The Kootenai herald. [volume] (Kootenai, Idaho) 1891-1904, 1895-12-21

which its neighbor claims to be the owner
and that neighbor is the colony of a Eu-
ropean state. the United States have
right to insist that the European state
shall submit to arbitration.
II will not now enter into discussion
of the merits of this method of terminal
ing international differences. Whether
in any particular case 1t is a suitable
method of procedure Is generally deli
cate and difficult question. The only par
ties who are competent to decide that
question are the two parties whose rival
contentious are in issue. The claim of
third nation. which is unaffected by the
controversy, to impose this particular pro-
cedure on either of the two others can
not be reasonably justified and has no
foundation in the law of nations.
MONROE DOCTRINE.
I'm the remarks which have made.
have argued on the theory that the Mon
roe doctrine in itself is sound. 1 must not,
however, be understood as expressing any
acceptance of II on the part of her ma
jesty's government. 1t must always be
mentioned with respect on account of the
distinguished statesman to whom 1t is due
and the great nations who have adopted
it. But international law is founded on
the general consent of nations, and no
statesman, however eminent, and no ma
insert into the code of international law
novel principle which was never recognize
ed before and which has not since been
accepted by the government of any other
country. Mr.. Olney's principle, that Amer
lean questions are for American decision,
even If received any countenance from the
language of President Monroe. can not
be sustained by any reasoning drawn from
the law of nations. Though the language
of President Monroe is directed to at
tainment of objects which Englishmen
would agree to be salutary, IL is impos-
sible to admit that they have inscribed
by any authority in the code of interna-
tional code and the danger which such ad-
mission would involve is sufficiently ex-
hibited, both by the strange development
which the doctrine has received at Mr.
Olney's hands and the arguments from
which it is supported in the dispatch I'M
der reply" ,-.--'yT
I'VE are not prepared to admit that the
interests of the United States are en-
tirely concerned in every frontier dis
pute which may arise between any two
states who possess dominion in the west
ern hemisphere, and still less can they
accept the doctrine that the United States
are entitled to the claim that the process
of arbitration shall be applied to any de-
mand for the surrender of territory which
one of those states may make against
another.
II have commented in the above re-
marks only upon the general aspect of
Mr.. Olney's doctrines, apart from the
special considerations which attach to
the controversy between the United King
dom and Venezuela in it's present phase.
This controversy has undoubtedly been
made more difficult by the inconsiderate
action of the Venezuelan government in
breaking off relations with her majesty's
government and its settlement has been
correspondingly delayed but her majesty's
government have not surrendered the hope
that it will be adjusted by reasonable
arrangement at an early date
II request that you will read the sub
stance of the above dispatch to Mr.. Olney
and leave him a copy If he desires it,"
The correspondence closes with another
note from Salisbury to Julian Pauncefote
for delivery to Secretary Olney of the
same date. 1t deals freely with the merits
of the British claim to territory in dis
pute.