The Coconino weekly sun., 1895-12-26
KEEP OUT.
r,o Presidents Special Message
on the Venezuela Dispute.
,..,c Grounds Taken In Favor Of Enforc,
,,r the Monroe Doctrlne-The Duty
of This Country-Secretary
Olney's Views.


both houses of congress met yesterday,
,hs nresident sent. by Executive Clerk
prnieu, the expected message in re-
,.ord to the British Venezuelan compli-
c,tion. 1t was at once read in both
houses as follows:
TO the Congress:
In my annual message, addressed to the con-
oress on the Sd inst, called attention to the
nTor3inr boundary controversy between Great
f,rr,ain and the republic OF Venezuela, and re-
c,ted the substance OF representation made
NV mis- government to her Britannia majesty's
government suggesting reasons why such dis
1,te should be submitted to arbitration for
settlement and inQuiring whether it would DO
so submitted.
The answer Of the British government, which
wns then awaited, has since been received and,
,o,ether with the dispatch to which it is re-
ply. is hereto appended.
Such reply is embodied In two communica-
lions addressed by the British prime minister
% Sir Julian Pauncefote the British ambas-
sador at this capital. 1t will be seen that one
n, these communications is devoted eX-
clusiyely to observations upon the Monroe
doctrine and claims that in the present
instance new and strange extern
sion and development of this doctrine is in
sisted on by the United States that the rea-
sons iustitying an appeal to the doctrine enun-
cisted by President Monroe are generally in
applicable Ito the state OF things in which we
live at the present day" and especially inap-
plicable to q controversy involving the bound
ary line between Great Britain and Venezuela
Without attempting extended arguments In
reply 10 these positions 1t may not be amiss to
suggest that the doctrine upon which we stand
/, strong and sound, because its enforcement
HAs,,
ton 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 ma
t!onal life and cannot become obsolete while
our republic eudureS II the balance OF power
is Justly u cause for jealous anxiety among the
governments OF the old world and a subject for
Dur absolute non-interference, none the less is
an observance of the Monroe doctrine OF vital
concern TO our people and their government
Assuming, therefore, that We may properly
insist upon this doctrine without regard to
the the state OF things in which we live" or
any changed conditions here or elsewhere, it
is not apparent why its application may not be
invoked in the present controversy. II a Euro
pean power, by an extension OF its boundaries,
takeS possession OF the territory Of one OF our
neighboring republics against its will and in
derOgatou Of its rights, 1t 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 continent
which is thus taken. This is the precise &C
ton which President Monroe declared to be
dangerous to our peace and safety" and it
can make no difference whether the European
system is extended by an advance Of frontier
or otherwise.
II has been suggested In the British reply
that We should not seek to apply the Monroe
doctrine to the present dispute, because 1t
does not embody any principle OF interna-
tonal law which lis founded on the general
consent OF nations" and that mo statesman,
however eminent, and no nation. how
ever powerful, are competent to insert
into the code OF international law o
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 contend has peculiar, II not exclusive, re-
lation to the United States 1t may not have
been admitted in so many words to the code Of
International law, but since, in in
entitled to the rights belonging to
1t, II the enforcement OF the Monroe doc
trine Is something We may justly claim 1t has
Its place in the code Of international law as GER
tainly and securely as 1t has II it were specifi-
cally mentioned, and when the United States
Is a sutton before the high tribunal that ad-
ministers International law the question to be
determined Is whether or not We present
claims which the justice Of that code Of law
can find TO be right and valid.
The Monroe doctrine finds it's recognition in
those principles Of international law which Is
based upon the theory that every nation shall
have its rights protected and its just claims
enforced OF course this government is en-
tlrely confident that under the sanction Of this
doctrine we 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 to present
onditions states: In declaring that the
United States would resist any such enter
prise II 1t was contemplated. President
Monroe adopted policy which received
The entire sympathy Of the English govern
fnent OF that date" He further declares:
Though the language Of President Monroe
Is directed to the attainment Of objects
which most Englishmen would agree to be
salutary, 1t is impossible to admit that they
have been inscribed by any adequate authority
IN the code Of international law" Again he
says; They cher majesty's governmenD
hnalIy concur with the view which President
Monroe apparently entertained, that any dis
tur0ance OF the existing territorial distribu-
tlon In that hemisphere by any fresh acQuisi-
lions on the part Of any European state, would
De highly inexpedient change"
In the belief that the doctrine for which we
contend was clear and definite, that 1t was
founded upon substantial considerations and
involved our safety and welfare, that 1t was
iuIIy applicable to our present conditions and
70 the state Of the worlds progress, and that
IL was directly related to the pending contro-
versy and without any conviction as to the
maj merits Of the dispute, but anxious to
learn In satisfactory and conclusive man
ner whether Great Britain sought under
clalm OF boundary to extend her possessions
on this continent without right. or whether
hhe merely sought possession OF terri
tory fairly included within her lines or
ownership, this government proposed to
'he government Of Great Britain o resort to
arbitration as the proper means Of settling the
question, to the end that vexatious boundary
dispute between the two contestants might be
determined and our exact standing and reia-
t'oh IN respect to the controversy might be
MADE clear. 1t will be seen from the corre-
spondence herewith submitted that this prop
'osltion has been declined by the British gov
erhment upon grounds which, under the cir
'.umstances seem to me to be far from salts
factory. 1t is deeply disappointing that such
an appeal, actuated by the most friendly feel
ings toward both nations directly concerned,
addressed to the sense Of justice and to the
diagnanmity OF one Of the great powers Of the
world and touching its relations to one COM
paratlVely weak and small, should have pro-
'alced no better results
Inc course to be pursued by this govern
uicnt In view OF the present condition does not