The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-01-01


| that none of hem were to look 10 the
! United States for assistance in 1t.
And then we are 10 add Mr.. Websters
declaration OF the meaning OF the doc
trine In his speech called out by MI
| Adams message. IN which he says that
all that was intended by Mr.. Monroe was
10 say that this country would not stand
by and see combination OF despotic
4 European soyereigns like those that COM
posed the Holy Alliance establish
themselves upon this continent with the
purpose OF overthrowing republican insti-
tutions and setting up IN their place de-
spotic monarchical institutions, and 70
this we must add the fact that Senator
! Thomas H. Benton, who took most
conspicuous part in the discussion that
the Monroe doctrine caused at that time
! declares in his book vol. l., p. g.. that II
was then settled. as far as Congress
could settle it. that the Monroe doc
/ trine did not require this country ITO
stand guard over The two Americas, and
! repulse all intrusive colonists from their
| shores"
II IS hard 10 believe that Adams, Web
stor. and Benton were ignorant OF the
intention and purpose of the Monroe doc
trine. aud. if they understood II. 1t Was
nothing but declaration that this coun-
try would not permit European SOW
/ ereigns to establish institutions here
which had Tor their design the overthrow
| OF republican institutions. II this IS the
true scope and intent of the Monroe doc
trine and its entire scope and intent, we
must be satisfied that Great Britain is
seeking to overthrow republican inst-
/ tutions before We can claim tina; she Is
| violating the Monroe doctrine.
Mr.. Lodge has not ciied ono fact Ct
alleged fact that has the remotest ten
dency to prove that Great Bntains pres
emit action in South America IS backed 10y
an intention to interfere in any way
whatever with republican institutions I'm
/ this country. Surprising everything he
has stated 10 be true. it has tendency
only to prove that Great Britain thinks
the territory in dispute between her ana
Venezuela is valuable territory ana that
she is disposed to coerce Venezuela into
surrendering il 10 her by her superior
physical power. But the intention ana
design i'm this case would plainly nave
no reference to one set OF institutions for
America or another set of institutions
but would be connected wholly with an
avaricious intention to become owner OF
some very valuable territory. This, then,
would be no violation Of the Monroe doc
trine. however scandalous her conduct
might be. if Adams, Webster, and Benz
ton understood that doctrine.
Put when we come TO look into Mr.
Lodges allegations of scandalous con
duct on the part of Great Britain we
ind they will not stand critical examina-
ton.
lie SAYS that in 1896 a British minister
acknowledged that Point Barima belonged
to Venezuela by allowing the Venezuelan
government to erect lighthouse there
Allowing" is strange word TO use in
this connection. lie says that Lord
Aberdeen disavowed the Schomburgk line
that Lord Granville did the same and
Lord Rosobery also admitted it 70 be
wrong.
tie relies on these facts to convict Great
Britain Of duplicity in her treatment OF
this matter. and. having convicted her
Of duplicity, he easily infers from that
total defect Of just title and an intention
to depredate and rob.
But in his answer TO Mr. Oiney, Lord
Salisbury has gone over each point made
by Mr. Lodge, and has given a NOSE
plausible and probable explanation of
each one, each being as he claims,
step in negotiations by which England
was endeavoring to settle the disputed
boundary with Venezuela by compromise.
II this be true. then. her concession 20
Venezuela are certainly not TO 10 quoted
against her as evidences that she never
believed herself entitled to the territory
she now claims. And does Nlr Lodge
feel himself justified in rejecting the
formal and official statements Ct the
matter which Lord Salisbury ceruaes 10
lIir 1tAtAfINtIt N4tlt!AA any ~ tt--- y '-
to whether they are true or false? II
seems TO us, that with Lord Sansbury's
official explanation before him Of each
one Of the incidents that Mr.. Lodge
thinks inconsistent with good faith upon
Great Britan's part. he should have be-
gun by setting an inquiry on foot to as
certain whether Salisbury had or had not
told the truth. For. if he told the truth,
then there was nothing whatever i'm the
incidents cited by Nr. Lodge that had
the faintest tendency to convict Great
Britain Of bad faith IN the matter.
one other consideration should have
strongly impressed Air Lodges mind. and
it ought TO have kept him from s,rayiug
out into the Vhdelness that now sur
rounds him. Lord Salisbury had stated
in that same reply to Mr.. OlHey. that in
1867 Holland claimed IN SPANS teeth.
the whole Of the territory now in dis
pute. and Spain practically conceded that
the claim was correct II this was true,
and MI Lodge had no right to assume
that il was false, then Great Britain had
a perfectly good title TO all the terri
tory III dispute. Now. with a perfectly
good title 20 all of it. but with neigh
Dor uagging at ler ana denying her title