The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, December 18, 1895, Page 1

VOLUME LXXIX.—NO. 18. SAN FRANCISCO, WEDNESDAY MORN NG, DECEMBER 18, 1895. PRICE FIVE CENTS CLEVELAND DEMANDS ARBITRATION OR WAR, The President’s Firm Stand on the Venezuelan Question. FOR MONROE DOCTRINE. .Encroachments on American Ter- ritory Will No Longer Be Tolerated. COMMISSIONERS RECOMMENDED. | It Now Remains for Congress to Act Upon the Message From the Chief Executive. . WASHINGTON, D. C., Dec. 17.—Presi- .dent Cleveland delivered a message on the Venezuelan controversy to-day that cansed a profound semsation in both the Senate and House of Representatives, and, in fact, throughout the entire world. 1t is regarded by many of the leading statesmen of the Nation as the most start- | ling and important occurrence in Ameri- | cawn history since the close of the War of | the Rebellion. | In the message the President clearly in- | dicates that the Monroe doctrine will be | upheld at all hazards. He states that he | fully realizes the responsibility, even | though it precipitate war with the mother | country. i EVEN IF WAR ENSUES. Cleveland Demands That the Monroe Doctrine Bz Upheld. WASHINGTON, D. C., Dec. 17.—The Presideni sent to Congress to-day the Venezuelan correspondence, together with a message on the subject. The reply of | the British Government consists of two | communications addressed by the British Prime Minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote. One is devoted to the Monroe doctrine and claims that it is a strange extension of this doctrine that is insisted on by the United States. It says further that the reasons justifving an appeal to the Monroe doctrine are inapplicable *to the present state of things.” The message is as follows: “To the Congress of the United States: In my annual message addressed to Con- gress on the 3d inst, I called attention to the pending boundary gontroversy be- | tween Gireat Britain and the republic of Venezuela, and recited the substance of the representations made by this Govern- | ment to her Britannic -Majesty’s Govern- ment, suggesting the reasons why such aisputes should be submitted to arbitra- tion for settlement, and inquiring whether it would be so submitted. “The answer of the British Government, which was then awaited, has since been received, and together with the dispatch to which it is a reply is hereto appended. Such reply is embodied in two communi- | cations, addressea by the British Prime Minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote, the | British Embassador at this capital. It | will be seen that one of these communica | tions is devoted exclusively to observa- tions upon the Monroe doctrine, and claims that in the present instance a new | and strange extension and deyelopment | of this doctrine is insisted on by the | United States, and that the reasons justi- fying an appeal to the doctrine, as enun- ciated by President Monroe, are generally inapplicable to the s‘ateof things in which we live at the present day, and especially | in their application to the controversy con- cerning the boundary line between Great Britain and Venezuela. “Without attempting extended argu- ments in reply to these positions, 1t may Tot be amiss to suggest that the doctrine upon which we stand is strong end sound because its enforcement is important to our peace and safety as a Nation, and is essential to the integrity of our free insti- tutions and the tranquil maintenance of our distinctive form of government. It was intended to apply to every stage of our National life, and cannot become obso- lete while our Republic endures. If the balance of power is justly a cause for jeal- ous anxiety among the Governments of the Old World and a subject for our abso- lute non-interference, none the less is the observance of the Monroe doctrine of vital concern to our people and their Govern- ment. ““Assuming, therefore, that we may preperly insist upon the doctrine without regard to ‘the state of things in which we live’ or any changed conditions here or elsewhere, it is not apparent why its ap- plication may not be invoked in the pres- ent controversy. by an extension of its boundaries, takes possession of the territory of one of our neighboring republics against its will, and in derogation of its rights, it is difficult to see why, to that extent, such Europzan power does not thereby attempt to exvgnd its system of government to that portion of this continent which is thus taken. This is the precise action which President Monroe declared to be ‘dangerous to our | peace and safety,” and it can make no difference whether the European system is extended by an advance of frontier or | otherwis It is also suggested in the British re- ply that we should not seek to apply the Monroe doctrine to the pending dispute, * because it does not embody any principle of international law which ‘is founded on the general consent of nations,’ and ‘that no statesman, however eminent, and no nation, however powerful, is competent to insert into the code of international law a “Practically the principle for which we 3 1 contend has peculiar, if not exclusive, re- lation to the United States. It may not have been admitted 1n so many words to the code of international law, but since in in‘ernational councils every nation is en- titled to the rights belonginging to it, if the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine is something we may justly claim, it hasits place in the code of international law as certainly and as securely as if it were spe- cifically mentioned, and when the United If any European power; | | novel principle which was never recog- | nized before and which has not since been | accepted by the Government of any other | country.” | States is a suitor before the high tribunal that administers international law, the question to be determined is whether or | not we present the claims which the justice of that code of law can find to be right and valid. “The Monroe doctrine finds its recogni- tion in those principles of international | law which are based upon the theory that | every nation shall have its rights protected | and its just claims enforced. Of course, | this Government is entirely confident that | under the sanction of this doctrine we | have plear rights and undoubted claims. Nor is this ignored in the British reply. The Prime Minister, while not admitting that the Monroe doctrine is applicable to the present conditions, states: ‘In de- claring that the United States would re- sist any such enterprise if it was contem- plated, President Monroe adopted a pol- | | | icy which received the entire sympathy of the English Government of that date.’ “He further declares: ‘Though the lan- guage of President Monroe is directed to the attainment of the objects which most Englishmen would agree to be salutory, it is impossible to admit that they have been inscribed by any adequate authority in the code of international law.’ “Again he says: “They (her Majesty’s Government) fully concur with the view which President Monroe apparently en- tertained, that any disturbance of exis! ing territorial distribution in that hemis- phere by any fresh acquisition on the part of any European state would be a highly inexpedient change.’ “In the belief that the doctrine for which we contend was clear and definite, that 1t was founded upon substantial considera- tions and involved our safety and welfare, that it was fully applicable to our present conditions and to the state of the world’s progress, and that it was directly related to the pending controversy and without any convictior as to the final merits of | the dispute, but anxious to learn in a satisfactory and conclusive manner whether Great Britain sought, under the claim of boundary, to extend her posses- sions on this continent without right, or whether she merely sought the possession of territory facially included within her lines of ownership, this Government pro- posed to the Government of Great Britain to resort to arbitration as a proper means of settling the question to the end that a vexatious boundary dispute between the two contestants might be determined and our exact standing and relation in respect to the controversy might be made clear. “It will be seen from the correspondence | herewith submitted that this proposition has been declined by the British Gov- ernment upon grounds which under the | circumstances seem to me to be far from satisfactory. It is deeply disappointing that such an appeal, actuated by the most friendly feelings toward both the nations directly coneerned, addressed to the sense of justice and to the magnanimity of one of the great powers of the world, and touching its relations to one comparatively weak and small, should have produced no better results. “The course to be pursued by this Gov- ernment, in view of the present condi- tion, does not appear to admit of serious doubt. Having labored faithfully for many years to induce Great Britain to submit this dispute to impartial arbitra- tion, and baving been now finally apprised of her refuzal to do sc, nothing remains but to accept the situation, to recognize its plain requirements and deal with it accordingly. “Great Britain’s present proposition has never thus far been regarued as admissible by Venezuelu, though any adjustment of boundary which that country may deem for her advantage, and may enter into of her own free will, cannot, of course, be ob- jected 10 by the United States. Assuming, | however, that the attitude of Venezuela will remain unchanged, the dispute has | reached such a stage as to make it now in- | cumbent upon the United States to take | measures to determine with sufficient cer- | tainty for its justification what is the true divisional line between the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana. Inquiry to that end should, of course, be conducted carefully and judicially, and due weight | should be given to all available evidence, | records and facts in support of the claims | of both parties. | “In order that such an examination | should be prosecuted in a thorough and satisfactory manner, I suggest that Con- | gress make adequate appropriation for | the expenses of a commission to be ap- | pointed by the executive, who shall make | the necessary investigation and report | upon the matter with the least possible | delay. When such report is made and ac- | cepted, it will, in_my opinion, be the duty of the United States to resist by every | means in its power as willful aggression | upon its rights and interests the appro- ! priation by Great Britain of any lands or | the exercise of governmental jurisdiction | over any territory which, after investiga- | tion, we have determined of right belongs | to Venezuela. | “In making these recommendations, 1 ‘am fally alive to the responsibility in- | curred, and fully realize all the conse- | quences that may follow. Iam nevertheless firm in my conviction that while it is a i grievous thing to contemplate the two | great English-speaking peoples of the | world as being otherwise than friendl competitors in the onward march of ci | ization and strenuous and worthy rivals in { all the arts of peace, there is no calamity which a great nation can invite which equals that which follows supine subwmis- | sion to wrongand injustice and consequent | loss of national self-respect and the honor beneath which is shielded and defendea the people’s safety and greatness. “‘GROVER CLEVELAND. “Executive Mansion, Dec. 17, 1895." S iy VOLUMINOUS CORRESPONDENCE. Secretary Olney Fully Expounded the Monroe Doctrine. WASHINGTON, D. C., Dec. 17.—Accom- panying the President’s message to Con- gress was the voluminous correspondence on the Venezuelan question between Mr. ! Olney and Lord Salisbury through Minis- | ter Bayard. The correspondence begins with Secretary Olney’s note of July 20 last, recpening negotiations with Great Britain in regard to the boundarydispute and con- taming the present administration’s enu- meration of the Monroe doctrine, Mr. -states that the matter had reached a stage PRESIDENT CLEVELAND ON THE MONROE DOCTRINE. AN MR \ \ “It Cannot Be Obsolete While Our Republic Endures.” Olney says in the beginning that the claims both Great Britain and Venezuela as to boundary between the latter country and British Guisna are of a somewhat in- definite nature, but that while Venezuela has for a long time sought to have the dis- pute settled by arbitration, Great Britain has insisted upon the condition that the arbitration should relate only to such of the disputed territory as lies west of a line designated by herself. After reviewing the phases of the con- troversy which resulted in the suspension of diplomatic relations between Venezuela and Great Britain in 1837, and describing the efforts made by the South American republic since that time to obtain arbitra- tion without success, Secretary Olney when the United States, in view of its| traditional policy, could not be indifferent. | Mr. Olney summarizes the important | features of the existing situation as fol- lows: ‘“‘First—The title to territory of indefi- nite but confessedly very large extent is in | dispute between Great Britain on the one hand and the South American republic of Venezuela on the other. “Second—The disparity in the strength of the claimants is such that Venezuela | can hope to establish her claim only | through peaceful methods—through an | agreement with her adversary either upon | always and continuously refused to arbi- l charge of impertinent intermeddling with trate, except upon the condition 4f ‘& re~ nunciation of a large part of the Venezue- lan claim and of a concession to herself of a large share of the territory in contro- versy. “Sixth—By the frequent interposition of its good offices at the instance of Venezu- ela, by constantly urging and promoting the restoration of diplomatic relations be- tween the two countries, by pressing for arbitration of the disputed boundary, by offering to act as arbitrator, by expressing its grave concern whenever alleged in- stances of British aggression upon Venez- uelan territory have been brought to its notice, the Government of the Unized States has made it clear to Great Britain and to the world tkat the controversy is one 1n which both its honor and its in- of wi ence.”’ Mr. Olney continues: “The accuracy of the forecoing analysis of the existing status cannot, it is believed, be challenged. It shows that status to be such that those charged with the interests of the United States are now forced to de- termine exactly what those interests are, and what course of action to require.” It compels them to decide to what extent, if any, the United States may and should intervene in a . cantroversv between and ch it cannot regard with indiffer- the subject itself or upon an arbitration. | primarily concerning only Great Britain “Third—The controversy, with varying | and Venezuela, and to decide how far it is claims on the part of Great Britain, has | bound to see that the integrity of Vene- existed for more than half a century, dur- | zuelan territory is not impaired by the affairs with which it has no rightful con- cern. On the other hand, if any such right and duty exist their due exercise and discharge will not permit of any action that shall not result in the accom- plishment of tbe end in view. The ques- tion thus presented, as a matter of principle and regard being had to the settled National policy, does not seem diffi- cult of solution. Yet the momentous practical consequences dependent upon its determination require that it should be carefully considered and that the grounds of the conclusion arrived at should be fully ard frapkly stated. “That ' there are circumstances under which a nation may justly interpose in a controversy to which two or more other | nations are the direct and immediate par- terests are involved, and the continuance | ties is an admitted canon of international Jaw. The doctrine is ordinarily expressed in terms of the most general character, and is perhaps incapable of more specific statement. It is declared in substance that a nation may avail itself of this right whenever what is done or proposed by any of the parties primarily concerned is a serious and direct menace to its own integ- rity, tranquillity or welfare.” Mr. Olney goes on to define the position of the United States as laid down by Pres- ident Monroe. He says: “Conserving unquestionably that com- plete European non-interference in Ameri- can concerns would be cheaply purchased by coinplete American non-interference in European concerns, President Monroe, in ing which period many earnest and per- sistent efforts of Venezuela to establish a boundary by agreement have proved un- | successful. “Fourth—The futility of the endeavor to obtain a conventional line being recog- nized, Venezuela for a quarter of a cen- | tury has asked and striven for arbitration. | “Fifth—Great Britain, however, has the celebrated message of December 2, 1823, used the following !anguage: ‘In the wars of European powers in matters re- lating to themselves we have never taken any part nor does 1t comport with our policy to do so. It is only when ourrights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparations for our defense. With the movements in this pretensions of its powerful antagonist. “Are any such rights and duty devolved upon the United States? If not the United States has already done all, if not more than all, that a purely sentimental in- terest in the affairs of the two countries justifies, and to, push its interposition further would be unbecoming ana un- dignified and might well subject it to the MAP SHOWING THE élTUATiONI IN VENEZUELA AND THE TERRITORY IN DISPUTE, WHICH MAY LEAD TO WAR WITH ENGLAND. ROAR OF THE LION WITH THE TWISTED TAIL, hemisphere we are of necessity more im- mediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially differ- ent in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. And to the defense of our own which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole Nation is devoted. “ “We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to de- clare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any porticn of this hemisphere as danger- ous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the Governments who have declared their ir- dependence and maintained it, and whose independence we have on great considera- tion and on just principles acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purnose of oppressing them or con- trolling in any.other manner their destiny by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an un- friendly disposition toward the United Stafes. Our policy in regard to Europe which was adopted at an early stage of wars whicn have so long agitated that quarter of the globe neverthe- less remains the same, which s not to interfere in the internal concern of any of its powers; to consider the Government de facto as the legitimate Government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it and to preserve those re- lations by a frank, firm and manly policy, meeting in all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none. But in regard to these continents circumstances are eminently and conspic- uously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and hap- piness; nor can any one believe that our southern brethren if left to themselves would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition in any form with indifference.” Mr. Olney sets forth at length our posi- tion under the Monroe doctrine. He says it does not establish a general protectorate by the United States over other American states and does not relieve any American state from obligations fixed by inter- national law. It has but a single purpose and object. It is, *“‘that no Buropean power or combination of European powers shall forcibly deprive an American state of its right and power of self-government and of shaping for itself its own political fortunes and destinies.” Mr. Olney states that everys administra- tion since that of President Monroe has indorsed the doctrine, that it was the con- trolling . factor in the emancipation of South America, that to it must be credited the evacuation of Mexico by ihe French at the end of the Civil War and the relin- quishment of the proposed protectorate by Great Britain over the Mosquito Coast. He continues: ““If, however, for the reasons stated, the forcible intrusion of European powers into American politics is to be deprecated—if, as it is to be deprecated, it sbould be re- sisted ana prevented, such resistance and prevention must come from the United States. They would come from it, of course, were it made the point of attack. But, if they come at all, they must also come from it when any other American state is attacked, since only the United States has the strength adequate to the exigency. Isit true, then, that the safety and welfare of the United States are so concerned with the maintenance of the independence of every American state as against any European power as to justify and require the interposition of tue United States whenever that independence is en- dangered? The question can be candidly answered in but one way. “To-day the United States is practically sovereign on this continent and its fiat is law upon the subject to which it confines its interposition. Why? It is not because of the pure friendship or good will felt for it. Itis not simply by reason of its high character as a civilized state, nor because wisdom and jusiice and equity are the in- variable characteristics of the dealings of the United States. It is Liecause, in addi- tion to all other grounds, its infinite re- sources, combined with its isolated posi- tion, render it master of the situation and practically invalnerable, and this superi- ority is at once imperiled if the principle be admitted that European powers may convert American states into colonies or’ provinces of their own. The principle would be eagerly availed of, and every power doing so would immediately ac- quire a base of military gperutions against us.” Mr. Olney says in conclusion: “In these circumstances the daty of the President appears to him unmistakable and imperative. Great Britain’s assertion of title to the disputed territory, combined with her refusal to have that title investi- gated, being a substantial appropriation of that territory to her own use, not to protest and give warning that the transac- tion will be regarded as injurious to the interests of the people of the United States, as well as oppressive in itself, would be to ignore an established policy with which the honor and welfare of the country are closely identified. While the measures necessary or proper for the vindication of that policy are to be determined by an- other branch of the Government, it is clearly for the executive to leave nothing undone which may tend to render such determination unnecessary. “You are instructed, therefore, to pre- sent the foregoing views to Lord Salisbury by reaaing to him this communication, and to re-enforce them by such pertinent considerations as will doubtless occur to you. They call for a definite decision upon the point whether Great Britain wiil consent or will decline to submit the Vene- zuelan boundary question in its entirety to impartial arbitration. It is the earnest hope of the President that the conclusion will te on the side of arbitration and that Great Britain will add one more to the conspicuous precedents she has already furnished in favor of thai wise and just mode of adjusting international disputes. If he is to be disappointed in that hope, [Continued on Sccond Page.} | markable document, Message of the President Regarded as a Remark- able Document. DOGMAS AND DOCTRINE;: - Canning, Not Monroe, Declared to Be the Author of the Policy. HAVE NO RIGHT TO INTERFERE, English Newspapers Say the Unmd" States Should Not Enter the Controversy. LONDON, Exc., Dec. 17.—The Daily " News, commenting on President Clevea land’s message to Congress on the Vene..: ezuelan question, will to-morrow s: £ ““The President’s communication is a res though its conse- quences are not likely to be serious. Neither Mr. Olney nor the President seems to realize that the Monroe doctrine cannot. be quoted as authoritative in negotiations with a foreign power. ; “‘Both of them are certainly as far as pos- sible from suspecting that the real author -. of the Goctrine was Canning, not Monroe. Great Britain in 1823 was jealous of the Spanish encroachments in South America- and induced Monroe to protest against European aggression on American soil. - The seventy-two vears that have since elapsed have entirely changed the situa- - tion. The Monroe doctrine is now purely of historical interest. ““There can be no doubt that the theory enunciated in 1823 dealt with the acquisi= tion of fresh territory and had nothing to ™ do with disputes regarding the boundaries of territories already appropriated. The defimtion of the doctrine, however,'is a matter for the Americans themselves. It binds nobody else. “The Venezuelan difficulty must be con- ", sidered on its own merits. Thisis what Lord Salisbury has said in & masterly dis« patch. As he has refused general, unre- -:* stricted arbitration, upon which, by -the-: way, the Monroe doctrine is silent, it must be assumed that he would not assent io the mode of ascertaining the rights of the' parties that Mr. Cleveland suggests. The President, in his account of the doctrine, - surrenders the whole case. What Monroe meant was that the United States would resent any-European attempt to establish. any monarchical systems on the Americar: continent. £ “That was a serious consideration in: 1823; it is altogether obsolete. now. But.. what has all this to do with the boundaries. of Venezuela? The President proves too much. It follows from the message that: Guiana, and indeed Canagda, have no.- right of independent existence on Ameri- can soil. 2 “Mr. Cleveland begs, the whole question® and misrepresents it besides, when he says' . that this country is seeking to extend the limits of British Guiana. This country is doing nothing of the kind. Venezuela claims territory thatis now Guianese and: British. If to resist this claim be a breach of the Monroe doctrine, that doctrine is an” intolerable pretense. 33 “The concluding portions of Mr. Cleve- land’s .message are not expressed in the language usually employed by one friendly power to another. They are aggressive even menacing. England is threatened- with war unless she permits Mr. Cleveland to arbitrate the boundaries of Venezuela. - Happily there is some sense of humor in the American people. The message puts the Republicans in a hole. If they agree to the appointment of a commission they will give Mr. Cleveland such credit as be- longs to it, and will enable him or the Demccratic candidate to pose asan accom- plished twister of the lion’s tail. If, on the other hand, they refuse to agree to the commission they will give the Democrats a chance of accusing them of being servile friends « the British, but the great body of the » rican public will not be led by any such motive or considerations. “The ordinary American citizen cares nothing for Venezuela, and has no feeling ' against this country. He might be very jealous for the Monroe doctrine when it .- really defends American interests, but the idea of making himself responsible for the concerns of every South American repub- lic is too absurd for him to regard it se. riously. “It is not correct to say that Lord Salis« bury has altogether rejected the idea of ar- . bitration. On the contrary, he has partially accepted it.” ot The paper quotes from Lord Salisbury’s dispatch to support this contention, and, proceeding, says: “We believe that Lord Salisbury’s firm and moderate statement of the case will appeal to the justice and common-sense of the American people. The principle of* international arbitration has always been warmly supparted in these columns, but if itis invoked for frivolous, fantastic de- mands it will lose its authority and bes come a by-word instead of an ideal.” The Chronicle will say: . “The message will be read in this country with blank astonishment. The American commission to determine what territory a British colony can call its own, and, fail- ing our compliance with its finding, war by land and sea with Great Britain. Can these be serious words addressed to us by the descendants of the little 'shipload of _ English folk who sailed in the Mayflower? We will not take things too seriously. We will suppose that the President is engaged in the familiar work of twisting the lion’s “There is one answer to President Cleve. . land and America. If an enlarged appli- cation of a neglected doctrine is to be en- forced with all the might of the United There’s as much bad .man- ners in bad engraving_as in bad behavior. ’ 2 2 £ - - B Pt . H S CRoorER Qo