The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-12-18
MONROE DOCTRINE LIVES
England Nill Not BE Allowed to
GObble American Territory.
UNCLE SAN MUST TAKE A HAND
President Recon- nends That Com
mission &c Appointed to Ascertain the
True State OF Affairs In Venezuela.
Our Interests TO Dc Protected.

Washington, Dec. 17.-Following is
the text of q message sent to congress
today by the president. in company
with correspondence concerning the
! Venezuelan question::
In my annual message, addressed to the
congress on the Sd inst, called attention
to the pending boundary controversy be-
tween Great Britain and the Republic OF
Venezuela, and recitsd the substance of
a representation made by this govern
ment to her Britannia Majesty's govern
ment suggesting reasons why such dis
pute 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 a reply. Is hereto appended.
Such reply is embodied in two communi-
cations addressed by the British primo
minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote. the
British ambassador at this capital 1t
will be seen that one of these communica-
tions Is devoted exclusively to observa-
tions upon the Monroe doctrine, and
claims that in the present instance a new
and strange extension and development of
this doctrine is insisted on by the United
States: that the reasons justifying an ap-
peal to the doctrine enunciated by presi-
dent Monroe are generally inapplicable
''to the state of things in which we live
at the present day." and especially inap-
plicable to a controversy involving the
boundary line between Great Britain and
Venezuela.
Monroe doctrine Strong ami Sound.
Without attempting extended argyll
ment in reply to those positions, it may not
be amiss to suggest that the doctrine upon
which we stand is strong and sound, be-
cause its enforcement is important to our
peace and safety as a nation, and Is es-
sential to the integrity of our free institu-
tions ard the tranquil maintenance of
our distinctive form of government. 1t
was intended to apply to every stage of
cur national life, and cannot become obso-
lete while our republic endures. If the
balance of power is justly cause foi
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 concern to our people and their gov
ernment.
Assuming, therefore, that We may prop
| erly insist upon this doctrine without re-
| gard to the estate of things in which we
| live" or any changed conditions here or
| elsewhere. 1t Is not apparent why its APP
plication may not be invoked in the pres
ent controversy.
If European power, by an extension of
it's boundaries takes possession of the
I territory of one OF our neighboring repub-
lies against its will and in derogation of
its rights, 1t Is difficult to see why, 10
what extent such European power does
not thereby attempt to extend its system
of government to that portion of this con-
tinent which is thus taken. This Is the
precise action which President Monroe
| l-aa1 he do,
and safety" and 1t can make no difference
whether by an advance of frontier or
otherwise. 1t Is also suggested in the
British reply that We should not seek 10
| apply the Monroe doctrine to the pend
| ing dispute because it does not embody
any principle of international law which
is founded on the general consent of ma
tions," and that mo statesman, however
eminent, and no nation, however. 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 gov
eminent OF any other country"
DOct ines Place in Int International Law.
Practically the principle for which we
contend has peculiar If not exclusive re.
| la:ion ito the United States. 1t may moi
| have been admitted in so many words &c
the code Of International law, but, since
| in International counsels every nation is
entitled to the rights belonging to it, II
the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine
Is something we may justly claim, 1t has
it's place in the code Of international Law
as certainly ard as securely as If 1t were
specifically mentioned, and when the
Unitei States is suitor before the high
tribunal that administers internationa
law the question to be determined Is
| whether or not we present claims which
the justice of that code of law can find tc
be right and valid.
The Monroe doctrine finds It's recogni
ton in the principles of International law
which are based upon the theory thai
every nation shall have Its rights pro-
tecte1 and its claims enforced. OF course
this government is entirely confident tha
under the sanction of this dc 'rine W.
have clear rights and undoubted claims
Nor Is this ignored in the British reply
The prime minister, while not admitting
that the Monroe doctrine is applicable tt
present conditions, states 'in declaring
that the United States would resist any
such enterprise II 1t was contemplated
President Monroe had adopted a policy
which received the entire sympathy o.
the English government Of that date.
He further Declares Though the Ian
guage of President Monroe is directed e
the attainment of objects which mos
Englshmen would agree to be salutary
1t Is impossible to admit that they hav,
been inscribed by any adequate authorit,
in the code OF international law" Agaii
he says: "T'hey (Her Majesty's govern
mcnO fully concur with the view whicl
President Monroe apparently entertained
that any disturbance of the existing ter
iitorial distribution in that hemisphere b!
any fresh acquisitions on the part of an,
European state would be highly mex
pedient change"
Arbitration Proposed and Rejected.
In the belief that the doctrine for whicl
we contend was clear and definite: that 1
was founded upon substantial considera
tions and involved our safety and wei
fare; that It was fully applicable to ou
present conditions and to the state Of tn
worlds progress; and that 1t was direct
ly related to the pending controversy. an,
without any conviction as to the fina
merits Of the dispute, but anxious to lear
in satisfactory and conclusive manne
whether Great Britain sought, under
claim Of boundary. to extend her posses
sions on this continent without right, O
whether she merely sought possession O
territory fairly included within her line
Of ownership, this government propose
to the government of Great Britain a re
:: sort to arbitration as the proper means O
settling the question. to the end that
vexatous boundary dispute between tn
two contestants might be determined an
our exact standing and relation in respec
to the controversy might be made cleai
1t will be seen from the correspondence
herewith submitted that this propositio
has been declined by the British govern
ment upon grounds which. in the circum
, .tances seem to me to be far from salts