Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-12-17

sroug enou h 10 got aTything by
free anu we won't nrbItrate, unless
you nrst give up part u the tsffl-
tory" THIS, he says, am0un's 70 an
Invasion and conquest, and our duty
10 summed up as foil1g'!
"lu these circumsta noes, tho duty Of
tho PRESIDENT appears 10 hlni unml1-
taxable anil imperative. Great
Brltain's assertion Of title TO the die.
uutod territory combined with her ro-
flsal 10 have that title investigated be.
Ing n HubstantiAl appropriation Of ter
ritory TO her own use, not 10 protest
and give warning that the transaction
will 10 regarded ~ Injurious 10
the iatorests Of the people OF the U nilod
States NJ well M oppressive In
Itself, would be 10 ignore tho
established policy with which the
honor and welfare OF this country are
closely identified. While tho measures
necessary or proper for tho vindicAtion
OF that policy are 10 bo determined by
another branch Of the government, II
Ia clearly for the executive TO leave
nothing undone which may tend 10
render such determination unnocss.
sary."
sALIsBURY's AaawER.
Lord Shlisbuty's answer dated July
20, Gays the Monroe doctriun has un-
dergone "notahlo uovel0Iment"
siuoo its enuncistion by President
Monroe, which had originally received
the entire eympAthy Of the English
government. The dispute over the
boundary has nothing to do With any
questions dealt with by Monroe. The
latter did not claim for the U. 3. the
novel prerogAtive Of settling = differ
enco Of this kind, nor did no
teek 10 establish q ptottc.
toTAte over Mexico or the
Central American states. II the
United States will not control the con.
duct Of these communities, II cannot
undertake to protect them from oonec.
quencos attaching 10 misconduct. NJ
bitration IL not ftee from defects, AMI
tbs claim third nation may impose
on two interested nations cannot 10
Justified ana has no foundation Ia tao
law Of nations.
international Law being founded On
the general consent OF nalionR, uu
siateamau and no nation, however
powerful, can inject novel principle
not acceptable % any o.hsr govern
menl ana Secretary Oluey'a principle
that "AmerioAn questions are iol
American decision" (unaustained by
Montoe) cannot be sustained by inter.
national law. Montoo's language was
never admitted 10 be International
law and the danger OF such admission
10 shown by tho "strsnRo development
which the doctrine has received ~
Secretary Olnsy's hands"
In conclusion Lord Salisbury says
he hopss the difficulty, made more
difficult by the NenSzIelans' ineos-
sideTate action la breakiug the diplo'
mAto relations, will be adjusted by d
reasonable arrangement Al an early
date.
Lord sAlisbury'a note, dated July
25th, deals entirely with the boundary
dispute on its merits. IL begins with
the statement that Great Britain does
net recognize that ANY other country
has any material interest In the con
ttoversy, and yet makes the tiaiemen
In this fashion because, owing 10 tn,
rupture Of diplomatic relations, IL II
not otherwise possible to communicate
II TO the Venezuelan government
Salisbury asserts that Secretary
Olney, acting on an ex.parts presen
talion OF the case by Venezuela, hal
fallen Into much MISREPRESENTATION.