The Forrest City times., 1895-12-20
He Suggests the Authorization by Con-
gress of a Commission to Determine
the Status of Venezuela's
Contention,
And on the Acceptance of the Report OF
that Commission the United States
stand Firmly as Against VIII
full Aggression.

inc Slgnltcent message.
TO TEE CONGRESS-: In my annual message
addressed to the congress on the third instant.
called attention to the pending boundary
controversy between Great Britain and the re-
nublic OF Venezuela a, and recited the substance
Of a representation made by this government
70 her Britannia majesty's government, sug-
gesting reasons why such dispute should be
submitted TO arbitration for settlement and in
oulring whether it would be so submitted
The answer of the British government. which
was then awaited. but has since been received,
and together with the dispatch to which it Is
reply is hereto appended.
Such reply is embodied in two communica-
tions addressed by the British prime minister
to Sir Julian Pauncefote. the British ambassa-
dor al this capital. 1t will be seen that one Of
these communications Is devoted exclusively
TO observations upon the Monroe doctrine and
claims that in the present instance new and
strange extension and development of this
doctrine is insisted on by the United States:
thai the reasons justifying appeal to the
doctrine enunciated by President Monroe are
generally inapplieable ito the state of things
in which we live at the present day." and es-
pecially inapplicable to a controversy involv-
ing the boundary line between Great Britain
and Venezuela
without attempting extended argument in
reply to these positions, it may not be amiss to
suggest that the doctrine upon which we stand
is strong and sound, because its enforcement
Is important to our peace and safety a ma
tion and is essential to the integrity of our free
institutions and the tranquil maintenance of
our distinctive form of government. 1t was
intended to apply to every stage of our national
life and can not become obsolete while our re-
public endures. II the balance of power is
Justly a cause for jealous anxiety among the
governments of the old world, and subject
for our absolute non-interference, none the less
isan observance of the Monroe doctrine of vital
n our nd hai
Assuming, therefore, that may properly
insist upon this doctrine without regard to the
state Of things in which we live, or any changed
condition here or elsewhere. it is not apparent
why its application may not be invoked in the
present controversy.
II a European power, by an extension OF its
boundaries. takes possession of the territory
Of one Of our neighboring republics against its
will, and in derogation of its rights. il is diff
cult 10 see why. to that extent. such European
power does not thereby attempt to extend its
system of government to that portion OF this
continent which is thus taken. This is the
precise action President Monroe declared to be
dangerous to our peace and safety" and it can
make no difference whether the European sys-
TEN is extended by an advance of frontier or
otherwise.
1t is also suggested in the British reply that
we should not seek to apply the Monroe doe
trine 10 the pending dispute, because it does
not embody any principle OF international law
which IS founded on the general consent of ma
tons, and that mo statesman, however emil
nent, and no nation, however powerful, are
competent to insert into the code OF interna-
uonal law novel principle which was never
recognized before. and which has not since
been accepted by the government of any other
country
Practically the principle for which we con-
tend has prior II not exclusive relation to the
United States. 1t may not have been admitted
IN so many words in 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. it has its place
ID the code of international law as certainly
and as securely as If IL were specifically men,
TONED, and when the United States is sutton
before the high tribunal that administers in
tefhdtlonal law the question to be determined
IL whether or not we presen claims which the
justice of that code of law can find to be right
and valid
The doctrine finds its recognition in those
principles Of international law which are
pased upon the theory that every nation shall
oe protected and its just claims enforced. OF
curse this government is entirely confident
mat under the sanction OF this doctrine we
nave Gear rights and undoubted claims. Nor
is TINS ignored in the British reply. The prime
MINISTER, while not admitting that the Monroe
states
IN declaring that the United States would
resist any such enterprise il it was cOntem-
plated President Mono adopted policy
winch received the entire sympathy OF the En-
eLsh government of that date"
lie further declares: The language OF Presf-
ueht Monroe is directed to the attainment OF
ooIeets which Englishmen would agree to as
sanitary while it is impossible to admit that
1ney nave en- inscribed by any authority in
INC code OF international law"
Arafv,
again ne says: They cher majesty's gov
erhmenD fully concur with the view which
1IeS!aent Monroe apparently entertained. that
any disturbance of the existing territorial dis
intuition IN that hemisphere by any fresh ac-
qu'sltloh on the part of any European state
"ouia De neutrality-suspicious. change"
Ia the belief that the doctrine for which we
contend was clear and definite, that it was
tVuhued upon substantial considerations and
Ih'olVed our safety and welfare that IL
"S lully applicable to our present conditions
l'u 70 the state of the worlds progress. and
sHaI IL was directly related to the final merits
.uo dispute but anxious to learn in q salts
I@oIory and conclusive manner whether Great
ii'alh sought under claim Of boundary. to
sAtehu her possessions on this continent with
~ iieht, or whether she merely sought pos
session OF the territory fairly included within
- h"es OF ownership. this government
p'oposed 70 the government of Great Britain
csort TO arbitration as the proper means
VI settling the question to the end that a vex-
Ious boundary dispute between the two con-
seseahts might be determined and our exact
s1ahoing and relation in respect to the contro-
'olsy might be made clear
v; ~ WIZ De seen from the correspondence here
az an submitted that this proposition has been
ueohhed by the British government upon
e which. under the circumstances,
II 10 me to be far from satisfactory
IS - ueepiy disappointing that such an
,ppeai' actuated by the most friendly feelings
s'u ooth nations directly concerned, ad-
1esSed to the sense of iustice and To the