The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-12-18

For the innumerable troubles caused by
unhealthy Kidneys, Liver and Urinary Organs;
for the distressing Disorders Of Women Tor all
Nervous Affections, and physical arrangements
generally, this great remedy has no equal. Its
past record Is guarantee for the future.
WARMERS SAFE CURE CO.,
london, Rochester Melbourne FRANKFORT Toronto R1rt
in what measure they should be sus-
tanned; but their rights are in no way
strengthened or extended by the fact that
the controversy affects territory which Is
called American.
The CHILEAN War.
Mr.. Olney quotes the case of the recent
Gillian war, in which the United States
declined to join with France and England
IN an effort to bring hosulitieS to a close
on account of the Monroe doctrine. The
United States were entirely in the right
IN deciding to join in an attempt at paSi-
fication if they though fit, but Mr.. Olney'5
principle that American questions are
for American decision" even if it received
any countenance from the language OF
President Monroe (Which it does not), can
not be sustained by any reasoning drawn
from the law of nations.
The government of the United States is
not entitled to affirm as a universal prop
oSition, with reference to a number of in
dependent states for whose conduct it as
SuIneS no responsibility, that its interests
are necessarily concerned in whatever
may befall those states, simply because
they are situated in the western hem
i@~ h"ra. It NAV we'll be said that the in
terests of the United States are affected
by something that happens to Chill OF
fsru and the circumstances may give
them the right Of interference, but such
a, contingency may equally happen in the
case of China or Japan. and the right
of interference is not more extensive or
more assured in the one case than in
the other.
Monroe's Language.
Though the language of President MonE
roe is directed to the attainment Of OBJ
jects which most Englishmen would agree
to be saluatory, it is impossible to admit
tibet they have been inscribed by any au-
thority in the code of international law,
and the danger which such admission
would involve is sufficiently exhibited,
both by the strange development which
the doctrine has received at Mr. Olney.S
hands and the arguments from which It
is supported in the dispatch under reply.
In defense of it, he says:
vening ocean MAKE ANY PERMANENT
POLITICAL UNION BETWEEN AN Eg-
ROPEAN AND AN AMERICAN Stain
UNNATURAL AND INXPEDIENT viz
hardly be denied. But physical and geso
graphical considerations are the least h1
the objections 20 such union europe
has a set Of primary interests which are
peculiar to herself; America is not IN
Tested in them and ought not to be veXed
or Complicated with them
And again: Thus far in our history we
have been spared the burdens and evils
Of immense standing armies and all the
other accessories Of huge warlike estao-
lishments; and the exemption has highly
contributed to our national greatness
of every citizen. But with the powers OF
Europe permanently encamped on Arner1-
can SOIL the ideal conditions we have
thus far enjoyed cannot be expected TO
continue"
The Meaning.
The necessary meaning Of these words
is that the union between Great Britain
and British Honduras OF Britisas Gulana
are ''inexpedient and unnatural"
President Monroe disclaims any such
inference from his doctrine; but in this,
as in other respects, Mr.. Olney develops
it. He lays down that the lnexPedlent
tween a European state is so obvious taat
sit will hardly be denied"
Her majesty's government are pre-
pared emphaticalIy to deny it on behalf
of both the British and American PEG
pie who are subject to her crown. They
maintain that the union between Great
Britain and her territories in the west
ern hemisphere is both natural and ex-
pedient. They fully concur with 'hs
view which President Monroe appar-
emily entertained, that any disturbance
Of the existing territorial distribution in
that hemisphere by any fresh acquisi-
tions on the part of any European state
would be a highly inexpedient charge.
But they are not prepared to admit that
the recognition of that expe1iency is
clothed with the sanction which belongs
to a doctrine of international law. They
are not prepared to admit that the inter-
estS of the United States are necessarily
concerned in every frontier dispute which
may arise between any two of the
states who possess dominion in the
western hemisphere; and still less can
they accept the doctrine that the United
States are entitled to claim that the pro-
cess of arbitration shall be applied 70
any demand for the surrender Of terri
tory which one Of those states may make
against another.
VenezueIa's Action.
I have commented in the above re-
Mr.. Olney's doctrines, apart from tIeA
special considerations which attach /, :
the controversy between the Uniteqk
Kingdom and Venezuela in its presenf
phase. This controversy has undoubt-
eddy been made more difficult by the in
considerable action of the Venezuelan
government in breaking off relations
with her majesty's government and its
settlement has been correspondingiy de-
layed; but her majesty's government
have not surrendered the hope that 1t
will be adjusted by a reasonable ar
rangement at an early date.
1 request that you will read the sub
stance of the above dispatch to Mr.. Oh
ney and leave him copy if he desires it.
Another NOtes
The correspondence closes with another
note from Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian
Pauncefote, intended for delivery to Sec
rotary Olney, of the same date as his pre-
ceding note, from which it was probably
separated because it deals entirely with
the merits of the British claim to the
territory in dispute.
Lord Salisbury explains that he is pre-
vented from addressing the Venezuelan
government Itself in consequence of a Sus-
pension Of diplomatic relations. Lord
Salisbury begins with the statement that
have never avoided or declined argument
on the subject with the government of
Venezuela, have always held that the
question was one which had no direct
bearing OH the material interests of any
other country. and have constantly re-
Trained hitherto, from presenting any de-
tailed statement of their case either tY
the United States or to other Foreign gcN-
ernments."
Probably for this reason, says Lord
Sa is ury, Mr.. Olney'S statement bears the
impress Of being mainly IL not entirely.
founded on ex-parte Venezuelan statee
ments. and gives an erroneous view of
MANY of the material facts. He chal-
lenges Secretary Olney's first statement
thai fine dispute dates back to 1914, and
asserts that ii did not begin until 1S40.
which assertion he proceeds to support by
y long sr9temert of the condition under
which British Guiana was acquired from
tIae Dutch, the friendly relations that had
existed for long time between the Uni
led States of Colombia first and after
wards Venezuela, and Great Britain with
reference to the early DEGREES of the Span
ont EIe - he