The San Francisco call., 1896-01-12
Attorney Evans Sees a Sinister
Side to the Venezuelan
Affair.
BRITISH INTERESTS SERVED.
Arbitration, Says the Presidents Critic,
Is the Very Thing England
Will Want.


very critical eye.
He has had a great deal of experience
upon international questions on this CONT
nent. During the Pan-American Congress,
which the brilliant statesman from Maine,
James g. Blaine, succeeded in bringing
ABOUT as masterstroke OF Republican
policy, Mr.. Evans was secretary to the
commercial committees OF that notable
gathering. 1t was largely due to his ex-
haustive report on the Blaine Romero
commercial treaty between this country
and Mexico that the treaty was found alto
tether defective from the standpoint of
the United States. Besides these connec-
tions with Pan-American affairs, Mr..
Evans devoted twenty EIGHT years of his
life to service in the Treasury Department
The manner in which Mr.. Evans dis
cusses the administration use OF the
Monroe doctrine and the demand OF Secre-
tary Olney for arbitration, and incident
ally the effect of the Presidents message,
he thinks, will open the eyes of the Repub-
llcans to possible sinister side OF the
Cleveland-Olney policy. In short, MI.
Evans is OF the opinion that Grover Cleye-
land is, after all, simply endeavorlng TO
make this country play tail to the British
kite for it is his belief, as he views the re-
ton. under the circumstances, would much
better serve British interests than Amer
ica's, and that England will be only too
willing to arbitrate, when once her eyes
are opened to her advantage. The position
taken by Mr.. Evans is best stated IN his
own words OF yesterday, as follows:
Though the discussion by public men and
the press of the Monroe doctrine proceeds
without abatement OF interest or any lndiea-
ton of cessation, yet so far one solution only
has been suggested us means of healing the
pending rupture between this country and
Great Britain and that is the submission of The
matter in dispute to international arbitration.
This was the position taken by our Govern
ment IN its state papers in the carrier discus
sion of the subject. 1t is the position assumed
by Mr.. Norman, the British agent recently sent
to Washington as q correspondent OF the Lon
don Chronicle. 1t is the position OF the Amer
lcan press generally, of Senators sherman,
Lodge and other statesmen towh0m the people
naturally look for guidance III the hour OF dan
ger or distress.
To a person not specially trained in diplo-
matte intrigue it is difficult to comprehend the
reasoning on this all-important and engross-
ing subject or to agree III the conclusion so
generally expressed. ] have read the tervent
utterance of Senator Lodge that the Monroe
doctrine is not founded upon international
law, but like the Declaration of Independence
is our American doctrine.
1t is undoubtedly true that the Monroe doc
trine is peculiarly an American doctrine, and
10 this fact is to be attributed the stirring effect
of the epigram of the gifted Senator, butit does
not follow that the doctrine does not rest upon
sound principles of international law.
Whatever obscurities OF definition, whatever
conflict of opinion OF publiclsts and other
authorities may exist as to the purposes, func-
ton and scope of interna tional law, there is
one maxim which is clear and distinct and
upon which all agree, and that is, IA nation
by virtue OF its sovereignty has right to
maintain its own existence and integrity"
The Jurisdiction of a state or nation over
foreign vessels within its own ports or harbors
or upon the high seas-the marine league, or
cannon-shot distance-and its revenue jurisdic-
tion for even greater distance upon the high
seas, are founded upon this principle
If it be true that the extension Of European
territorial limits upon this continent would be
a menace and danger to this Nation, il is our
sovereign duty 10 guard against it, and this
right is founded upon international law. 1t is
not only ike the Declaration OF Independence,
but part OF ii, giving significance and effect
to its words.
The patriotic manifestations of the lest few
days leave no room for doubt that the prin-
ciple involved and the occasion for invoking
it are thoroughly understood and indorsed by
the people of the United States.
1t may be doubted whether the executive Of
fees OF the Nation have a better appreciation
of the doctrine than the people generally, if
the manner OF presenting the subject is taken
as a test OF comparison.
allude TO the proposition of this Govern
ment made to Great Britain to submit the
subject matter OF Il quarrel between the two
nations, involving the enforcement OF the Mon
representatives OF three other nations for set
tlement.
We are given to understand that a demand
has been made in the name OF the Monroe
doctrine upon England to arbitrate her diff
Guilty with Venezuela, and that the demand
has been sneeringly refused.
1t is therefore to be logically inferred that if
the proposition OF the Government had been
accepted the matter would have there ended,
Monroe doctrine, Declaration of Independence
and all connected with it TO the contrary.
Rrit TO ,irM Main i,1op
with venezuela lwho up TO this time has never
evinced very lively interest in the Monroe
doetrine) would have proceeded to organize
the commission. England would most GER
tainly select as her member a representative of
a European Prince: Venezuela, q representa-
tive OF some one OF the American republics,
and they two would have TO unite in a third
member-in all probability q representative of
a European nation.
The United States is not party to this
record. She has no voice in the selection of
aTbltrators, nor right to be heard before them
when selected. In fact she would have moth
ing to do in the matter but look on. Yet to
such gracious hands as they has our Govern
ment proposed to entrust our precious doctrine
OF Monroe
The award OF the rbitrators-probably adj
verse TO Venezuela, resulting from honest mis-
TAKE OF TACT or colluSion of the parties, or
natural resentment against the authority of
the members of the commission as to our own
American doctrine-is to be final, absolutely
nnal, because OF our own urgent request to
arbitrate. accompanied by threats to shoot for
noncompliance. In such manner it was pro-
posed that a few respectable gentlemen should
be permitted to attend to the matter of pre-
venting the extension of British dominion on
the American continent in the name of the
Monroe doctrine.
To the ordinary mind the Monroe doctrine is
solid wall against just such extension as
claimed by Great Britain by any mode what
ever, whether by conquest, treaty, purchase or
arbitration, or what not. If it does not mean
this 1T means nothing. 1t is a mere brutum
tulmen, or nothing more than loud but
harmless voice, and should be abandoned and
the further discussion of the Monroe doctrine
stopped. 1t is a declaration against further
acquisition by monarchical governmentso OF ter
ritory on this continent, and can no more be
made the subject matter or arbitration than
the truth of the ten commandments, an axiom
in geometry or any other self-evident PROPOSE
tion.
Under this doctrine Venezuela is safe from
invasion by the armies OF Europe. Under it
she would promptly be invaded by our own
armies II she should even by treaty or arbitra-
ton surrender one foot Of rightful soil TO any
European power no matter what compensating
advantages such treaty or award gave her. In
each instance the menace and danger to this
Nation are the same, and the wall should be
impregnable at all points.
1t Is surprising that the President and the
Secretary of State, who seem to be fully i'm
bued with the gravity of the situation, should
nave proffered so broad stairway as arbitra-
non TO England Of all the nations OF the world
TO surmount and destroy our American doc