The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1895-12-25
President Cleveland Sends
a Warlil1e Message
to Congress.
England Must Not be Allowed to
Grab Venezuelan Territory.
The President Reafiirms the Monroe
Doctrine in a State Paper That
Breathes Defiance TO Euro
pean Interlopers on
the Western Hem
isphere.

dressed 10 Jne congress on Jne OIL lnSU,, L calleu
attention to the pending boundary controversy
between Great Britain and the republic Of Ven
ezuela and rccited the substance of a repre-
Sentation made by this government to her
Britannia majesty's government, suggesting
reasons why such dispute should be submitted
to arbitration for settlement and inQuirlng
whether 1t would be so submitted, The answer
of the British government which was then
awaited but has since been received together
with the dispatch to which 1t is a reply, is here
to appended
Such reply is embodied in two communioa-
tions addressed by the British prime minister
TO Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British Gmbassa-
dor at this capital. One of these communion
tions is devoted exclusively to observations
upon the Monroe doctrine and claims that in
the present instance a new and strange eXten-
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 inap-
plicable Ito the state of things in which we live
at the present day and especially inapplica-
BILE 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 st0nd
is strong and sound because its enforcement is
important to cur peace and safety as nation,
and is essential to the integrity Of our free in
Stitutions and the tranquil maintenance of our
distinctive form CT government 1t was in
tended to apply to every stage Of our national
life, and cannot become obsolete while our re-
public endureS II the balance of power is
justly cause for jealous anxiety among the
governments Of the old world and subject for
our absolute non-interference none the less Is
an observance of the Monroe doctrine Of vital
IN
Assuming, therefore, that we may properly in
Sst upon this doctrine without regard to 1.-The
state of things in which we live" or any
changed conditions here or elsewhere, 1t is not
apparent why its application may not be in
vokGd in the present controversy.
If European power, by an extension Of its
boundaries, takes possession Of the territory Of
enc of our neighbOring republics against It's
will and in derogatiCL of its rights 1t is diff
cult 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 pre-
else action which President Monroe declared to
be dangerous to our peace and safety and 1t
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 apply the Monroe doc
trine to the pending dispute because 1t does not
embody any principle Of international law,
(which is founded on the general consent OF
nations and that mo statesman, however en-
inent and no nation however powerful, are
competent to insert into the code OF interna-
tional law novel principle which was never
recognized before, and which has not since been
accepted by the government of any other coun-
try"
Practically the principle for which we con-
tend has peculiar II not exclusive relation to
the United States. 1t may not have been ad-
mitted in so many words :? the code OF interna-
tional law, but since in international councils
every nation is entitled to the rights belonging
TO it, If the enforcement OF the Monroe doctrine
is something we may justly claim 1t has its
place in the code of international law as GER
tainly and as securely as Il specifically men,
toned and when the United States is q suitoI
before the high tribunal that administers inter-
national 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 are
based upon the theory that every nation shall
have its rights protected and its just claims
enforced OF course, this government is entire
ly confident that under the sanction Of this doc.
trine we have clear rights and undoubte6
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; I'm declaring that the Uni.
ted States would resist any such enterprise Il
it was contemplated, President Monroe adopt
ed policy which received the entire sympathy
Of the English government of that date" He
further declares: Though the language o.
President Monroe Is directed to the attainment
nf Dllip 1uhin liSh n
TO be salutary. it is impossible to admit tha
they have been inscribed by any adequate au
thority in the code Of International law"
Again he says; "They cher maesty's gov
ernmenO fully concur with the view which
President Monroe apparently entertained, thai
any disturbance of the existing territorial dis
trbution in that hemisphere by any fresh ac
QUESTIONS on the part Of any European state
would be q highly inexpedient change"
In the belief that the doctrine for which W,
contend was clear and detiuite that 1t wa
founded upon substantial considerations ant
involved our safety and welfare; that 1t wa
fully applicable to our present conditions ant
TO the state Of the worlds progress, and that i
was directly related to the pending controversy
and without any conviction as to the lna
merits OF the dispute, but anxious TO learn in
satisfactory and conclusive manner whethe
Great Britain sought under u claim Of bound
ary to extend her possessions on this continen
without right or whether she merely sOugh
possession Of territory fairly included withi
her lines OF ownership this government pro
posed TO the government Of Great Britain re
sort to arbitration as the proper means Of set
Ting the question, 10 the end that vexatiou
boundary dispute between the two contestant
might be determined and our exact standin
and relation in respect to the controvers
might be made clear.
1t will be seen in the correspondence here
with submitted th@i this proposition has bee
declined by the British government upo
grounds which in the circumstances seem 10 m
20 be far from satisfactory. 1t is deeply disap
pointing that such an appeal, actuated by tn
most friendly feelings toward both nations di
rectly concerned addressed to the sense Of jus
tice and TO the magnanimity OF one Of the grea
powers Of the world and touching its relation
20 one comparatively weak and small, shoul
have produced no better results.
The course TO be pursued by this governmer
IN nview Of the present condition does not appea
TO admit of serious doubt. Having lahore
faithfully for many years to induce Great Brit
ain TO submit this dispute to impartial arbitrf
tion, and having been now finally apprised
her refusal TO do so, nothing remains but TO az
capt the situation, to recognize its plain II
quirements and deal with 1t accordingly Grei
Britain's present proposition has. never thu
far been regarded as admissible by Venezuela
though any adjustment OF the boundary whiC
that country may deem for her advantage an
may enter into of her own free will cannot
course be objected to by the United States
Assuming however, that the attitude Of Ver
ezuela win remain unchanged, the dispute ha
Teaehed such stage as TO make It now incuu