Delaware gazette and state journal., 1896-02-06
THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE.
london Spectator.

Lonuon spectator.
The DISPUTE between England
and the United States over the Vene-
zzuela boundary question, is a very
disagreeable and unfortunate one; but
u does not mean war or any real risk
OF war. War between England and the
United States is civil war, and neither
branch of the Anglo Saxon race is going
to shed brothers blood for mile or
two OF barren mountains in Guiana.
Whatever else happens, that will not.
Even IL the cannon were ready to fire,
and the gunner's hand on the lever,
there would be in the end no war, for
on each side of the Atlantic there are
millions of quiet, plain, undemonstra-
tive men who would forbid the outrage,
and declare that come what may,
humiliation or no humiliation, right
or wrong, there should bo no war. But
though in the long run we are not
afraid of war, we detest more than we
can say the spectacle Of the two great
English nations flinging ink at each
other, and shaking fists in each others
face before an amused and cynical
world So much for their precious
theory that blood is thicker than
water," sneers the Frenchman, and all
Europe filters. Fortunately, our news
papers have not replied; but the Ameri-
can press has been full of false and
ridiculous rumors, and heady com
mentaries on obviously impossible
facts. All this is not only most dis
agreeable to those who, ike ourselves,
feel the sense of kinship strongly, but
also does material harm to tho growth
Of good understanding between the
two countries. No doubt newspaper
articles matter very little in one sense,
still it is to ho feared that in the
present case they have awakened good
deal OF ill-feeling, and that vaguely
and indefinitely large section of the
people Of the United States have been
made 10 feel that somehow or other
England is doing them an injury, and
infringing their claim to prevent any
extension OF European dominion in the
two Americas.
Let us try to see what truth, il any,
there is in this contention that we are
infringing the Monroe Doctrine. In the
first place, il must be remembered that
we have two distinct disputes pending
with Venezuela. One concerns the
boundary, the other our demand that
Venezuela shall apologize and make
ifIhihNhpiA ~ oh iilJhi1 hOiN w
subjects by soldiers of the Republic.
Now, it is admitted that, in regard to
the second of these the demand for
apology and reparation-the United
States has no sort Of locus standi for
interference. America does not, and
never has, claimed to prevent the
European powers from exercising that
essential right of sovereignty, tho
right to demand and obtain reparation.
II America made such a claim, she
knows that she would have to take
upon her the responsibility for all the
stupid and illegal things done by the
semi-civilized States which make up
Central and South America. The
United States then. can only be con
ccrned with the boundary-line dispute.
Here, no doubt, granted that the Mon
roe Doctrine is admitted, she might
claim to influence the settlement; for
she might say to us Your claim that
the Venezueans have entered your ter
ritory, ia answered by their assertion
that you have entered theirs. But If
their claim is correct, as it may be for
all we know, then you would he ex
tending your boundaries at the expense
OF the Republic, and that again would
he increasing your territory on the
American continent by fresh annexa-
tions, and SO contrary to the Monroe
Doctrine. Hence, in boundary dis
pute, we claim the right to intervene.
and see that our resolve TO prevent fresh
annexations is respected. There is,
of course, an easy answer to this
namely, that there is no such thing
known 70 international Law as tho
Monroe Doctrine, and that by citing
the message of President Monroe the
United States cannot give herself any
special right OF interference. We have,
however, no desire to take up this
attitude. We personally, and we be-
lieve most thoughtful Englishmen,
respect aud approve of the essential
principle Of tho Monroe Doctrine, and
by NO means dcsire to chal 7rge it or
IN prevent its being carried into opera
ton. We do not want to add to our
| possessions in America, and therefore
are perfectly willing not to dispute
when America gives us notice that she
will consider herself injured if we try
| to increase them. Let us then argue
the case as il the Monroe Doctrine
we're part of the law of nations. Does
that admission give America the right
| to protest against our claim to insist
upon the Schomburgk line? Most as
suredly not; and for this very good
reason. The boundary line was in dis
| pute 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 Doc
trine has an ex post facto operation,
the dispute as 10 the boundary line be-
tween Venezuela and what was once
| Dutch Guiana cannot possibly concern
the Americans. That is an argument
which ought to affect the Americans
more than any other nation, for they
have absolutely excluded OK post facto
legislation from their polity by forbid
ding its use by the State Legislatures.
| But this may ne said to he legal sub
tlety. Let those who think so read the
text of President Monroe's famous
message, and they will not be able to
help tho conclusion that the President
never dreamt that the Doctrine he was
enunciating could be applied to boun-
Diary dispute that even then had been
pending for a quarter of 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 be-
fore 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 1875,
We presume that what will actually
come of all the talk Of the Monroe
Doctrine is what came of the talk
about n when a little time ago wn had