Delaware gazette and state journal., 1895-12-19
THE VENEZUELA AFFAIR
President Cleveland Sends Mes
sage, With England's Reply, \
to Congress.
AFFIRM STAND MAINTAINED
The President Regrets That Great
Britain Declines Arbitration.
+ MuJhT TITO nnItMTQu OIJnIIt n m
WHAT THIS COUNTRY SHOULD DO
Send a Commission to Deter
mine the Boundary.
AND RESIST ALL WlLFUL AGGRESSION


should Report Upon the Boundary Dis
pute Between British Guiana and yeno-
suels--Ihen the United States should Re-
sent Any Appropriation by Great Britain
of Lands That the Commission May Find
to Belong Co Venezuela.
Washington, Doc. 17--President Cleve-
land to-day sent the following message
TO Congress:
To the Congress In my annual mes
sage addressed to the Congress on the
Sd instant, | called attention to the
pending boundary controversy between
Great Britain and the Republic of
Venezuela, and recited the substance of
representation made by this govern
ment to Her Britannia Maiesty's gov
ernment, suggesting reasons why such
dispute should be submitted to arbitra-
tion for settlement, and inquiring
whether it would be submitted
The answer of the British govern
ment, which was then awaited, has
I since been received and together with
i, the dispatch to which it is reply is
hereto appended.
Such reply is embodied in two com
municatious addressed by the British
I Prime Minister to Sir Julian Paunce-
fote. the British Ambassador at this
Capitol. 1t will be seen that one OF
these communications is devoted ex.
clusively to observations upon the
Monroe doctrine, and claims that in
the present instance new and strange
extension and development of this doc
trine is insisted on by the United
States; that the reasons justifying and
applying to the doctrine enunciated
by President Monroe are generally in
applicable "to the state of things in
which we live at the present day, !" and
especially inappliuable to a contro-
versy involving the boundary line be-
tween Great Britain and Venezuela.
Without attempting extended argu-
'ment in reply to these positions, ii
may not be amiss to suggest that the
doctrine upon which we stand is strong
and sound because it's enforcement is
important to our peace and safety as a
nation, and is essential to the integrity
Of our free institutions and the tran
quill maintenance of our distinctive
form of government. 1t was intended
to apply to every stage of our national
life and cannot become obsolete while
our Republic endures. If the balance
Of power is justly case for Jealous
anxiety among the governments Of the
old world, and subject for our abso-
lnte non-interference, none the less is
an observance of the Monroe doctrine
of vital concern to our people and their
government.
Assuming, therefore. that we may
properly insist upon this doctrine with
out regard to "the state Of things in
which we live. " or any changed condi-
tions here or elsewhere, lit is not ap-
parent why it's application may not be
invoked in the present controversy.
II an European power, by an extern
sion of its boundaries, takes possession
of the territory of one of our neighbor.
ing republics against it's will and in
derogation of it's rights, it is difficult
to see why, to that extent, such Euro.
pean power does not thereby attempt
to extend its system of government to
that portion OF this continent which is
thus taken. This is the precise action
which President Monroe declared TO be
dangerous to our peace and safety,
and it can make no difference whether
the European system is extended by
an advance of frontier or otherwise.
1t is also suggested in the British
reply that we should not seek to arply
the Monroe doctrine to the pending
dispute. because it does not embody
any principle of international law which
lis founded on the general consent Of
nations;'' and that mo statesman,
however eminent, and no nation, how.
ever powerful, are competent to insert
into the code of international law q
novel principle which was never
recognized before and which has moi
since been accepted by the government
of aDy Otrer country ~
Practically the principle for which
we contend has peculiar, il not exclu-
sive, relation 10 the United States. i
may not have been admitted in 80 man,
words to the code of international law
but since in international counseli
every nation is entitled of the rightI
belonging to it. il the enforcement O
the Monroe doctrine is something, WI
may Justly claim it has its place il
the code of international law as Ger
tainly and as securely as If it wal
specifically mentioned; and when thu
United States is suitor before thu
high tribunal that administers inter
national law, the question to be deter
mined is whether or not we presen
claims which the Justice OF that cod,
of law can find to be right and valid.
The Monroe doctrine finds it's recog
ption in those principles of interna
iional law which are based upon th,
theory that every nation shall have III
rights protected and it's just claim
enforced.
OF course this government is entirel,
confident that under the sanction o
this doctrine we have clear rights anC
undoubted claims. Nor is this ignored
in the British reply. The Prime Min
lister, while not admitting that th
Monroe doctrine is applicable to presen
conditions, states;
"In declaring that the United State
would resist any such enterprise if
was contemplated, President Monro
ladopted policy which received tn
entire sympathy of the English govern
ment of that date. -
He further declares:
Though the language OF Presiden
Monroe is directed to the attaehmen
of objects which most Englishme
would agree to be salutary, tits impos
sible to admit that they have been de
scrihed by any adequate authority il
the code OF international law, y
Again he says:
"They (Her Maiesty's government
fully concur with the view which Presi
dent Monroe apparently entertained
that any disturbance of tho existing tel
ritorial distribution in That hemispher
by any fresh acquisitions on the par
OF any European state would be-
highly inexpedient change.
In the belief that thu doctrine fc
which we contend was clear and defir
ite; that it was founded Upon substar
tial considerations and involved ou
safety and welfarei. that 1T was full