The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-12-18


which was then awaited. has since been
received. and. together with the dispatch
to which 1t Is a reply. is hereto appended.
Such a reply Is embodied IN two com
munications addressed by the British
prime minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote.
British ambassador at this capital. II
win be seen that one of these communca-
tions Is devoted exclusively to observa-
tions upon the Monroe doctrine and
claims that In the present instance q new
and strange extension and development
of this doctrine Is insisted on by the
United States: that the reasons justifying
an appeal to the doctrine enunciated by
President Monroe are generally inapplfc-
able to the state OF things In which we
live at the present day. and especially In
applicable to the controversy involving
the boundary line between Great Britain
and Venezuela"
Without attempting extended argu-
rnents In reply to these positions II may
not be amiss to suggest that the doctrine
upon which we stand Is strong and sound.
because its enforcement is important to
our country and safety as a nation and
essential to the integrity of our free fnstl-
buttons and tranquil maintenance Of our
distinctive form of government 1t was
intended to apply to every stage of our
national life and cannot become obsolete
while our republic endures.
IL the balance of power is justly a cause
for jealous anxiety among the govern
ments of the old world and subject for
our absolute non-interference. none the
less is the observance of the Monroe doc
trine of vital concern to our people and
their government Assuming therefore.
that we may properly insist upon the
doctrine without regard to the state of
things in which we live" or any changed
conditions here or elsewhere 1t is not
xxrlfx ls.
invoked In the present controversy. II
the European power, by extension of its
boundaries. take possession of territory
OF one of our neighboring republics
against its will and in derogation OF its
rights, IL 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 conti-
nent which is thus taken. This Is the
precise action which President Monroe
declared to be dangerous to our peace
and safety" and 1t can make no differ-
ence whether the European system is ex-
tended by an advance of frontier or 9TH
erwise.
1t is also suggested in the British reply
that we should not seek to apply the
Monroe doctrine to the pending dispute.
because it does not embody any principle
of international law which lis founded
on the general consent of nations" and
that no statesman, however eminent.
and no nation, however powerful, are
competent to insert into the code of in
law a novel principle which
was never recognized before and which
has not since been accepted by the gov
ernment OF any other country" is practi-
cally the same principle for which we
contend has a peculiar. II not exclusive
relation to the United States 1t may not
have been admitted in so many words 90.
the code of international law, but since
in international councils every nation Is
entitled to the rights belonging to 81, II
the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine
is something we may justly claim. II has
1ts place in the code of international law
as certainly and as securely as IL 1t were
specially mentioned, and where the Uni
ted States is a suitor before a high trib-
unal that administers international law
the question to be determined Is whether
or not We present the claims which JUS
tice of that code of law can find TO be
right and valid
The Monroe doctrine finds its recogni-
tion 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 entirely
confident that under the sanction of this
doctrine we have clear rights and un-
doubted claims. Nor is this ignored in
the British reply. The prime minister.
while j. ~ admitting that the Monroe doc
trine is not applicable to the present con-
ditions. states, in declaring that the Uni
ted States would resist any such enter
prise IL 1t was contemplated President
Monroe adopted this policy. which re-
ceived the entire sympathy of the English
of that date
he further declares: Though the
language of President Monroe is directed
TO the attainment of objects which most
would agree to be salutary.
1t is impossible to admit they have been
inscribed by an adequate authority I'm
the code OF international law" Again he
says: They Cher majesty's government
fully concur with the view which Presl-
dent Monroe apparently entertains that
any disturbance OF existing territorial dis
tribution in that hemisphere by any fresh
acquisitions on the part of any European
state, would be highly inexpedient
cnange. In the belief that the doctrine
for which we contend was clear and def
mite. that II was founded upon substan-
tial considerations and involved our
safety and welfare, that 1t was fully an
phcable to our present conditions and TO
the state of worlds progress and that Il
was directly related to the pending con-
troversy, and without any conyiction as
to the final merits of the dispute. but
manner whether Great Britain
sought under the claim of boundary 10
extend her possessions on this continent
without right, or whether she merely
sought possession of territory facility an
cluded within her lines of ownership. this
government proposed to the government
OF Great Britain to resort TO arbitration
as the proper means of settling the ques-
ton ITO the end that the vexatious bound
ary dispute between the contestants
might be made clear
IL viii be seen from the correspondence
herewith submitted that this proposition
has been declined by the British govern
ment upon grounds which, under the
seem to me to be far from
satisfactory. IL II deeply disappointing
that such an appeal. actuated by the most
frlendiy feelings towards both nations d.
rectly concerned. addressed TO a sense Of
justice and TO the magnanimity of one
OF the great powers of the world. and
touching it's relations to one comparative
~ weak and small. should have produced
no better results.
The course to be pursued by this gov
eminent in view Of the present condition
Of