The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-12-28
amounting, in substance, to an invasion
and conquest of Venezuelan territory.


In conclusion Mr.. Olney says that in
these circumstances the duty of the
President appears to him unmistakable
and imperative. To ignore Great Brit
aims assertion of title and her refusal to
have that title investigated and not to
protest against the substantial appropri-
alton by Great Britain of the territory
tor her own use would be to ignore an
established policy with which the honor
and welfare of this country are closely
| identified. He therefore instructed Mr..
Bayard to lay the views given before
Lord Salisbury and said: They (the
views) call for definite decision upon
| the point whether Great Britain will
| consent or will decline to submit the
I Venezuelan boundary question in it's
| entirety to impartial arbitration" Elk
pressing the Presidents hope that the
! conclusion will be on the side of arbitra-
ton, Mr.. Olney concluded with the
pointed statement that if the President
sis to be disappointed in that hope, how
ever-a result not to be anticipated and
in his judgment calculated to greatly
embarrass the future relations between
this country and Great Britain-it is his
| wish to be made acquainted with the
fact at such early date as will enable
him to lay the whole subject before Con-
gress in his next annual message"
| Lord salisbury's Reply.
Lord Salisbury's reply is addressed to
Sir Julian Pauncefote, British ambassa-
dor at Washington, under date of No
vembsr &c last. This dealt only with
| the application of the Monroe Doctrine
in the case at issue and was followed on
| the same day by another note discussing
the boundary dispute per Sc. At the
outset Lord Salisbury states that so far
as he is aware the Monroe Doctrine has
never been before advanced on behalf of
| the United States in any written commu-
nication addressed to the government of
another nation. He gives what he be-
lieves is the British Interpretation of
| the doctrine and maintains the dangers
! which were apprehended by President
Monroe have no relation to the state Of
things in which we live at the present
day, and adds with thinly covered irony,
that: ut is Ineligible that Mr.. Olney
should invoke in defense of the views on
which he is now insisting an authority
tMonroe) which enjoys SO high a popu-
larity with his own fellow countrymen."
Continuing in short, pithy sentences,
he says it is difficult, indeed, to see how
the question in controversy can materi-
ally affect any State or community out
side those primarily interested; that the
disputed frontier of Venezuela has moth
ing to do with any of the questions dealt
with by President Monroe; that it is not
question of the colonization by any
European power of any portion of
America nor of the imposition upon the
communities of South America of any
system of government devised in Europe.
at is" he says, simply the determine
ton of the frontier of British posses
sion which belonged to the throne of
England long before the republic of
Venezuela came into existence"
Salisbury Becomes Tart.
AS he proceeds in the discussion the
language of Lord Salisbury becomes
tart. He argues in theory that the Mon
roe doctrine in itself is sound, but dis.
claims any intention of being under
stood as expressing any acceptance of it
on the part of her majestys government.
He quotes Mr.. Olney as saying THAT
distance and 5000 miles of intervening
ocean make any political union between
a European and an American State I'M
natural and inexpedient, will hardly be
denied" and adds that "the necessary
meaning of these words is that the union
between Great Britain and Canada; be-
tween Great Britain and Jamaica and
Trinidad; between Great Britain and
British Honduras or British Guiana, are
inexpedient and unnatural. President
Monroe" says his lordship, "disclaims
any such inference from this doctrine;
but in this, as in other respects, Mr..
Olney develops it."
Hopes for Reasonable Settlement.
Lord Salisbury concludes with the
statement that her maiesty's govern
ment have not surrendered the hope that
the controversy between themselves and
Venezuela will be adjusted by reasona-
BILE arrangement at an early date.
The second note, of November 26. is
wholly devoted to a discussion of the
boundary dispute exclusive of its rela-
ton to the Monroe doctrine. This dis
patch, however, sounds the key note Of
Great Britain's position with reference
to Mr.. Olney's representations. Lord
Salisbury states that Great Britain has
repeatedly expressed it's readiness to
submit to arbitration the conflicting
claims of Great Britain to territory of
great mineral value and follows this
statement with these important words:
"But they 1.-THE British government) can
not consent to entertain or to submit to
the arbitration of another power or a
foreign jurist, however eminent, claims
based on extravagant pretensions of