The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1895-12-26

SNhBASoo SON"y'
To THE CONGRESS-:
In my annual message, addressed to the con-
gress 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 representation made
by this government to her Britannia majeStys
government, suggesting reasons why such dis
putes should be submitted to arbitration for
settlement and inQuiring 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 1t is re-
ply, is hereto appended
Such reply is embodied in two communica-
tions addressed by the British prime minister
to Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British ambassa-
dor at this capital 1t will be seen that one Of
these communications is devoted exclusively 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 upon by the United States
that the reasons justifying an appeal to the
doctrine enunciated by President Monroe are
generally inapplicable ito the state OF things
in which we live at the present day" and es-
peclally inapplicable to a 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 its enforcement ID
important to our peace and safety IS nation
and is essential to the integrity of our free In
stitutions and the tranquil maintenance OF oui
distinctive form of government. 1t was intend.
ed to apply to every stage Of our national life
and can not become obsolete while our Repub.
lie endures
If the balance OF power is justly cause fol
jealons anxiety among the governments OF thu
old world, and a subject for our absolute non.
interference, none the less is on observance o
the Monroe doctrine Of vital concern to oul
people and their government.
Assuming, therefore, that we may properl,
insist upon this doctrine without regard to tn,
"state OF things in which we i've" or an!
changed conditions here or elsewhere it is no
apparent why this application may not be in
vol1ed in the present controversy
If European power by an extension OF IT
boundaries, takes possession Of the territory o
j one Of our neighboring republics against it
will and in derogaton of its rights, 1t is difticul
to see why, to that extent, such Europeal
power does not thereby attempt to extend IL
system OF government to that portion Of thi
continent which is thus taken. This is tn
precise action which President Monroe deelar
; ed to be dangerous to our peace and safety,
and it can make no difference whether theEuro
pean system is extended by an advance Q
frontier or otherwise.
1t is also suggested in the British reply tina
we should not seek to apply the Monroe doc
trine to the pending dispute, because it doe
not cmbody any principle Of International lav
/. which is founded on the general consent {
0 nations, /" and that mo statesman, however en-
5 inent, and no nation, however powerful, 81
! competent to insert into the code of interns
tional law novel principle which was neyt
= recognized before, and which has not sind
: been accepted by the government Of any oths
country"
Practically the principle for which We cot
n tend has peculiar, II not exclusive. relation
the United States. It may not have been 81
mitted, in so many words. to tbs code of inte
national law, but since In International eou