Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1895-12-18
THE CoRRE 49, Il,
Which Passed Between Secretary Olney
and Her Maiesty's Governmental Bold
And Firm stand for American Rights.

and Her Maiesty's Governmental Bold
And Firm stand for American Rights.
Accompanying the Presidents mes
sage is The correspondence on the sub
jects. 1t starts with Secretary Olney's
now celebrated note reopening the nego-
tiatiOns with Great Britain, looking 10
The arbitration OF the boundary dispute,
bears date CT July 20 last, and is ad-
dressed 10 Mr.. Bayard.
The Secretary begins by stating that
the President has given much anxious
thought to the subject. and has not
reached a conclusion without a lively
sense OF its great importance as we'll
as of the serious possibility involved
in any action now TO be taken. He
then comments upon the long duration
Of the boundary dispute, the 'indefin-
ite' claims of both parties, and the
continuous growth Of the underlined
British claims the fate OF the various
attempts at arbitration of the contro-
yeIsy, and the part in the matter here
tofOre taken by the United States. He
shows that the British claims since the
SchombUrg line was run have moved
the frontier of British Guinan farther
and farther to the westward, the line
proposed by Lord Aberdeen in 1874
The Secretary then summarizes the
situation at the beginning OF this year
as follows:
Il. The title to territory OF indefin-
ite but cOnfessedly very lage extent is
in dispute between Great Britain and
Venezuela.
-. The disparity in strength Of the
parties is such that Venezuela can hope
to establish her claim only through
peaceful methods.
"3. The controversy has existed for
half century. despite Venezuela's ef-
forts to establish a boundary.
Il. Venezuela has for quarter of
century striven for arbitration.
"5. Great Britain has continuously
refused, except upon the remuneration
in her favor Of large part OF Nenezue-
las claims.
20 The United States has made it
clear to Great Britain and the world by
frequent interpOsitiOn of good Offices
that the controversy is one in which its
honor and interests are involved, and
the continuance of which it cannot re-
gard with Indifference
This status. the Secretary says, COM
pels those charged with the interests
of the United States "tO decide to what
extent. if any the United States may
and should intervene in a controversy
between and primarily concerning only
Great Britain and Venezuela and to
decide how FAR il is bound TO see that
the integrity Of
VENEZUELAN TERRITORY
Is not impaired by the pretent:ons Of
its powerful antagonist. Are any such
right and duty devolved upon the Unit
ed States? If not the United States
has already done all. if not more than
ALL that a purely sentimental interest
IN the affairs of the Two countries justi-
fies, and TO push its interposit.On fur
ther would be unbecom!ng and undig-
n;fed, and might well subject it to the
charge of impertinent intermeddling
with affairs with which Il has no right
full concern. On the other hand, if any
such right and duty exist, their due eX-
erc.se and discharge will not permit Of
the action that shall not be efficient, and
that, f the power Of the United States
is adequate, shall not result in the ac-
cCmplishnent of the end N view. The
question thus presented as matter Of
principle and regard being had to the
settled national policy. does not seem
difficult of solution. Yet the momen-
tOus practical consequences dependent
upon its determination require that it
should be carefully considered and that
the grounds Of the conclusion arrived
at should be fully and frankly stated
The Secretary lays it down as a canon
of international law that a nation may
justly interp0se in a controversy be-
tween other nations whenever what is
done or proposed by any other parties
primarily concerned s a serious and
direct menace to it's own integrity, tran
guilty or welfare" The prOpriety of
the rule when applied in good faith viii
not be questioned in any quarter, though
he says it has been given a vide scope
and too often made a cloak for schemes
Of wanton spOliation and aggrandize-
ment. This leads him up to an elabor-
ate review of
THE MONROE DOCTRINE
and Secretary Olney, stating that the
PROPOSE tiOn that America is in no part
open to colonization has long been con-
ceded. says that our present concern
IS with the other practical application
of the Monroe doctrine, viz: That
American nol-interventiOn in Europe
necessarily implied European non-in-
Intervention in American affairs. the
disregard of which by any European
power IS 20 be deemed an act Of un-
friendlness toward the United States.
On this point the Secretary says:
The precise scope and limitations Of
this rule cannot be too clearly appre-
bended. Il does not relieve any Amari-
can State from It's Obligations as fixed
by international law nor prevent any
European power directly interested from
enforcing such obligations or from in
Aicting merited punishment for the
breach of them. IL does not cOntem-
Mate any interference in the internal
affairs Of any American State or IN the
relations between it and other American
STATES. IL does not justify any attempt
on our part to change the established
form of government of any American
state or 10 prevent the people of such
State from altering that form according
70 their own will and pleasure. The
rule in question mas but a single pur-
nose and object. It is that no European
power or combination Of European pow
ers shall forc.bly deprive an American
State Of the rights and power Of self
government and of shaping for itself
its own political fortunes and des,inies.
The secretary says Il is manifest that
a rule which has been openly and un.-
formly acted upon by the executive
branch of the government for seventy
years mus. have had
,rrrrr SANCTION OF CONGRESS.