Delaware gazette and state journal., 1896-01-02
CLEvELAND-OLNEY LOGIC.
NOW York EyenIng pcat. nccember gsth.


oversight of two hard headed and
thick-skinned lawyers, intentIy pursu-
ing an argument. Their phrases were
not chosen with the care OF diplomats,
to be sure; they were rough, and
pounded the table too hard; they
wholly overlooked the financial, If not
the political, effect of their loose Ian
guage-but Just look at the case they
made out! We agree; do let us look
at it and see If Mr.. Olney the diplomat
can be saved by Mr. Olney the lawyer.
Note, first, the fine logic with which
President and Secretary contradict
themselves. In his message of Decem-
Der 3d, Mr.. Cleveland said that 1.-THE
United States is bound to protest
against the enlargement Of the area OF
British Guiana in derogation OF the
rights and against the will of Vene-
zuela. " In his message Of December
18th, he professed himself to be with.
out any conviction as TO the final
merits of the dispute. /" This obvious
Standardization was, of course, new
reason for war; there is nothing like
the sword to make bad logic good.
Secretary Olney showed himself great
logician by similar deftness in confut-
ing himself. In his dispatch OF July
10th to Mr.. Bayard, he spoke OF Great
Britain's attitude as lin effect depriy-
ing Venezuela of her free agency" and
as amounting, in substance, to an
invasion and conquest of Venezuelan
territory" Yet in another paragraph
he neatly put the knife into himself
by saying; SIT cannot be assumed
that Great Britain is in fact usurping
dominion over Venezuelan territory" "
We have before this pointed out Che
powerful reasoning of these two lawyers,
to tho effect that, if British Guiana
should forcibly retain the territory in
dispute, we should have to go armed
to the teeth" with our "peace and
safety as a nation, terribly endangered,
while If the same territory should be
acquired by purchase OF treaty, or by
buying up the adventurer who now
exercises the Venezuelan despotism,
such proceeding cannot, of course,
be objected to by the United States -
lis this the good logic that ought to
make us forgive the bad morals?
But these chunks of cogent reasoning
lying on the surface of the argument
arc nothing to what can he mined
deeper in. Secretary Olney set out
with the distinct assertion that the
Monroe doctrine is part of the law of
nations. 1t was IAN admitted canon
Of international law'' that one nation
may interpose in controversy primarily
affecting other nations. or this gen
eral rule" he affirmed that the Monroe
doctrine was form. " With his
arguments to support this contention
we need not delay ourselves, for he
himself incontinently threw them out
of the window later on This was the
result Of being told by Lord Salisbury
what the law of nations really is. His
Lordship, after having tho question
carefully considered by the law officers
OF the Crown replied that "inteTna-
tional law is founded on the general
consent OF nations,'i and that mo
nation, however powerful, is competent
to insert into the code of international
law novel principle which was never
recognized before, and which has not
since been accepted by tho government
OF any other county, This plain
tale at once impeled Mr. Olney to COM
plete and display his own discontinue.
In the message which he wrote for
the PRESIDENT he conceded that the
Monroe doctrine may not have been
admitted in SO many words into the
code of international law;" but, he
went on, it really ought to be there,
and it may be put there some day, for
IT is one of our rights" to which we
are entitled" and one Of our Just
claims" which we ''shail have en-
forced =" This seems laborious way
of proving that, under the law of
nations, country can go to war If it
wants to. That is all the Secretary'a
argument goes to prove. But what had
he done meanwhile with his original
contention that tho Monroe doctrine
was "a form" of general rule''
which was AN admitted canon of in.
ternational law?" That he had thrown
into the waste-basket.
The tortuous course OF argument OF
our two lawyers 10 show that the Mon
roe doctrine, whether international law
or not, is Applicable" TO the Vene-
zuean dispute, is fine exhibition Of
shifts and twists, There is no real
difficulty" in applying the doctrine,
wrote Mr.. Olney, President Monroe,
1T is true, said that existing European
colonies would not be interfored with,
but that meant colonies then existing
with their limits as then existing. no
advance frontier . no matter how, ia
practically to appropriate territory"
TO 'colonize, and so to come within
the purview of the Monroe doctrine. -
This is q beautiful argument, but
there is mo real difficulty" in de-
moishing it, as Mr. Olney himself
proceeds to show. First he leaves the
whole thing hanging in the air by
acknowledging that he has no proof
that British Guiana is advancing her
frontier beyond the Limits then ex.
listing" which Monroe said were to be
inviolable. His application" is thus
wholly hypothetical. Tho question of
fact remains, and about that he con
fesses his ignorance. But this versa.
tiie lawyer has yet another way of
smashing his own argument. If Vene-
zuela, he says, "of her own free will" :"
should surrender the territory in dis
pute, the United States "cannot OBJ
ject. What, not if frontier is "ad
yanced?n Not IL the limits then exist
ing" in Monroe's time are exceeded?
What sort of iuggler's applicability"
Ia this, which now you see and now
you don't? No wonder that the hard,
headed lawyer declines, in his latest
discussion Of applicability to enter
into extended argument, and falls
back on the safe, brute assertion that
I" the doctrine upon which we stand is
strong and sound because its enforce
ment is important to our peace and
safety. " Extended argument! His
argument has indeed been extended,
drawn, and ,quartered, and all by his
own hand.
The messages and the dispatch have
other veins of as pure logic as the
specimens we have unearthed, but we