Okolona messenger. (Okolona, Miss.) 1900-current, 1903-01-21

s-kH9f@ fOte Treaty, says the New York
WSElS81- Sun, British students Of Information.
EQL1EGG al law have carefully examained
the Monroe Doctrine, and some of them have arriv-
ed at clear and correct conceptions Of it's history
and significance. Even those, however, who have
proved that they have q thorough understanding Of
the subject do not agree as to the attitude which
foreign powers are likely to take or ought to take
with reference to this principle OF American policy
From this point Of view quite different conclusions
reached by Sir Frederick Pollock in the nineteen.
th century for October and by Prof. 81. BrOugham
Leech in the FOrtnighLly for November.
Both Of these writer's dwell upon the fact that the
PRONUNCIATION Of the doctrine associated with the
name Of President Monroe was suggested by Can
ning's proposal, made in letter to Mr.. Rush, then
Minister at the Court Of St. James, that Great
Britan and the United States should jointly oppose
the intention Of the Holly Alliance to suppress the
revOlts OF the Spanish American colonies against
Spain. Both writer's point out that the message
setting forth the doctrine was read with approval in
England, as well as in the United States except as
regards the objection to future colonization by any
European power Prof. Leech, however, recognizes
what Sir Frederick Pollock overlOOks that the idea
Of the Monroe Doctrine had for some time previous
ly been terminating in the American mind; that
soil adapted to it's development had for some time
been preparing, and that all that Canning did was
to furnish the occasion for the sowing Of the seed.
When the two writer's come to discuss the posi-.
tiOn taken by Mr.. Olney, that adherence to the
sion Of the Venezuela boundary controversy to
arbitration, we encounter very different expressions
Of opinion. Prof. Leech regards President Cleve-
lands message as the most astounding proposal that
has ever been advanced by any Government in time
OF peace, and that, II an unjust and causeess war
be Che greatest Of Crimes then President Cleveland
put himself In the position OF person threatening
to commit such 3 crime. he also condemns Lord
Salisburys consent to arbitration, holding that the
British Premier established precedent Of the
- -, a
upon which, in Mr. Leech's judgment, he had been
successful in argument
Sir Frederick Pollock likewise thinks that the
Monroe Doctrine is not applicable to questions Of
genuinely doubtful or disputed boundaries, because
these belong to the ordinary diplomatic questions
which have been excluded from the operation of the
Doctrine by its authoritative expOnents, down to
and including President Roosevelt. he surmises
that Mr.. Onley found an application for the Doc
trine to the Venezuela controversy on the assump-
tion that it was doubtful whether the controversy
ives an ordinary dispute and whether England was
not seeking to encrOach on Venezuelan territory
without reasonable claim Of right or, at any rate,
to insist on being judge in her own cause Sir
Frederick Pollock seems inclined to admit, more
over, that the British Ministers might have taken
more pains to give correct information at various
times to the American Government, and even might
safely and wisely have accepted the first American
offer Of mediation. We ourselves take tor granted
that the precedent established by Mr. Onley will be
held binding by his successors in the State Depart
ment and no EuropeOn power will hereafter be
permitted, under color Of q boundary dispute, to
aggrandize itself ct the expense OF an American
republic, or to insist on being judge in it's own
cause.
Sir Frederick Pollock holds that Great Britian,
by her refusal to support to permit interpOsi-
ton by Continental powers on the side OF Spain in
the war between that country and the United States
acted upon Canning's policy, and practically
accepted the principles embodied in the Monroe
Doctrine. he draws the inference that since 1898
It has become certain that If, in the future, any
like enterprise be attempted by any European
coalition, the moral and II necessary, the physical
power OF the British Empire viii be exercised on
the side Of the great American republic. Prof.
Leech, on the other hand while admitting that
Great Britian has established 3 precedent against
herself points out with cOmplacency that the prece
dent is not binding on other nations, and that
various European iurists have expressly disclamed
Il. He expresses belief, which evidently Is the
offspring Of wish, that "when any matter worth
fighting about presents ITSELF this precedent, being
practically the result Of duress, will Justly be dis
regarded BE Is one Of those observers who deem
It certain that within the next half century, many
subjects Of European nations will settle in South
America and, when friction arises between them
and the so-called governments Of the Latin-Ameri-
can COmmonwealths, the story Of the Uitlanders
will be repeated
Some interesting stories are told Of the bravery