The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-02-01
THE LEADERS or THOUGHT con-
pEU~ II.

THE LEADERS OF THOUGHT CON
DIuS n.
Tho debates in Congress have very lii'ie
,oe,once upon The thoughts and opinions
of The people The discussions IN l'e
daily press undoubtedly impress the poo
nile TO a large extent. but We believe the
monthly magazines exercise "a greater IN
encpce over that staid and ultimate
op,njon that finally controls than any
other agency. This is because the man
myers of these publications get the qnes-
lions OF the day discussed III
their pages by the foremost
thinkers of the day. who lead retieu
lives given up TO meditation ana re-
oootion. and the people always pay great
attention TO what comes from scholars
who. as they believe. publish their re-
nections and opinions for the public sood'
and not to subseryc any private end
The managers of the Forum have pro-
cured a discussion Of the Venezuelan
matter for their February number by
Professor Theodore Woolsoy, professor
of international law at Yale University
against the Presidents message. and by
Hon. Oscar 5. Straus. ex-United States
Minister to Turkey in support of IL.
MIR. straus defence of the Presidents
position is a very weak and lame affair
indeed. All that lie can say is con-
tanned In the following language used
by him;
1 N..14aI.rf.fl refusal
TO arhitrato charges Great Britain win
weighty responsibilities that are not
measured 10y their effect upon her pos
sessions on this continent 1t entails
upon her the responsibility for the abro-
cation OF the humane principles OF arpi-
. ration as the best and most civilized
method for the settlement Of interna-
tional disputes. which have been so cour-
teously and urgently pressed upon .her
In this matter by our Government, by
every Secretary OF State since 1896 and
by our Presidents, in their messages 10
Congress
We suppose this is the best defence
that can be made for Mr.. Cleveland bnt
IL is no defence, all the same. Great
Britain has a perfect right to refuse ar
bitration, If she pieases, as Mr.. Straus
would no doubt argue when striking
laborers demand that their employer shall
arbitrate with them. But Professor
Woolsey deals with this subject after
very different fashion. We quote the
concluding paragraphs Of his article. lie
says. after defining just what was meant
by Mr.. Monroe. exactly as The Times
has repeatedly defined il:
'Such was the Monroe doctrine. Any
Thing other than this Is the doctrine OF
somebody else.
There Is another striking difference
between the old version ana the new.
President Monroe's message nowhere
threatens force. This fact has been
often commented upon. His strongest
expression is that We should look upon
certain actions az evidence of an un-
friendly disposition. But President CleVe-
land IL not so tame. After suggesting
a commission to report upon the Nene-
.zuelan boundary. he says:
'''When such report is made and ac-
cepted, II Will. in my opinion, be the duty
of the United States 10 resist by every
means in its power. as a wilful ageres-
sion upon It's rights and interests, the
appropriation by Great Britain Of any
lands. or the exercise OF gWernmental
jurisdiction. over any territory which, al
ter Investigation, We have determined OF
right belongs to Venezuela
But Cor this threat. the message would
have been regarded as "A political mani
fssto. With this threat. it is a menace
TO tho peace Of TWO great o,dtes.
There Is one more considefauon--one
already suggesied-,he vital point OF the
whole matter. We. may grant. though
contrary so fact. that the Monroe doc
trine is applicable to the Venezuelan
boundary dispute. Proof must stil be
furnished that a failure TO enforce IL
would endangcr our peace and safety. If
they are not so endangered, we have 10
ground FOR interference. The Monroe
doctrine declares this. President oleve-
land implies h. The commentators who
have been quoted say IT, Does British
control over the Wild frontier region in
dispute between Nenezaela and Guiana
really threaten the SAFETY OF the United
States? Ii 30 why and how? We are
entitled TO specifications. For. unless
the danger can be shown. an interference
IL unwarranted. Does Canada pat our
institutions IN jeopardy? Does British
Columbia impcril our form OF govern
menty IL not. why dOcs this. danger
Turk In distant Guiana? England has ar
constitutional form OF government as
our own. She is a good cct0nizcr She
carries order. justice. capital into the
wilds with her. Are such Developments
fnmical TO our safety? h Is there any
thing which can truly imperil our insti-
tutionsg ~ there anything on earth
which We can truly fear. except the con-
sequences OF our own ignorance, our own
dishonesty. our own conceits
al the risk OF tcdsounnefs may !
gather again the threads OF my DISCOURSE
The Monroe doctrine a. not law, Il
fIx.<Ia a.. ma arflt,fit ulas f.oll..y de.
vis<d 10 meet = particular case. That
oass was tha forelbis substitution OF