St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1896-02-07

and approve of the essential princi
pie of the Monroe doctrine, and b,
no means desire to challenge it o
prevent its being carried into opera
ton. We do not want TO add t
our possessions in America, ant
therefore are perfectly wiling not tc
dispute when America gives us motto,
that she will consider herself injured
if we try to increase them. Let u,
then argue the case as if the Monro,
doctrine were part Of the law o
nations. Does that admission Civ,
America the right to protest against
our claim to insist upon the Schom
burghk line? Most assuredly not
and for this very good reason. The
boundary line was in dispute long
before Canning suggested to the
Americans the establishment of the
Monroe doctrine. What we claimed
now we claimed then. Hence, unless
we are to suppose that the Monroe
doctrine has an ex post facto opera
ton, the dispute as to the boundary
line between Venezuela and what
was once Dutch Guiana cannot DOS.
sibly concern the Americans. That
is an argument which ought to effect
the Americans more than any other
nation, for they have absolutely
excluded ex post facto legislation
from their polity by forbidding it's
use by the state legislatures. But
this may be said to be legal subtle
ty. Let those who think so read the
text of President Monroe's famous
message, and they will not be able
to help the conclusion that the presi-
dent never dreamt that the doctrine
he was enunciating could be applied
to boundary dispute that even then
had been pending for quarter of a
century. The Monroe doctrine could
only help the contention of the
United States in the present case if
Great Britain were to annex, or to
contemplate annexing, territory
beyond what she claimed before the
PRONUNCIATION OF the message. But
there is no sort of assertion that she
has been increasing and expanding
her claim. Right or wrong, the dis.
pute is about the same territorial
area that was involved in 1895.
We presume that what will actu-
ally come OF all the talk Of the Mon.
roe doctrine is what came of the talk
about it when little time ago we
had to coerce Central American
Republic. The American Press will
rage and ramp, and our Press will
reply with colddrawn indignation,
but the two governments will keep
their heads completely, and when
the Venezuelans find that the state
department is not going to help
them by going to war, but is only
giving the Monroe doctrine that
judicious exercise which is as good
for doctrines as for horses, they will
give in, and the frontier will be final
ly dellmited on the very reasonable
lines suggested by our Foreign office.
Meantime we wish that the existing
opportunity might be taken hold of
for public understanding between
us and the United States as to the
Monroe doctrine. We should like to
see a treaty between us and them
which would guarantee the Monroe
doctrine. There should be no great
difficulty in doing so. Canada's
boundaries are clear, and so are
those of the islands, and thus, if the
boundaries of British Guiana and
British Honduras were settled and
scheduled, it would be quite possible
for us to agree not to increase our
territories in America without risks
OF boundary disputes. Under such a
treaty America would have the
Monroe doctrine made invulnerable
it would thenceforth rest on the
sea power of England-and she
would therefore be free OF all fear of
being drawn into European compli-
cations. We, on the other hand, as
the second biggest power in America,
should feel perfectly happy as to
Canada and the West Indies. In
case Of war the American guarantee
would secure them from attack. But
the good would not stop here. On
such treaty, as we pointed out a
week or two ago, might in the full
ness of time be reared that alliance of
all the subjects of King Shakespeare,
the accomplishment of which &C