interest
and the opposing power Of other nations
to maintain existing cOmpacts. The
vicissiJudes of international law are but
the cpitome of the history Of the modern
world. The most notorious
maxim of international law is the
"balanoe of power. To preserve it has
been the first care of governments re
cognizing the code; and its fractures have
been the chapter heads Of further extern
sion of prctcnsions, the admission of in
novations, the Inauguration of expert
mcnts, the admission of novel principles
by stptesmcn and nations. The map of
the world today presents slight rescm-
hlance to that of the world when the
fathers of international law-Spauiards,
Dutchmcn, the Swiss and the French
were codifying and annotating it for
jurisconsults, publicists, statesmen, diplo-
natists, robbers, pioneers, pirates and
founders of new orders Of things through
out the world. For one of the chief ends
of the codification of international law is
to enable statesmen or states the more
easily to violate it; and one of the advan-
tagcs of international law has been to
point out TO communities when, falling
more rational methods, it was time with
the sword to insert novel principles and
to cocrce recognition OF the novelties by
the unreasonable, the sem-civilized or
the bclligerent,
To mention but few of the novel
a;,l a. 4
in international law-thore is extirpation
of Great Britain's doctrine "once sub
iect always IA subject" The interna-
tionsl law of perpetual allegiance was not
only insisted upon by Great Britain
within century, but was actually for a
time admitted by the high authorities of
the American federal courts. We sub
stituted for it In international law the
novel principle that the right of expa-
triation is a natural and inherent right of
all people. 1t was as late rs 1870 that
Great Britain by act of Parliament con-
fessnd that this novel principle had be-
come an integral part Of the international
code, but in fact 1t had been wedged in
for so long and so deeply without this
formal ayowal that the avowal was mere
waste of words.
The Monroe doctrine is no more novel
than others Great Britain has found this
country able to insert in the international
code; and after the mastery elucidation
of it by Secretary Olney, who rests the
doctrine broadly where it belongs, on the
base of nations right to protect and
perpetuatc itsclf-Great Britain will yet
in practice, and ultimately by avowal
admit that this novel principle" has
also been inserted in the international
code.