Highland recorder. (Monterey, Highland County, Va.) 1877-1972, 1895-12-27
MONROE DOCTRINE
President CleVelaad's Reply to
Lord Salisbury.
THE VENEZUELA QUESTION

congress AdvIs ed to Authorize a
Commission to Ascertain the True
Boundary Line-If Great Britain
Does Not Accept Its Conclusions
and Undertakes to o. Beyond the
Findings of This Commission. Then
ItShould Be Resisted by the United
States with Every Means Within
Its FoWer.
The President sent the following message
to Congress;
TO the Congress-
In my annual message addressed to the
Congress on the Sd instant called attention
to the pending boundary controversy be-
tween Great Britain and the republic of
Venezuela, and rected the substance of re-
presentation made by this government to
Her Britannia Majesty's government sug-
gesting reasons why such dispute should be
submitted to arbitration for settlement, and
lnquiring whether 1t would be so sub
mitted.
|
which was then awaited. has since been re-
ceived, and. together with the despatch to
which it is a reply, Is hereto appended.
Such reply is embodied in two communica-
tions addressed by the British Prime Minis
ter to Sir Julian Pauncefote. the British am
bassador at this capital. 1t will be seen that
one of these communications is devoted eX-
clusiyely to observations upon the Monroe
doctrine, and claims that in tho pres ent in
stance new and strange extension and de-
velOpment of this doctrine is insisted on by
the United States; that the reasons justifying
an appeal to the doctrine enunciated by
President Monroe are generally inappicable
''to the state of things in which we live at
the present day." and especially inapp!icable
to controversy involving the boundary line
between Great Britain and Venezuela.
Without attempting extended argument in
reply to these positions, it may not be amiss
to suggest that the doctrine upon which we
stand is strong and sound because rs en-
forcement is important to our peace and
safety as a nation. and is essential to the in
tegrity of our free institutions and tho tran
gull 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.
AN APT COMPARISON.
II 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 obser-
vance of the Monroe doctrine of vital con-
Germ to our people and their government.
Assuming. therefore, that we may properly
insist upon this doctrine without regard to
"the state of things in which we live," or
any changed conditions here or elsewhere, it
is not apparent why its application may not
be invoked in the present controversy.
If European power by an extension ot
Its boundaries, takes possession of the terri
tory of one of our neighboring republics
against its will and in derogation OF its
rights, it is difficult to see why, to that ex-
tent, such European 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 makeno
difference whether the European system is
extended by an advance of frontier or other
wise.
1t is also suggested in the British reply
that we should not seek to apply the Monroe
doctrine to the pending dispute, because
it does not embody any principle of inter
national law which is-founded on the gen
eral consent of nations, and that "no states
man, however eminent, and no nation. how
ever powerful is competent to insert into the
code of international law 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, ii not exclusive, rela-
ton to the United States. 1t may not have
been admitted in so many words to the code
Of international law, but since in internat-
ional counsels every nation is entitled to the |
rights belonging to it, if the enforcement of
the Monroe doctrine is something We may
Justly claim, it has its place in the case of in
ternational law as certainly and securely as
II it were specifically mentioned; and when |
the United States is a suitor before the high |
tribunal that administers international law,
he question to be determined is whether or |
not we present claims which the Justice of |
hat code of law can find to be right and |
valid
The Monroe doctrine finds its recognition
n those principles of international law
which are based upon the theory that every
nation shall have its rights protected and its
ust claims enforced.
LORD SALISBURY S ADMISSIONS.
OF course this government is entirely con-
ldent that under the sanction of the doctrine
We have clear rights and undoubted claims.
Ior is this ignored in the British reply The
prime minister, while not admitting that the
Monroe doctrine is applicable to present con-
litions states: "In declaring that the United
states would resist any such enterprise
t was contemplated, President Monroe
Idopted policy which received the entire
ympathy of the English government of that
late" He further declares: Though the
6nquage OF President. Monroe is directed 10
he attainment of objects which most En-
lisemen would agree to be salutary, it is i'm
y ssible to admit that they have been in