The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-09-28
NOT EXACTLY an authority.

So far as the Monroe doctrine is con-
cerned 1t seems a little strange for the
spectator to be talking about England
accepting that doctrine. England has
accepted the Monroe doctrine and with
| 1t has admitted our right to protest
against European encroachments UPON
TINS hemisphere, as in the case of the
Venezuelan boundary dispute which
alter considerable amount of buster
! she consented to lefer to an arbitration
! tribunal for Observation-Disclosures
! Journal.
England accepted the Monroe doctrine
long before the Venezuela imbrog1io. She
! acquiesced in its principles at the time
| OF It's inception, and later soiemnly ac-
! lnowledged its binding force as to Cen
trial America in the Clayton-Bulwer
| boundary had nothing to do with the
! Monroe doctrine-St. Paul Globe.
| on, yes, England accepted the Monroe
| Goct1lne three-quarters of century ago.
! 1T is not affirmed that she did so as a
result Of the Venezuelan affair. That
was only an incident of her recognition
| for in recognizing the legitimacy of our
| protest against encroachment on Vene-
Zuelan territory, she recognized the con-
| tihued validity of the Monroe doctrine.
| You know precious little about the Mon
! roe doctrine, Dear G 0 b e, if you say
| the Venezuelan boundary dispute had
nothing to do with it" The extensive
! grasp on Venezuelan territory by Great
! Britain was just such oppression" as
was contemplated by the Monroe doctrine
! as not to be tolerated on this hemis-
! phere-Minneapol Journal
The above from our esteemed contem-
porary deserves attention because it is a
fair sample of the prevailing ignorance
of the origin and of the diplomatic prin-
ciples involved in what we have been
| wont to call the Monroe doctrine.
Whether the Glob e knows precious
little about the Monroe doctrine or
not is a matter for the public to de-
termine Although comparisons are
sometimes odious, we are constrained to
remark that should anyone seek either
! a learned or a logical discussion of eco
| nomic OR diplomatic questions in the edi-
torial columns of the Journal, ne would
meet with a sore disappointment
| The Journal, in its assumption that
England admitted the controlling force
/ of the Monroe doctrine, when it agreed
| to submit the Venezuelan boundary dis
| pute to arbitration, fell into an error that
can only be explained on the ground
OF a total lack of information regarding
the diplomatic correspondence which
passed between the state department and
the British foreign Office previous to the
agreement to submit the controversy to
a court of arbitration. The Journal has
evidently taken as an authoritative enun,
citation Of the Monroe doctrine, the
celebrated message of Grover Cleveland
addressed to congress- Dec. II, 1885, and
| which led to the appointment of the court
of arbitration to settle the Venezuelan
boundary dispute. England pointed out
with clearness of logic, the force Of
which the most rampant jingoes were
compelled to admit the utter absurdity
| of the American contentious that the
| Monroe doctrine was an acknowledged
tenet of International law, and that it
could be applied to the boundary dis
pute between any European nation hold
ing possession on this continent and
the adjoining sovereignty In his an
NAL message to congress Dec. 2, 1895,
/ even Mr.. Cleveland said considering
/ the disparity of strength of Great Brit
! ain and Venezuela, the territorial dis
pute between them can be reasonably
sssSlea only by friendly and impartial
arbitration and that resort to such ar