St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1896-02-07
THE VENEZUELAN DISPUTE.
An English View ofme Situation.

the United States over the VeneZue.
Ian boundary question is a very dis
agreeable and unfortunate one but
1T 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 Guinana. 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, tor on
each side of the Atlantic there are
millions OF quiet, plain, undemonstra-
tive men who would forbid the out
rage, and declare that come what
may, humiliation or no humilia ton,
right or wrong, there should be no
war. But though in the longrnn
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 shak-
ing fists in each others faces before
an amused and cynical world. 80
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
American Press has been full of false
and ridiculous rumors, and heady
commentaries on obviously impossi-
BILE facts. All this is not only most
disagreeable to those who, like our
selves, feel the sense of kinship
strongly, but also does material
harm to the growth of a good under.
standing between the two countries.
No doubt newspaper articles matter
very little in one sense, still it is
to be feared that in the present case
they have awakened a good deal of
ill-feeling, and that vaguely and
indefinitely large section of the
people of the United States have been
made to 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, if
any, there is in this contention that
we are infringing the Monroe doc.
trine. In the first place, it must be
remembered that we have two dis
tinct disputes pending with Venez.
uela. One concerns the boundary,
the other our demand that Venezuela
shall apologize and make reparation
for an injury done to British 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,-
the right to demand and obtain rep
aration. II America made such
claim, she knows that she would
have to take upon her the response
bility 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 concerned with the
boundary-line dispute. Here, no
doubt, granted that the Monroe doc
trine is admitted, she might claim to
influence the settlement; for she
might say to us,-'Your claim that
the Venezuelans have entered your
territory is answered by their asser-
ton that you have entered theirs.
But if their claim is correct, as it may
be for all we know, then you would
be extending your boundaries at the
expense of the Republic, and that
again would be increasing your terri
tory on the American continent by
fresh annexations, and so contrary
to the Monroe doctrine. Hence, in
a boundary dispute, 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 to
International Law as the Monroe
doctrine, and that by citing the mes
sage of President Monroe the United
States cannot give herself any special
right of interference. We have, how
ever, no desire to take up this atti-