New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-11-13
RESPONSIBILITY FOR VENEZUELA.

Consnicuous among current observations
they can scarcely be called criticisms-on the
Venezuelan settlement is this. that Venezuela Is
to have no representation in the tribunal OF ar
bitraton. but the whole question is TO be treated
as one solely between the United States ana
Great Britain. That Is quite true and II IL one
of the most satisfactory features OF the whole
case 1t is a practical recognition by Great
Britain of the original American contention
namely. that the legitimate interests and wei
fare Of this country are sufficiently concerned
in the dispute TO warrant intervention by the
Washington Government. Despite the half
hearted protest of one British journal to the
contrary it is substantial recognition of the
Monroe Doctrine since II was solely and avOw-
edly on the ground of that doctrine that the
United States took n hand in the matter. II Is
furthermore n satisfactory feature, because,
with all due respect to Venezuela. trial be-
tween the United States and Great Britain Is.
for obvious reasons far more likely to come to
a prompt and equitable conclusion than one be-
tween Venezuela and Great Britain.
"The London Times is quite right in reckon
ing this "a signal diplomatic success for the
United States" But when it goes on to say
that 1.-The right of interference involves respon-
"the quarrels OF petty republics. they are
"bound to compel the republics 10 fulfil their
engagements" its sanity OF statement and
reasoning may well be challenged. The United
States has not espouscd the quarrel Of any re-
public, petty or otherwise. Let that he clearly
understood: more clearly than It seems TO he by
the leading journal" The United States inter-
fered In this case not merely TO protect Nencz-
uela, but to protect itself The Monroe Doc
trne does not establish and does not contem-
plate the establishment OF protectOrate over
the South American republics. 1t does aim TO
protect the interests Of the United States. That
Is ALL Whether this country will or will not
espouse the quarrels Of its republican neigh
bors must always depend upon the special cir
cumstances Of each individual case. The only
general and invarable rule Is, that II will ut all
times and in all cases protect its own interests.
whether they be menaced on the shores OF the
Chesapeake or of the Spanish Main.
In that view Of the case, therefore, the United
States incurs no responsibility for Venezuela :
future conduct. Neither does 1t In the view
which "The London Times" has enormously
adopted. Modern diplomatic history teens with
examples Of interference without responsibility.
There are several minor States In Europe IN
whose behalf some Of the great Powers have
INTERVIEWED and whose independence is guaran-
tecd by the Great Powers. But the Great
Powers do not compel them TO fulfil their en-
gagements Great Britain interviewed In Tur-
keys behalf in 1878 But surely she does not
mean to he held responsible for all OF Turkey &
conduct since that time strong man may
interfere TO prevent big fellow from thrashIng
n IittIc ono blit he does not thus make himself
a surety for the lattcr's good behavior for the
rest OF his life. Let us possess our souls In
confidence This Venezuelan settlement Is n
good thing, a most admirable thing for all
whom 1t may concern. There is no occasion 10
worry over its supposed entailment OF imagi-
nary evils upon the Nation which has chiefly
been concerned In making II an accomplished
fact.