Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1895-12-21
ON VENEZUELA.
The President Sends a Special
Message to Congress.
THE MONROE DOCTRINE DWELT on.
The Duty of the United States to Resist by
Every Means Any Appropriation OF
Venezuelan Territory by
Great Britain.

Pruden, the expected message in re-
gard to the British-Venezuelan compli-
cation. 1t was at once read in both
houses, as follows:
To the Congress-:
In my annual message, addressed to the con-
PreSS on the Sd inst, called attention to the
pending boundary controversy between Great
Britain and the republic of Venezuela, and re-
cited the substance of a representation made
by this government to her Britannia majeSty'S
government suggesting reasons why such dis
pute should be submitted to arbitration for
settlement and inQutring whether 1t would be
so submitted
The answer Of the British government, which
was then awaited has since been received and,
together with the dispatch to which it is re-
ply. is hereto appended
Such reply is embodied in two communtca-
tons addressed by the British prime minister
to Sir Julian Paurcefote, the British ambas-
Sador at this capital It 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 q new and strange extern
sion and development of this doctrine is in
sisted on by the United States that the rea-
sons justifying an appeal to the doctrine enun-
ciated by President Monroe are generally in
applicable ITO the state of things in which we
live at the present day. and especially map
plicable to q controversy involving the bound
airy line between Great Britain and Venezuela
without attempting eXUenQeQ arguments IN
reply to these positions, it 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 ma
ton and is essential to The integrity OF
free institutions and the tranquil maintenance
of our distinctive form of government 1t was
intended to apply to every stage Of our ma
tional life and cannot become obsolete while
our republic endureS If the balance of power
is justly a cause for jealous anxiety among the
governments of the old world and a subject for
our absolute non-interference, none the less is
an observance of the Monroe doctrine of vital
concern to our people and their governments
Assuming therefore, that we may properly
insist upon this doctrine without regard to
the 1.-The state of things in which we live" or
is not apparent why its application may not be
invoked in the present controversy. If Euro
pean power, by an extension of its boundaries,
takes possession of the territory of one of
neighboring republics against its will and in
derogation of it's rights, it is difficult to see
why, to that extent, such European power
does not thereby attempt to extend it's system
of government to that portion of this continent
which is thus taken. This is the precise &C
ton which President Monroe declared to be
dangerous to peace and safety" and it
can make no difference whether the European
system is extended by an advance of frontier
or otherwise.
1t has been suggested in the British reply
that we should not seek to apply the Monroe
doctrine to the present dispute, because it
does not embody any principle of tnterna-
tional law which "iS founded on the general
consent of nations and that mo statesman,
however eminent, and nation, how
ever powerful, are competent to insert
into the code of international law o
novel principle which was never recognized
before, and which has not since been
accepted by the government of any other
country" Practically the principle for which
we contend has peculiar. if not exclusive, re-
1ation to the United States It may not nave
been admitted in so many words to the code CT
international law, but since, in in
ternational counsels every nation is
it, if the enforcement of the Monroe doc
trine is something we may justly claim it has
its place in the code of International law GER
tainly and securely as it has if it were specif-
cally mentioned, and when the United States
is sutton before the high tribunal that adj
ministers international law the question to be
determined is whether or not we present
claims which the justice of that code Of law
can find to be right and valid.
The Monroe doctrine finds its recognition in
those principles of international law which is
based upon the theory that every nation shall
have it's rights protected and its just claims
enforced OF course this government is en-
tirely confident that under the sanction of this
doctrine have clear rights and undoubted
claims. Nor is this ignored in the British reply.
The prime minister, while not admitting that
the Monroe doctrine is applicable to present
conditions, states: In declaring that the
United States would resist any such enter
prise if it contemplated. President
Monroe adopted a policy which received
the entire sympathy Of the English govern
ment of that date" He further declares:
Though the language of President Monroe
is directed to the attainment of objects
which most Englishmen would agree to be
Salutary, it is impossible to admit that they
have been inscribed by any adequate authority
in the code of international law" Again he
says: They Cher majestys governmen)
finally concur with the view which President
Monroe apparently entertained, that any dis
turbance of the existing territorial diStribu-
ton in that hemisphere by any fresh acquisi-
tionS on the part of any European state, would
be highly inexpedient change
In the belief that the doctrine for which we
contend was clear and definite, that it was
founded upon substantial considerations and
involved our safety and welfare, that it was
fully applicable to our present conditions and
to the state Of the worlds progress, and that
it was directly related to the pending contro-
Tersy and without any conviction as to the
hnal merits of the dispute, but anxious to
learn In a satisfactory and conclusive man
ner whether Great Britain sought under a
claim OF boundary to extend her possessions
on this continent without right. or whether
she merely sought possession of terri
tory fairly included within her lines or
ownership, this government proposed to
arbitration as the proper means of settling the
question, to the end that vexatious boundary
dispute between the two contestants might be
determined and our exact standing and rela-
tion in respect to the controversy might be
made clear. 1t will be seen from the CORE
SpoRdenoe herewith submitted that this prop
Osition has been declined by the British gov
eminent upon grounds which, under the cir
cumStances, seem to me to be far from salts
factory 1t is deeply disappointing that such
tod Rrie~
fngs toward both nations directly concerned,
addressed to the sense of justice and to the
magnanimity of one Of the great powers of the
world and touching its relations TO one COM
paratively weak and small. should have pro-
duced no better results.
The course to be pursued by this govern
ment in view OF the present condition does not
appear to admit of serious doubt Having
labored faithfully for many years to Induce
Great Britain to submit this dispute to Impair
tial arbitration. and having been now finally
apprised of her refusal to do so. nothing re-
malns but to accept the situation TO recognize