St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-02-18

| that the Venezuela dispute might be
settled by a voluntary cession Of
territory by that republic to Great
Britain which would not be offensive to
us. That, he says twas not the Mon
roe doctrine, and it never will be-
Not only is it the Monroe doctrine, but
it is that doctrine precisely as it is
laid down in the resolutions which
formed the basis of Senator Davis ad-
dress. "Only in the event." says Sen
ator Davis, that the United States
considers that the peace and safety of
our country are menaced should the
doctrine Of American sovereignty be
enforced" Precisely so. And that is
the meaning Of the message. Let US
illustrate. If, without our consent,
Spain should attempt to transfer Cuba
to Great Britain, it would be our right
and duty to interfere and declare our
or safety. do otherwise. But if, after
the Venezuelan question has been in
vestigated, it should appear that the
whole difficulty could be settled by the
transfer Of few thousand square
miles Of territory now occupied
by British subjects, for which
England would pay to Venezu-
ella compensation satisfactory to
her, does the senator dream that we
would make it an issue? We would
he
own resolutions state, by considering
how far our own interests were in
volved. If, as would happen in the
supposed case, they would not be af
fected materially, then we should not
| interpose. Ours is the right to decide;
not ours the necessity to prevent an
arrangement satisfactory to US as
| we'll as to the principal parties.
This is the Monroe doctrine as Jeffer-
son understood and phrased it. It is
the Monroe doctrine of the presidents
message, as thoroughly as it is that
Of the senate resolutions.
The other point of difference is as to
the necessity of adopting any such
| formal declaration Of policy at all. We
believe that it is not only unnecessary,
but that it is a positive blunder Of no
small proportions. 1t Is far better
for purposes of diplomacy, for our I'M
trammeled action in any controversies
that may arise hereafter, that we SIM
ply occupy the position of advantage
in which we q ra now nlacad. a DOSitiOn
that has compelled the support of our
chief opponents, and that yet leaves us
liberty of action and Interpretation. Is
the senate or the senator so sure that,
in the year 1850 the United States will
be best served by being tied down to
form of words adopted by the senate
In 1896? Suppose that the congress in
1923 had taken upon it to put the Mon
roe doctrine into words; had formulat-
ed it in q series of resolutions and, by
passing upon them definitely, had so
committed us for the future to a policy
crystalliZed and fossilized in set terms.
Would we have been as free in our
dealing with the issue that has lately
arisen? Would not the men of that
day, who could not possibly foresee
the conditions of the future, have been
sure to let pass some word Or phrase
to the joy of the foreign offices of our
enemies and to our own undoing? All
the world understands the Monroe doc
trine clearly now. Mr.. Cleveland gave
to it no uncertain sound. Far better
leave it SO, a general principle of &C
ton, to be construed and fitted for
each case, than to so define it, in the
limited light of present circumstances
by solemn declaration of the legislat-
ure, that it may be quoted against us at
the bar of the nations in some new
emergency in the unpredictable future
For this reason we believe that it
would be safer and more statesmanlike,
as we'll as more dignified, to let the
senate resolutions drop quietly away;
although the justification and eulogy
of our national policy which they have
called forth deserve a generous need
of praise.