Evening Star Newspaper, December 17, 1895, Page 12

12 THE EVENID G STAR, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1895—SIXTEEN PAGES. Underseiling all the Jewelry dealers in Washington!!! r, first of ail, that place is just os ft 1s 5 of oad i'm in bos- "I like you to rem article sold in i, + up to s Chains from 3 good a Wal = for $30 or from $19 up 352 Mave x lid 14k. ¢ 2 to $25. For $17. ns any dealer in town sel Tenutiful Marquise it $1 , ‘COLE, 43 Baum: dett-28e0 Sa IDES ‘Cut Glass Salts & Peppers, Diamonds from td x h 10 CF Open even ings. EVERETT’S, Guitars. Mando! Banjos, Zithe instruments ade Instr Lowest in pri net ts, AW ay strictly SUMENTS 4 Haynes & Co., to 563 WASHING £¢ a4 coda Boston, Just Rec’d New Lot Holiday Presents in Sterling Silver. AL PRICES: THE st SHOB HORN...... cuarss.... §1.00 AIL, POLISHERS. LORG. $1.25 roners 40C. STERLING SILVER ILVER NAIL FILES.. 4cc. SOLID GOLD LINK BUTTO ome ° an fn. Goldsmith Son, Jewelers, g11 Pa. Ave. 416-400 World's Fair! HIGHEST AWARD. TMPERIAL GRANUL, The STANDARD and BEST prepared OOD An easily digested food. Safe and absolutely pure. Is unquestionably a most valuable food in the sick room, where either little one or adult needs delicate, nourishing diet!! Sick room dict would often be the despair of phy= sicians, mot! and train= ed nurses, but for this most ippreciated by a lady or Their growing pop- weather wear makes tucm: at once sensible and suitable as a present. The hand- soimest styles, the finest qualities, largest variety and most reason- = ble prices distinguish our stock = from all others in town. 3 vodvear Rubber Co. : Weiss wet NA ve Started a } & ont a Q 0 ee } (Are Your Teeth. Free From Aches?. Itt ess Evans Dental Parlors,’ Penna. Ave. N. W. 2 AO nN idays Begin Soiled Gowns and them good: as Wagon calls Anion Fischer, ge6 G St MATCULESS PROCESS DYEING AND CLEANINt @ele-10d Here's | fram. | Solid Gold and Dinniond Scart large white stuns $37! 1 ud IHANDS OFF!I (Continued from First Page.) claims of both parties; it must be contend- | (ed, are of a somewhat indefinite nature. Neither of the parties, he says, is today standing for the bcundary line predicated _ upon strict legal rights, Great Britain hay- ing formulated no stch claim at all, while | Venezuela insists upon the Essequibo line j only as a liperal concession to her antag- | onists. | The Sccretary notices briefly several feat- ures of the situation—the continuous Fsrowth of the undefined British claims, the fate of the various attempts at arbi- tration of the controversy, and the part in the matter heretofore taken by the United States. He shows how the exploita- tion of the Schomburg line was followed by Venezuela’s protest, and by what may be fairly interpreted as a disavowal of the line by Great Britain, notwithstanding which every change in the British claims since that time has moved the frontier of Guiana farther and farther to the wd of the line proposed by Lord n in 18H. rizing the Situation. Sun The Secretary traces the various efforts made by Venezuela to arrive at this settle- ment of the boundary question and of the United States to secure its submission to arbitration, bringing the history down to the beginning of this year, when the im- ‘ecretnry Olney. portant features of the situation were sum- marized by him as follow: 1. The title to territory of indefinite but sedly very large extent fs in dispute at Britain and Venezuela. 2. The disparit¥in strength of the parties is such that Venezuela can hope to estab- lish her claim only through peaceful methods. 3. The controversy has existed for half a century, despite Venezuela’s efforts to es- tablish a boundary. 4. Venezuela has for a quarter of a cen- tury striven for arbitration. 5. Great Britain has continuously refused except upon the renunciation in her favor of a large part of Venezuela’s claims. 6. The United States has made it clear to Great Britain and the world by frequent interposition of good offices that the con- troversy is one in which its honor and its interests are involved, and the continuance of which it cannot regard with indiffer- ence. At this point Secretary Olney says: An Accurate Statement. “The accuracy of the foregoing analysis of the existing status cannot, it Is believed, be challenged. It shows that status to be such that thoge charged with the interests of the United States are now forced to de- termine exactly what those Interests are and what course of action they require. It compels them to decide to what extent, If any, the United States may and should in- tervene in a controversy between and pri- marily concerning only Great Britain and Venezuela and to decide how far it is bound to sve that the Integrity of Venezuelan ter- ory is not impaired by the pretensions of its powerful antagonist. Are any such right and duty devolved upon the United States? if not, the United States has already don all, if not more than all, that a purely sentimental interest in the affairs.of the two countries justifies, and to push its interpo- n further would be unbecoming and ur- dignified and might well subject it to the charge of impertinent intermeddling with affairs with which it has no rightful con- cern, On the cther hand, if any such right and duty exist, their due exercise and dis- ge will not permit of any action that shall not be efficient and that, if the pow of the United States is adequate, shall not result in the accomplishment of the end i: The question thus presented, as of prircipic, and regard being had to . does not seer d:fficult of Yet the momentous practical co} dependent upon its determination require that it should be care- ered, and that the grounds of cha view. matte! the settled national pol solution. fully con tke conclusion arrived at should be fully and frankly stated.” The Secretary s that It is an admitted ternational law that there are under which a nation may in a controversy between . although the docjrine is or- expressed in terms of the most general character. It is declared In sub- stance that a nation may avail Itself of this right whenever what is done or pro- posed hy any of the parties primarily con- cerned is a serious and direct menace to ts own f ity, tranquility or welfare. The propriety of the rule, when applied in good faith, will not be questioned in any been given ers, though he says it ha quar = wide scope and too often made @ cloak for s of wanton spoliation and grandizement. The Secretary says, how- ever, that we are at this time concerned not so much with the general rule as with a form of it which ts peculiarly and dis- the tinctively American. And this leads Secretary to an e!aborate historical analy of the conditions leading up to the enuncia- tion of the famous Monroe doctrine,.begin- ning with Washington’: nous farewell ad- dress, warning Americans against entang- ling alliances with European pewers The Monroe Doctrine. He shows how in the twenty years'which succeeded this address the situation had greatiy changed; that the great increase of p d resource of the new nation had given it 2 commanding position on thi centinent, and that Monroe, without hesi- ng to accept the logic of the farewell ss, applied it by declaring in effect merican non-intervention in Europe rily implied European non-interven- tion in American affairs. He quotes Presi- dent M ge of De- ting that the prop- America is in no part open to cclonization has long been conceded, he s thrt our p nt concern is with the her practical application of the Monroe rine, the’ disregard of which by any European power is to be deemed an act of unfriendliness toward the United States. On this point the Secretary says: “The precise scope and limitations of this rule cannot be too clearly apprehended. It dces not establish any general protectorate by the United States over other American states, It does not relieve any American state from its cbligations as fixed by in- ternational law, nor prevent any European power directly interested from enforcing such obligations or from inflicting merited tat neces: cember osition t punishment for the breach of them. It dces not contemplate any interference in the internal affairs of any American state or in the relations between it and other American states. It does not justify any attempt on our part to change the estab- lisbed form of government of any American state or to prevent the people of such state from altering that form according to their own will and pleasure. The rule in ques- tion has but a single purpose and object. It is that no European power or com- bination of European powers shall forcibly deprive an American state of the right and power of self-government and of shaping for itself its own political fortunes an destinies.”" The Secretary says it is manifest that a rule which has been openly and uniformly acted upen by the executive branch of the government for seventy years must have had the sanction of Congress. Nor, he adds, if the practical results of the rule be sought for, is the record either meager or obscuré. Its first effect was, indeed, mo- mentous and far-reaching. It was the component factor in the emancipation of South America, and to it the independent States of that region are largely Indebied for their very existence. Since then e mst striking single achievement to be credited to the rule 1s the evacuation of Mexico by the French. But we are also indebted to ft for the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, neutralizing any interoceanle canal across Central America and excluding Great Britain from any dominion there. It has been used in the case of Cuba. as if justifying the position that, while the sovereignty of Spain will be respected, the island will not be permitted to become the possession of any other European power. It has been influential In bringing about the definite relinauishment of any supposed protectorate by Great Britain over the Mosquito coast. President Polk relied upon vpon It, though perhaps erroneously. to prevent the transfer of Yucatan; Gen. Grant. in the same spirit, declared that ex- isting denendencies were no longer a sub- ject of transfer from one European power to another, and another development is fgund in the objection to arbitration of South American controversies by a Euro- pean power, and Secretary Bayard resisted the enforcement of the Pelletier claim against i, declaring that “serious, in- deed, would be the consequences if Euro- nean hostile foot should, without Just cause, tread those states in the new world which have emancipated themselves froin European control. n Americ sitions for Decisions. “American questions, it is sald, are for American decisions,” says Secretary Oirey. He holds that the enumeration made of ap- Plications of the Monroe doctrine demon- strates that the Venezuelan boundary con- troversy is in any view within the sco and spirit of the rule as uniformly accepi ed and acted upon. Europe, he goes on. has a set of primary interests peculiar to herself; America is not interested In them ard ought not to be vexed or complicated with them. If all Europe were suddenly to fly to arms over the fate of Turkey, w it not be preposterous that any state should find itself inextricably involv in the miseries and burdens of the contest? What have the states of America to do with the vast armies and fleets of Europe, and why should they be impoverished by wars in which they can have no direct concern? The moral interests of Europe are peculiar to her and entirely diverse from those which are peculiar to Ame Europe is with a single important excep- tion committed to the monarchieal pr ciple. America is devoted to the idea that every people has an inalienable right of self-government. Any uropean control of our interests Is necessarily both incon- gruous and injurious, and if the forci intrusion of European powers in American politics is to be deprecated the resistance must come from the United States, the only power with strength adequate to the exigency. There can be but one answer to the question whether the safety and wel- fare of the United States are so concerned? with the maintenance of the independence of every American state a@ against an. Europear. power as to justify and require our interposition whenever that inde- pendence is endangered. These states are our friends and allies commercially and politically, and to allow the subjugation of any one of them by an ropean power reverses the situation and ignifies a loss of all the advantages in- cident te their natural relation to us. But that is not all. The people of the United States have a vital interest in the cause of popular self-government, which they have secured at the cost of infinite blood and treasure. The age of the Crusades has pa: ed, and they are content with such assertion and defense of the rights of self-government as their own security and welfare demand. It is in that view, mere than any other, that they will not tolerate the political control of American states by the forcible assump- tion of a European power. The mischiefs to be apprehended from such a source are none the less real because not immedia imminent in any specifie case. The United 's is today fractically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law. All the advantages of this superiority are at once imperiled if the principle be admitted that Suropean powers may convert American states into colonies of their own. The prin- ciple could be easily availed of, and any power doing so would immediately secure a base of military operations against us, and it is not inconceivable that the struggle now going on for the acquisition of Afric: might be transferred to South Am The weaker countries would soon be sorbed and South America would be p: tioned between European powe American ca. ab- i- The consequences to the United States would be disastrous. Loss of prestige would be the least of them. Our own real rivals in peace as well as enemies in war would be located at our very doors We must be armed to the teeth, convert the flower of our male population into soldiers and sallors and thus annihilate a large share of the productive energy of the na- tien. Our just apprehensions are not to be ullayed by suggestions of the good will ef European powers toward us, for the people of the United States have learned In the school of experience to what extent the relations of states depend, not upon sentiment or principle. but upon selfish intere: They will not soon forget that in their hour of distress all their anxieiie and burthens were aggravated by the pos- sibility of demonstrations against national life on the part of pow with whom they had long maintained the most harmonious relations. They have yet in mind that France scized upon the apparent opportunity of our civil war to set up a monarchy in Mexico, and had France and Great Britain held important South Ameri- can possessions to work from and benefit the temptation to destroy our predominance by furthering our dismemberment might have been irresistible. From that grave peril we were saved In the past and may be saved again in the future through the operation of the sure but silent volce of the doctrine proclaimed by President Monroe. “There is, then,” goes on Secretary Olney, ‘a doctrine of American public law, well founded in principle and abundantly sanctioned by precedent, which entitles and requires the United States to treat as an injury to herself the forcible assumption by an European power of political control over an American state. The application of the doctrine to the boundary dispute be- tween Great Britain and Venezuela remains to be made, and presents no real difficulty.” The Expanding British Claim. The Secretary shows that though relat- ing to the boundary line, the question is one of political control over a domain of great extent, the British claim apparent- ly expanding in two years some thirty- three thousand square miles, and directly involving the command of the mouth of the Orinoco, of immense consequence in connection with the whole river navigation of the intericr of South America. He dis- misses as valueless the contention that British Guiana may fy’ this controversy be regarded as an Amerjcan state like Ven- ezuela. He suggests that while Venezuela might possibly not object to settling the matter directly with British Guiana, if this contention were once allowed, every Euro- pean power with a Soyth American colony might extend its possessions indefiniteiy, while other powers might do the same by first procuring » vohintary cession of a small tract of soil. ItJs not admitted, and therefore cannot be assumed, that Great Britain is {n fact usurping dominion over Venezuelan soil. Whfle Venezuela charges such usurpation, Great Britain denies it, and the United States, ‘until the merits are authoritatively ascertained, can take sides with nelther, but {t may demand that the truth shall be ascertained. Being entitled to resent and resist any sequestration of Venezuelan soil by Great Britain, it is necessarily entitled to know whether such sequestration has occurred or is now going on, : There is but cne feasible mode of de- termining the merits of the question, and that is peaceable arbitration. Great Britain admits that there is a controversy which should be adjusted by arbitration, but nul- lifies this admission by her insistence that the submission shall cover but a part of the controversy. If it were to point to a boundary which both parties either ex- pressly or tacitly had ever agreed to the demand that the territory within that line should be excluded from the dispute might rest upon a reasonable basis, but there is no such line. Great Britain has shown in various instances that she was willing to arbitrate her political and sovereign rights when the interests or territory in- volved were not of controlling magnitude; thus she arbitrated the extent of her colonial possessions with the United States, twice with Portugal, once with Germany and perhaps in other instances. Great Britain's Ipse Dixit. The Secretary quotes from seme of these arbitrations in the past to sustain his as- sertion that the British demand for recog- nition of her right to a portion of the disputed territory before arbitration seems to stand upon nothine but her own ipse Gixit. Sho says (comments Mr. Olney) to Venezuela in substance: “You can get none of the debatable land by force, be- cause you are not strong cnovgh; you can get none by treaty, because I will not agree, and you can take your chance at getting a portion by arbitration only if you first agree to abandon te me such other portion as I may designate.” This attitude is rot characteristic with English love of justice and fair play; it places Venezuela under vital duress; the territory acquired weuld be as much wrested by the strong hard as if occupied by British troops, and it !s.quite impossible that this position should be sanctioned by the United States or that it should not be regarded as amounting to an invasion and conquest of Verezuelar territory. The President's Duty. Summing up, Secretary Olney says: “In thesa circumstances the duty of the President appears to him, unmistakable and imperative. Great Britain's assertion of title to the disputed territory, combined with her refusal te Wavg that title investi- gated, being a substantial appropriation of the territory to her ow use, not to pro- test and give warning that the transaction will be regarded as injuious to the in- terests of the peoplé of ‘the United States as well as oppressive in itself would be to ignore an established policy, with which the honor and welfate of this country are closely idet.tified. White the measures necessary or proper for ‘the vindication of that policy are to he determined hy an- other branch of the government, it Is clearly for the executive to leave nothing undane ‘which may! tena to render ‘such @etermination unnecessary.” In conclusion Mr. Bayard is directed to read this communtcation’ to Lord Salis- bury, reinforced by such pertinent con- siderations as would doubtless occur to him. The communication calls for a defi- nite decision as to whether Great Britain will consent or decline to submit the entire boundary question to arbitration. The President hopes that the conclusion will be on the side of arbitration, but if he is disappointed, “a result not to be antict- pated and in his judgment calculated to greatly embarrass the fvture relations be- tween this country and Great Britain,” he wishes to be acquainted with the fact at such early date as will enable him to lay the whole subject before Congress, in his next annual message. A short note from Acting Secretary Adee to Mr. Bayard, of date July 24, explains the basis for Secretary Olney's- statement that the British claim was suddenly in- creased In two years by thirty-three thou- sand square miles. THE BRITISH SIDE. How 1 Salisbury Exponunds the Monroe Doctrine. The British side of the dispute is embod- ied In two notes from Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote. Both not are dated the same day, a the former, which the ambassador is directed to communicate ta Seeretary Olney, is of the highest {mport- ance, as in it Lord Salisbury goes broad}: into the Monroe doctrine. In full, it is as follows: KOREIGN OFF! Novembe . Sir: On the 7th August I transmitted ta Lord Gough a copy of the dispatch from Mr. Olmey which Mr. Bayard had left with me that day, and of which he had read por- tions-to me. I informed him at the time that it could not be answered until it had been carefully considered by the law officers of the crown. I have therefore deferred re- plying to it till after the recess. T will not now deal with those portions of it which are concerned exclusively with the controversy that has for some time pas existed between the republic of Venezuela and her majesty’s government in regard to the boundary which separates. their do- minions. I take a very different view from Mr. Olney of various matters upon which he touches in that part of the dispatch; but I will defer for the present all observations upon fit, as It concerns matters which are not in themselves of first-rate importance, and do not dlrectly ‘concern the relations between Great Britain and the United States. The latter part, however, of the dispatch, turning frem the question of the frontiers of Venezuela, proceeds to deal with principles of a far wider character, and to advance Goctrines of international law which are of ecnsiderable interest to all the nations whose dominions inchide any portion of the western hemisphere. The Monroe Doctrine. The contentions set fo?th by Mr, Olney in this part of his dispatch are represented by him as being an application of the po- litical maxims which are well known in American discussion under the name of the Monroe doctrine. As far as I am aware, this doctrine has never been before ad- vanced on behalf of the United States in any written communication addressed to the government of another nation, but it has been generally adopted and assumed as true by many eminent_writers and poli- ticlans In the. United States. It 1s said to have largely influenced the government of that country in the conduct of its foreign affairs, though Mr. Clayton, who was Seo- retary of State under President Taylor, ex- pressly stated that that administration had in no way adopted it. But during the period that has elapsed since the message of President Monroe was" delivered, in 1823, the doctrine has undergone a very notable development, and the aspect which it now presents in the hands of Mr. Olney differs widely from its character when it first issued from the pen of its author, The two propositions which in effect President Menroe laid down were, first, that America was no longer to be looked upon as a field for European colonization, and, secondly, + that Europe must not attempt to extend its political system to America, or to control the political condition of any of the Ameri- can communities who had recently declared their independence. The dangers against which President Monroe thought it right to guard were not as imaginary as they would seem at the present day. The formation of the holy alliance; the congresses of Laybach and: Verona, the ‘n- vasion of Spain by France for the purpose of forcing upon the Spanish people a form Lord Salisbury. of government which seemed likely to ais- appear, unless it was sustained by external aid, were incidents fresh in the mind-of President Monroe when he penned his cele- brated message. The system of which he speaks, and of which he so resolutely depre- cates the application to the American con- tinent, was the system then adopted by certain powerful states upon the continent of Europe of combining to prevent by force of arms the adoption in other countries of political institutions which they disliked, and to uphold by external pressure those which they approved. Various portions of South America had recently declared their independence, and that independence had rot heen recognized by the governments of Spain and Portugal, to which, with small exception, the whole of Central and South America were nominally subject. It was not an imaginary danger that he foresaw, if he feared that the same spirit which had dictated the French expedition into Spain might inspire the more powerful govern- ments of Europe with the idea of imposing, by the force of European arms, upon the South Amer'can communities, the form of government and the political connection which they had thrown off. In declaring that the United States would resist any such enterprise {f it was contemplated, President Monroe adopted a policy which received the entire sympathy of the En- glish government of that date. The Present State of Affairs. The dangers which were apprehended by President Monroe have no relation to the state of things in which we live at the present day. There is no danger of any holy alliance imposing its system upon any portion of the American continent, and there is no‘danger of any European state treating any part of the American conti- nent as a fit object for European coloniza- tion. It-is intelligible that Mr. Olney should invoke, in defense of the views on which he fs now insisting, an authority which en- joys sa high a popularity with his own fel- low countrymen. But the circumstances with which President Monroe was dealing, and those to which the present American government is addressing itself, have very few features in common. Great Britain ts imposing no “system"’ upon Venezuela, and fs not concerning herself in any way with the nature of the political institutions under.which the Venezuelans may prefer to live. But the British empire and the republic of Venezuela are neighbors, and they have differed for some time past, and continue to differ, as to the line by which their dominions are separated. It Is a controversy with which the United States have no apparent practical concern. It is difficult, indeed, to see how it can ma- terially affect any state or community out- side those primarily interested, except per- haps other parts of her majesty's domin- fons, such as Trinidad. ‘The disputed fron- tler of Venezuela has nothing to do with any of the questions dealt with by Presi- dent Monroe. It is not a question of the colonization by a European power of any portion of America. the imposition upon the communities of South America of any system of govern- ment devised in Europe. It is simply the determiration of the frontier of a British possession which belonged to the throne of England long before the republic of Ven- nela came into existence. But even if the Interests of Venezuela were so far linked to those of the United States as to give to the latter a locus standi in this controversy, their government apparently have not formed, and certainly do not ex- press any opinion upon the actual merits of the dispute. The government of the United States do not say that Great Britain or that Vene- zuela is in the right in the matters that are at issue. But they lay down that the doctrine of President Monroe, when he op- pesed the imposition of European systems or the renewal of European colonization, confers upon them the right of demanding that when a European power has a fron- tier difference with a South American com- munity, the European power shall consen to refer that controversy to arbitration: and Mr. Olney states that unless her majesty’s government accede to this de- mand it will “greatly embarrass the futur relations between Great Britain and the United States.’” Whatever may be the authority of the doctrine laid down by President Monroe there is nothing in his language to show that he ever thought of claiming this novel prerogative fer the United States. It is ad- mitted that he did not seek to assert a protectorate over Mexico, or the states of Central and South America. Such a claim would have imposed upon the United States the duty of answering for the conduct of those states, and consequently the re- sponsibility of controlling it. His sagactous foresight would have led him ererg: to deprecate the addition of so serious burden to those which the rulers of the United States have to bear. It follows cf necessity that if the government of the United States will not control the conduct of these communittes, neither can it under- take to protect them from the consequences attaching to any misconduct of which they may be guilty toward other nations. If they violate In any way the rights of an- other state, or of {ts subjects, it fs not al- leged that the Monroe doctrine will assure them the assistarice of the United States in escaping from any reparation which they may be bound by international law to give. Mr. Olney expressly disclaims such an inference from the principles he lays down. The Question of Arbitration. But the claim which he founds upon them is that if any independent American state advanees a demand for territory of which its neighbor claims to be the owner, and that neighbor is the colony of a European state, the United States have a right to in- sist that the European state shall submit the demand and its own impugned rights to arbitration. I will not now enter into a discussion of the merits of this method of terminating interhational differences. It has proved it- self valuable in many cases; but It is not free from defects, which often operate as a serious drawback on its value. It is not al- ways easy to find an arbitrator who is com- It is not a question of ; petent, ana who, at the same time, is wholly free from bias; and the task of in- suring compliance with the award when it is made is not exempt from difficulty. It is a mode of settlement of which the value varies much, according to the nature of the controversy to which it is applied and the character of the litigants who appeal to it. Whether, in any particular case, it 1s a suitable method of procedure 1s generally a délicate and difficult question. The only parties who are competent to decide that question are the two parties whose rival contentions are in issue. The claim of a third nation, which ts unaffected by the controversy, to impose this particular pro- cedurs on either of the two others cannot be reasonably justified, and has no founda- tion in the law.of nations. In the remarks which I have made T have argued on the theory that the Monroe doctrine in {iself Is sound. IT must not. however, be understood as expressing any accentance of it on the part of her mai- esty’s government. It must always be mentioned with respect, on account of the distinguished statesman to whom it is due and the great nation who have generally adopted it. But international law is founded on the general consent of nations; and no statesman, however eminent, end no nation, however powerful, are compe- tent to insert into the code of international law a novel principle which was never recognized before. and which has not since been accepted by the government of any other country. The United States have a right, like any other nation, to interpose in any cortroversy by which their own in- terests are affected; and they are the judee whether those interests are touched, and in what measure they should be sustained. But their rights are in no way stréngthened or extended by the fact that the contro- versy affects some territory which is called ‘American. Mr. Olney quotes the case of the recent Chilean war, in which the Unfed States declined to join with France and England in an effort to bring hostilities to a close on account of the Monroe doctrine. The United States were entirely in the right in declining to join in an attempt at pacification if they thought fit; but Mr. Olney's principle that “American questions are for American decision,” even if it re- ceived’ any countenance from the language of President Monroe (which It does not), cannot be sustained by a r ning n from the law of nations. erro acumen of the United States is Lot entitled to affirm as a universal propo- sition, with reference to a number of inde- pendent states for whose conduct it as- sumes no responsibility, that its interests are necessarily concerned in whatever may Lefall those states simply because they are situated in the western hemisphere. It may well be that the interests of the United States are affected hy something that hap- pens to Chile or to Peru, and that that cir- cumstance may give them the right of in- terference; but such a contingency may equally happen in the case of China or Japan, and the right of interference fs not more extensive or more assured in the one case than in the other. ‘Though the language of President Mon- roe is directed to the attainment of objects which most Englishmen would agree to be salutary, It is impossible to admit that they have been inscribed by any adequate au- thority in the code of international law: and the danger which such admission would involve is sufficiently exhibited both by the strange development which the doc- trine has received at Mr. Olney’s hands, and the arguments by which it is support- ed, in the dispatch under reply. In defense of it he says: “That distance and 3,000 miles of intervening ocean make any per- manent political union between an Euro- pean and an American state unnatural and inexpedient will hardly be denied. But physical and geographical considerations are the least of the objections to such a union. Europe has a set of primary inter- ests which are peculiar to herself; America is not interested in them, and ought not to be vexed or complicated with them.” ‘And, again: “Thus far in our history we have been spared the burdens and evils of immense standing armies, and all the other accessories of huge warlike establishments; and the exemption has highly contributed to our national greatness and wealth, as well as to the happiness of every citizen. But with the powers «f Europe permanent- ly encamped on American soll, the ideal conditions we have thus far enjoyed can- not be expected to continu ‘The British Co The ‘necessary meaning of these words is that the union between Great Britain and Canada; between Great Britain and Jamaica and Trinidad; between Great Britain and British Honduras or British Guiana are “Inexpedient and unnatural.” President Monroe disclaims any such infer- ence from his doctrine;}nt in this,as in other respects, Mr. Olney develops it. He lays down that the inexpedient and unnatural character of the union between a European and American state is so obvious that it “will hardly be denied.” Her mafesty’s government are prepared emphatically to deny it on behalf of both the British end American people, who are subject to her crown. They maintain that the union be- tween Great Britain and her territor: the western hemisphere is both natural and expedient. They fully concur with the view which President Monroe apparently tained, that any disturbance of the ex Ing territorial distribution in that hem- isphere by any fresh acquisitions on the part of any European state, would be a highly inexpedient change. But they are not prepared to admit that the recognition of that expediency is clothed with the sanc- tion which belongs to a doctrine of inter- national law. They are not prepared to ad- mit that the interests of the United Stute: are necessarily concerned in cvery frontier dispute which may arise between any two of the states who possess dominion in the western hemisphere; and still less can they accept the doctrine that the United States are entitled to claim that the process of arbitration shall be applied to any demand for the surrender of territory which one of those states may make against another. I have commented in the above remarks only tipon the general aspect of Mr. 01 ¢ dcctrines, apart from the special considera tions which attach to the controversy be- tween the united kingdom and Venezuela in its present phase. This controversy has undoubtedly been made more difficult by the inconsiderate action of the Venezuelan government in breaking off relations with her majesty’s government, and its settle- ment has been correspondingly delayed: but her majesty’s governmapt have not surrendered the hope that it will be ad- justed by a reasonable arrangement at an early date. I request that you will read the substance of the above dispatch to Mr. Olney and leave him a copy if he desires it. SALISB TO ARBITRATE, nies. RY. REFUSAL Salisbury Says This is Not 2 Question to Be Settled That Way. The last dispatch from Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote was dated the same day and as the preceding, November 26, 1895, says: Sir: In my preceding dispatch of tod: date I have replied only to the latter pi tion of Mr. Olney’s dispatch of the 20th of July last, which treats of the application of the Monroe doctrine to the question of the boundary dispute between Veneznela and the colony of British Guiana. But tt secms desirable, in order to remove some evident iisapprehensions as to the main features of the question, that the statement of it contained in the earlier portion of Mr. Olney’s dispatch should not be left without reply. Such a course will be the more convenient, because, {1 onsequence of the suspension o1 diplomatic celations, 4 ments. I shall not have the opportunity of setting right misconceptions of this kind in the ordinary way in a dispatch addressed to the Venezuelan government itself. Her majesty's government, while they have never avoided or declined argument on the subject with the government of Venezuela, have always held that the auestion was one which had no direct bear- ing on the material interests ef any other country, and have consequently iefrained hitherto from Presenting any detailed Statement of their case, either to the United States or to other foreign goverh- It is, perhaps, a natural consequence of this circumstance that Mr. Olney’s narra- tion of what has passed bears the impress. of being mainly, if not entirely, founded on ex parte statements emanating from Venezuela, and gives, in the opinion cf her majesty’s government, an erroneous view of many material facts. - Lord Salisbury then gives a long review of the boundary question, showing on what he based the claim of Great Britain, and concludes as follow: The British Claim? “It will be seen from the~ preceding stalemert that the government of Great Britain have from the first held the same view as to the extent of the territory which they are entitled to claim as a matter of right. It comprises the coast line up to the river Amacura, and the whole basin of the Essequibo river and its tributaries. A portion of that claim, however, they have always been willing to waive alto- gether; in regard to another portion, they have been, and continue to be, perfectly ready to submit the question of their tide to arbitration. As regards the rest, that which lies within the so-called Schom- burgh line, they do not consider that the rights of Great Britain are open to ques- tion. Even within that line they have, on various occasicns, offered to Venezuela considerable concessions as a matter of friendship and conciliation, and for the purpose of securing an amicable settlement of the dispute. If, as time has gone on, the concessior's thus offered diminished in ex- tent and have now been withdrawn, this has been the necessary consequence of the sradual spread over the country of British settlements, which her majesty’s govern- ment cannot, in justice to the inhabitants, offer to surrender to foreign rule, and the justice of such withdrawal is amply borne out by the researches in the national archives of Holland and Spain, which have furnished further and more convincing evi- dence in support of the British claims. “The discrepancies in the frontiers as- signed to the British colony in various maps published in England, and erro- neously assumed tu be founded on official snformation, are easily accounted for by the circumstances which I have mentioned. Her majesty’s government cannot, of course, be responsible for such publications, made without their authority. Refusal to Arbitrate. “Although the negotiations in 18%), 1891 and 189% did not lead to any result, her majesty’s government have not abandoned the hope that they may be resumed with better success, and that when the internal politics of Venezuela are s@tled on a more durable basis than has lately appeared to be the case her majesty’s government may be enabled to adopt a more moderate and conciliatory course in regard to this ques- tion than that of their predecessors. Her majesty’s government are sincerely de- sirous of being on friendly relations with Venezuela, and certainly have no design to seize territory that properly belongs to her or forcibly to extend sovereignty over any portion of her population. “They have, on the contrary, repeatedly expressed their readiness to submit to arbi- tration the conflicting claims of Great Britain and Venezuela to large tracts of ter- ritory, which, from their auriferous nature, are known to be of almost untold value. But they cannot consent to entertain, or to submit to the arbitration of another power or of foreign jurists, however eminent, claims based on the extravagant pretensions of Spanish officials in the last century, and involving the transfer of large numbers of British subjects, who have for many years enjoyed the settled rule of a British colony, to a nation of different race and language, whose political system is subject to fre- quent disturbance, and whose institutions as yet too often afford very inadequate pro- tection to life and property. “No issue of this description has ever been invelved !n the questions which Great Britain and the United States have con- sented to submit to arbitration, and her majesty’s government are convinced that in similar circumstances the government of the United States would be equally firm in declining to entertain proposals of such a nature. Your excellency is authorized to state the substance of this dispatch to Mr. Olvey, and to leave him a copy of it if he shculd desire it.” —-. Extending the Rend, The Commissioners are about ready to report upon the Senate bill 160, “to amend the charter of the Capital Traction Com- peny of the District of Columbia.” This bill is almost identical with one introduced last year providing for the extension of the v ington and Georgetown railroad, and which received the epproval of the Commis- sioners, who recommended its y Ze to Congress. The Commissioners will approve the bili with a stipulation that the building of the road be commenced within three months and finished within a year, The bill authorized the company to lay a ingte or double track with the necessary switches and turn outs, through and along the following streets and avenues: Begin- ning at a point near the corner of P. syl- varia ue and 17th street northwest, run- ning south on 17th street northwest to @ street northwest, thence west on G street to the river front, thence running east on said G stryet to 20th street northwest, thence south along that street to F street northwest, thence east along said F street to 17th street northwest, thence north on 17th street to the place of beginning. Also beginning on 224 street northwest at the river front, thence north along sald 224 ect to Flerida avenue, thence along Flor- ida avenue to connect with the present track of the Capital Traction Company on said avenue, provided that where electricity is used as a motive power, in the operation of ald road, no overhead wires shall be con- structed or used, and provided further, that a single track only shall be laid on G and F streets nientioned in the abové described route, except onlg as to G street between bth street and the river front. YOUR PALATE IS YOUR STOMACH’S CONSCIENCE. Your Stomach Knows What ts Good for You. Thin people are thin because the food they eat is not absorbed. Reasons—elther wronz food, or right food undigested. Fats, olis and grease will not make one fat, This Is because they are indigestible. Thin people find it hand to digest their food. Fatty foods make almost without ex- anaemic people have : his is of itself proof enough that such foods are bad for them, Let your palate tell you w few mistakes, and ays. to eat. Nature » should listen to what she s Thin peop! more comfo: may become fatter and dyspeptics by taking the Shaker Digestive Cordial. It agrees with the weakest stomach. It helps thy Weak stomach digest other food. It ts fattening and invigorating fn itself, for it contains artificially di ‘The Mount a qreat past bun- but meme mere an this tn- for all disea: are traceable to Aigestion. A ving! 10-cent bottle will tell er It is adapted to your case, and can be had through any druggist.