The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1895-12-24

ESSO0y 0HA IA Lac J006OAO
lated TO greatly embarrass the future
relation between this country
and Great Britain-it is his wish
to be made acquainted with
the fact at such earyIy date
as will enable him to lay the
whole subject before Congress in his
next annual message.
s~ALIsBURYs REPLY.
Lord Salisbury's reply is addressed
to Sir Julian PauncefoGe, British Am
bassador at Washington, under dateof
November 265h last. This dealt only
with the application of the Monroe doc
trlne In the case at issue, and was fol
lowed on the same day by another note,
discussing the boundary dispute per Sc.
At the outset, Lord Salisbury states
That 50 far as he is aware the Monroe
doctrine has never been before ad-
Yaneed on behalf of the United States
IN any written communication ad-
dressed 20 the government of another
natlon He gives what he believes is
d British Interpretation of the doc
Urine, and maintains that the dangers
Wnlch were apprehended by President
monroe, have no relation TO the state
OF things in which we live at the pres
DAY, and adds, with thinly covered
irony, that it is Ineligible that Mr..
Olney should invoke in defense of the
views on which he is now inlIaCing. an
authority (Monroe) which enjoys SO
nigh popularity with his own fellow
country men.
The dispute between Great Britain
and Vene zuela, aver Lord Salisbury,
is a controversy with which the United
States have no apparent practical con
cerD.
Continuing, in short, pithy sentences,
he says 1t is difficult indeed { see how
the question IN controversy can mate
rally affect any State or community
outside those primarily interested that
the disputed frontier has nothing to do
with the questions dealt with by Presi
dent Monroe; that it is not the question
of the colonization by any European
power Of any portion of America
proper, power of a0y portion Of Amer
lea, nor of the imposition upon the
communities of South America of any
system of government devised n
E lrope.
AS ENGLAND VIEWS IT.
1T is" he says, simply the determ
ination of the frontier of a British pcs
session, which belonged to the throne
of England long before the republic of
Venezuela came into existence"
As he proceeds in the discussion, the
language of Lord Salisbury becomes
tart. He argues in theory that the
Monroe doctrine is in itself sound, but
disclaims any intention of being under
stood as expressing any acceptance of
it on the part of her Meiesty's govern
ment. He quotes Mr.. Olney as saying:
THAT distance and thousands of miles
of intervening ocean make any union
between g European and American
State unnatural and inexpedient, will
hardly be denied" and adds that the
necessary meaning of these words is
that the union between Great Britain
and Canada, between Great Britain
and Jamaica and Trinidad, between
Great Britain and British Honduras or
British Guiana, are inexpedient and
unnatural. %"
President Monroe, says his L0rdship,
any such interference, y it'll
his doctrine, but in this, as in other re-
,spects, Mr.: Olney develops it.
"Hesays, says Lord Salisbury, that
the ineXpedient and unnatural charac
ter. of the union between a European
and an American State is so obvious
that it will hardly be denied. Her
Majesty's governments are prepared
empbatically to deny it, on behalf of
both the British and American people
who are subject to her crown"
"They maintain that the union be
tween Great Britain and her territories
in the western hemisphere is both
natural and expedient.
NO CONCERN OF THIS COUNTRY.
"But they are not prepared to admit
that the recognition of that e~Xpediency
is clothed with the sanction which be
longs to adoption of international law.
They are not prepared to admit that
the interests of the United States are
necessarily concerned in every frontier
dispute which may arise between any
two of the States who possess dominion
in the western Hemisphere; and still
less can they accept the doctrine that
the United States is entitled to claim
that the process of arbitration shall be
applied to any demand for the surren-
der of territory which one of those
States may make against another"
Lord Salisbury concludes with the
statement that her Majeetey's govern
ment has not surrendered the hope that
the controversy between themselves
and Venezuela sswill be adjusted by
reasonable arrangement at an early
date.
The second note, of November 265h,
is wholly devoted to discussion of the
boundary dispute exclusive of it's rela-
ton to the Monroe doctrine.
This dispatch, however, sounds the
key note of Great Bri5ain's position
with reference to Mr.. Olney's opinions.
Lord Salisbury states that Great Britain
has repeatedly expressed its readiness
to submit to arbitration the conflicting
claims of Great Britain to territory of
great mineral value, and follows this
statement with these important words: