New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-07-21

case Moreover 1t Is perfectly obvious that
this Venezuelan dispute has done more than
anything and everything else since the Geneva
award to set people to thinking about arbtra-
| ton, and to mpel the two Governments to cx-
nctly the course they are now taking. IL the
Venezuelan dispute had not arisen, the official
| and popular movement for arbitration would
not havo arisen. To such extent has good come
out Of evil
| OF still greater practical interest however,
are two other facts In connection with this case
which have just been revealed. One Is the
| uncQuvOcal admission by the British Govern
ment that the United States Is legitlmately con-
cerned In the Venezuelan dispute. and may
properly seek arbitration upon it, That Is nm
admission which should receive generous rccog-
| milton In this country. 1t was not so very long
| ago that the ultra-JingO papers and speakers
| Of England, and their still more English echoes
| here were vehemently declaring that the
| United States was not In the least concerned
In the matter. that 1t was gross impertinenee
for 1t to express any such concern. and that,
however Great Britain might settle with Vencz-
uela, she would never In the least degree recog-
nize the United States as party to the dis
Imtc or to the settlement. II Is not to be sup
posed that the responsible statesmen OF Great
| Britain took such view. But 1t Is none the
less gratifying to find them now expressly de-
claring the opposite. and, by negotiating with
the United States for a settlement Of the Nenez-
uelnn dispute, recognizing in the most explicit
and emphatic manner this cOuntry's legitimate
and vital interest therein
The second fact equally interesting and equal
ly gratifying, is Lord Sallsbury's frank ap-
prevail Of the ground on which the United
States claims interest In Venezuela. That
ground is OF course the Monroe Doctrine in its
modern application. the doctrine that the
United States Is lcgltimately concerned in any
political or military movements on the Ameri-
can Continent which threaten to any extent It's
own security peace and welfare. Lord Sails
bury iustifies the enforcement Of that doctrine
by the United States by reference 70 the ex-
ample of Great Britain herself. She has ex'
pressed and vigorously maintained her interest
in the boundary disputes Of Continental States
to wit of Poland, Of Sweden and OF Belgium.
She extended no prOtectorate over them. She
did not in the slightest degree make herself
responsible for their future behavior. She sim
ply maintained that her own interests were
concerned IN the matter, and that she there
fore had n right in self defence, to intervene
That and no more, has been the contention OF
the United States in regard to Venezuela. II
Is pleasant TO have so distinguished an author
ity as. Lord Salisbury recognize the principle
and approve its soundness. Such recognition
does not make the Monroe Doctrine interna
tonal law Neither IS the European Balance
of Power international law. But the latter has
been the dominant factor in European diplo-
macy for many a year. Lord Salisbury now
brackets the two together, which Is exactly
where they belong. 1t Is not too much to hope
therefore, that he will hencefOrth give as much
consideration to the one, In dealing with the
United States. as to the other, In dealing with
Continental Powers