The Goodland republic. [volume] (Goodland, Kan.) 1891-1907, 1895-12-20


both houses Of congress met yesterday,
the president sent, by Executive Clerk
PFuden, the expected message in re-
gard to the British Venezueiau compli-
cation. It was at once read in both
houses, as follows:
To the Congress:
In my annual message, addressed to the con-
gross 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 maiesty's
government suggesting reasons why such dis
puse should be submitted to arbitration for
settlement and inquiring whether it would be
so submitted.
The answer Of the British government, which
was then swaited, has since been received and,
together with the dispatch TO which it is a re-
ply. Is hereto appended
Such reply is embodied In two cOmmunIca-
tions addressed by the British prime minister
70 Sir Julian PaunceiOte, the British ambas-
sadoT at this capital It will be seen that one
Of these communications is devoted ez-
elnslVely so observations upon the Monroe
doctrine and claims that in the present
instance new and strange extern
sion and development Of this doctrine is In
sisted on by the United States, that tho rea-
sons iustiiying an appeal to the doctrine enun-
oiated by President Monroe are generally in
applicable ito the state OF things in which We
live Of the present day" and especially inap-
piioable to a controversy involving the bound
hry line between Great Britain and Venezuela
Without attempting extended arguments in
reply TO these positions, it may not be amiss TO
hot HfNaH I'll I'll
IS strong and sound, because its enforcement
Is important to our peace and safety as q ma
ton and is essential to the integrity Of our
free institutions and the tranquil maintenance
Of our distinctive form Of government It was
intended to apply to every stage Of our ma
tionai life and cannot become obsolete while
our republic enduTes II the balance OF power
is justly cause for jealous anxiety among the
governments Of the old world and subject for
our absolute nCn-interfeFenoe, 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 without regard to
the the state o; things in which We live" or
any changed conditions here or elsewhere, it
Is nOtapparent why its application may not be
invoked IN the present controversy. II Euro
pean power, by an extension Of its boundaries,
takes possession Of the territory OF one Of our
neighboFing republics against Its will and in
Gerogation OF It's rights, it Is difficult to see
why, to that extent, 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 &C
ton 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
OF otherwise,
It 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 inteFna-
tonal law which "is founded on the general
consent Of nations" and that mo statesman,
however emin9nt, and no nation, how
ever powerful, are 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, il not exclusive, re-
lation to the United States. II may not have
been admitted in so many words to the code CT
international law, but since, In in
teFlational cOuhsels every nation is
entitled to the rights belonging to
It, il the enforcement Of the Monroe doc
trine is something We may justly claim it has
Its place in the code Of international law as GER
taiHiy and securely as 1t has il It we're Rpectf-
eally mentioned, and when the United Statey
Is suitor before the high tribunal that ad-
ministers international law the question to be
determined Is whether OF NOS We present
claims which the justice Of that code OF law
can find TO be right and valid
Tho Monroe doctrine finds its recognition in
those principles OF international law which is
based upon the theory that every nation shall
have its rights protected and It's just claims
enforced OF course this government is en-
tiFely confident that under the sanction Of this
doctrine We have clear rights and undoubtsd
claims, Nor Is this ignored in the British reply.
The prime minister,Syhile not admitting that
the Monroe doctrine IS applicable 10 present
conditions states: IN declaring that the
United States would resist any such enter
prise IL it was contemplated, President
honE0e adopted q policy which received
the entire sympathy Of the English govern
maHt OF that date de further declares:
"ghough the language Of President Monroe
Is directed TO the attainment Of objects
which most Engishmen would agree TO be
saiJlary, is is impossible to admit that they
haze been Inscribed by any adequate authority
N the eede Of international Law" Again he
says: "They (her maiesty's governmenO
ahaily concur with the view which President
Monroe apparently entertained, that any dis
tuEbaace Of the existing territorial distribu-
isoa In that hemisphere By any fresh sequis!-
: tons on the part Of any European state, would
Dc j 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
fHlIy applicable to our present conditions ana
10 the state Of the worlds progress, and that
& vas directly related to the pending oontro-
Tsrsy and without any conviction as to the
dnal merits Of the dispute, but anxious to
learn In satisfactory and conclusive man
ner whether Great Britain sought under
Claim OF boundary 20 extend her possessions
On this continent without right, OF whether
she merely sought possession OF terri-
tory fairly included within her lines or
ownership, this government proposed to
sae government Of Great Britain resort to
arbitration IS the proper means Of settling the
question % she end that Yesstious boundary
dispute between the two Contestants might be
'-eIez.niHed and our exact standing aud reIa-
zloR IN respect to the controversy might be
Uaae clear. t will BE- seen from the CORE
sPolsence herewith submitted that this prom
ssi5lDn has been declined by the British gov
ernHreHt upon grounds which. under the cir
esiast2hces, seem to me to be far from salts
ac2rg. Il Is deeply disappointing that such
apneai. setgatsd bg the most friendly feel