The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-07
CLEVELAND ON VENEZUELA
Conclusion of his Statement of th
 Boundary Controversy.

MT. Cleveland concludes in The Gen. tury for July his statement or The Venezuelan Boundary Controversy.
 The fact must not be overlooked, he says, that, notwithstanding this treaty was promoted and negotiated by the off, ficers of our government, the parties to it were Great Britain and Venezuela. This was a fortunate circumstance, in asmuch as the work accomplished was thus saved from the risk of customary disagreement at the hands of the United States Senate.
 Thus we have made a laborious and patient journey through the incidents of long dispute, to find at last a peaceful rest. As we look back over the road we have traversed, and view again the incidents we have passed on our way, some may be surprised that this controversy was so long chronic, and yet, in the end, yielded so easily to pronounced treatment. l shall at- tempt no explanation of this condition. know that occasionally some Ameri-
 cans of a certain sort, who were quite un- American when the difficulty was pending, have since been very fond of lauding the extreme forbearance and kindness of England toward us in our so-called belligerent and ill-advised as- sertion of American principle. Those to whom this is a satisfactory explanation are quite welcome to it.
 My own surprise and disappointment have arisen more from the honest mis- understanding and the dishonest and insincere misrepresentation, on the part of many of our people, regarding the motives and purposes of the interfer- ence of the government of the United States in this affair. Some conceited and doggedly mistaken critics have said that 1t was dreadful for us to in- vite war for the sake of people un- worthy of our consideration, and for the purpose of protecting their possess sion of land not worth possessing. It Is certainly strange that any intelligent citizen, protesting information on public affairs, could fail to see that when we aggressively interposed in this controversy it was because it was necessary in order to assert and vim dicate a principle distinctively Ameri- ! can, and in the maintenance of which the people and government of the United States were profoundly concern ed. It was because this principle was endangered. and because those charged with administrative responsibility would not abandon or neglect it, that our government interposed to prevent any further colonization of American soil by a European nation. In these circumstances neither the character of the people claiming the soil as against | Great Britain, nor the value of the lands in dispute, was of the least con- sequence to us; nor did it In the least concern us which of the two contes- tants had the best title to any part of the disputed territory. so long as Eng land did not possess and colonize more | than belonged to her-however much or however little that might be. But we needed proof of the limits of her rights in order to determine our duty in defence of our Monroe doctrine; and We sought to obtain such proof. aud to secure peace. through arbitration.
 But those among us who most loudly reprehended and bewailed our vigorous asertion of the Monroe doctrine were the timid ones who feared personal financial loss, or those engaged ir speculation and stock gambling, ir l hnving much heyond thsir Ph'htv tc