VENEZUELA

President Cleveland "Twists the Tail of the British Lion," Punch.

Cortland Evening Standard, Wednesday, December 18, 1895.

VENEZUELA.

President Stands Boldly For the Monroe Doctrine.

HIS MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.

The Senate Aroused to a High Pitch of Enthusiasm.

Lord Salisbury's Reply to Secretary Olney's Demand For Arbitration Submitted to Congress—In Effect a Flat Refusal of the Request and So Regarded by the Administration—The President Recommends the Appointment of a Commission to Ascertain the True Boundary Line—While Realizing the Serious Consequences of This Attitude, the President Believes We Should Uphold the Principles Involved at Any Cost—The Message Received In the Senate With Enthusiasm Seldom, if Ever, Displayed In That Body—Statesmen and Officials Without Regard For Party Preferences Indorse the Sentiments, While the Press Seems United In Its Commendation of the Attitude of the President—Comments From London.

   WASHINGTON, Dec. 18.—The message of President Cleveland to congress transmitting the correspondence between Secretary Olney and Lord Salisbury, relative to the Venezuelan boundary dispute, created a real sensation in Washington.

   Although the nature of Secretary Olney's vigorous communication and of Lord Salisbury's answers had been already accurately foretold in press dispatches from Washington and London, there was still a great popular craving to learn just how the president would deal with Lord Salisbury's refusal to submit the matter to arbitration, and the message was listened to with intense interest in congress and was read with avidity on the streets.

   Nowhere was a voice lifted in dissent from the doctrine so firmly laid down by the president, but on the contrary there was an outburst of patriotic feeling that must have been highly gratifying to the chief executive.

   In the dignified United States senate, a body that rarely exhibits emotion on any occasion, there was witnessed the unparalleled spectacle of hand clapping and applause which was the spontaneous expression of the approval of almost every senator, without regard to party.

   On the streets the message was discussed and old veterans of the late war talked exultantly of what they were prepared again to undertake at the call of their country.

   In the great hall of the pension building the employes gathered and sang with gusto the "Star Spangled Banner" and "My Country, 'Tis of Thee."

   At the White House messages poured in from every quarter of the country congratulating the president upon his message. They came from all parties and of every station, and they began to come in so soon after the delivery of the documents to congress as to afford a substantial tribute to the enterprise of the press in disseminating so quickly the important information through the country.

   The matter, of course, was of the greatest interest in diplomatic circles, and the general impression on a sober second consideration of the notes was that the matter has not yet reached a stage where war is imminent, and that the hint of Great Britain's purpose to reopen negotiations with Venezuela looking to settlement of the dispute between themselves, perhaps may be regarded as the indication of how the whole matter will end.

   Minister Andrade of Venezuela secured a copy of the message early in the day and cabled it by way of Cuba and Hayti to his government. The time of transmission is eight hours, and it is felt that its reception at Caracas will be the signal for an enthusiastic demonstration.

   Mr. Andrade's satisfaction was almost beyond the power of expression. "It is even a surprise to me in its vigor, in the nobility of the sentiments expressed and in the masterly exposition of the Monroe doctrine. There can be no doubt or misconstruction of its meaning.

   "In my country it cannot but arouse the keenest appreciation on the part of the government and the people for this powerful expression of friendship from a strong country in behalf of a comparatively weak one."

   Mr. Andrade was asked what the next step of Venezuela would be.

   "There is nothing further for us to do. We have announced our policy and in that we have the co-operation and support of the United States. We are little more than spectators now."

   "Is the plan of a commission to investigate the question and [not the fine] feasible?" the minister was asked.

   "Perfectly so," he replied. "The evidence can readily be furnished, so far as Venezuela is concerned. It will be a laborious work, as the documents and maps are very voluminous, and from many sources, including those of Holland, Spain and other countries, as well as those of Venezuela."

   At the British embassy, Sir Julian Pauncefote and his official corps shared in the general interest in the question.

   It was stated that the foreign office made public the Salisbury answer simultaneously with its publication here. But as the president's message is to congress, and has not gone through diplomatic channels, it was not a part of the matter given to the British public by the foreign office.

   Mr. Bax-Ironsides of the embassy staff went to the Capitol during the day to witness the reading of the documents, but was not present during the demonstration in the senate.

   Beyond the Salisbury letters, the embassy has received no communications on the Venezuelan subject so that the case rests on the correspondence submitted.

Lord Salisbury.

Grover Cleveland.

PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.

Bold and Aggressive Stand Taken On the Venezuelan Matter.

   WASHINGTON, Dec. 18.—The president's letter to congress on the Venezuelan question is as follows:

   To the Congress:

   In my annual message addressed to the congress on the 3d inst, I called attention to the pending boundary controversy between Great Britain and the republic of Venezuela and recited the substance of a representation made by this government to her Britannic majesty's government, suggesting reasons why such dispute should be submitted to arbitration 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 communications addressed by the British prime minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British ambassador at this capital. It will be seen that one of these communications is devoted exclusively to observations upon the Monroe doctrine and claims that in the present instance a new and strange extension and development of this doctrine is insisted on by the United States; that the reasons justifying an appeal to the doctrine enunciated by President Monroe are generally inapplicable "to the state of things in which we live at the present day," and especially inapplicable to the controversy involving the boundary line between Great Britain [British Guiana] and Venezuela.

   Without attempting extended argument in reply to those positions, it may not be amiss to suggest that the doctrine upon which we stand is strong and sound, because its enforcement is important to our peace and safety as a nation, and is essential to the integrity of our free institutions 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 obsolete while our republic endures. If the balance of power is justly a cause for jealous anxiety among the governments of the old world and a subject for our absolute noninterference, none the less is the observance of the Monroe doctrine of vital concern to our people and their government.

   Assuming, therefore, that we may properly insist upon this 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 application may not be invoked in the present controversy. If a European power, 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 European power does not thereby attempt to extend 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 otherwise. It is also suggested in the British reply 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, are competent 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."
   Practically, the principle for which we contend has peculiar, if not exclusive, relation to the United States. It may not have been admitted in so many words to the code of international law, but since in international counsels every nation is entitled to rights belonging to it, if the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine is something we may justly claim, it has its place in the code of international law as certainly and securely as if it were specifically mentioned; and when the United States is a suitor before the high tribunal that administers international law, the question to be determined is whether or not we present claims which the justice of that code of law can find to be right and valid.

   The Monroe doctrine finds its recognition 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 confidant that under the sanction of this doctrine we have clear 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 present conditions, states: "In declaring that the United States would resist any such enterprise if it was contemplated, President Monroe adopted a policy which received the entire sympathy of the English government of that date."

   He further declares: "Though the language of President Monroe is directed to the attainment which most Englishmen would agree to be salutary, 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 entertained that any disturbance of the existing territorial distribution in that hemisphere by any fresh acquisitions 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 it was founded upon substantial considerations 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 conviction as to the final merits of the dispute: but anxious to learn in a satisfactory and conclusive manner whether Great Britain sought under a claim of boundary to extend her possessions on this continent without right, or whether she merely sought possession of territory fairly included within her lines of ownership, this government proposed to the government of Great Britain a resort to arbitration as the 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 government upon grounds which in 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 nations directly concerned, addressed to the sense of justice and to the magnanimity of one of the great powers of the world, and touching its relations to a country comparatively weak and small, should have produced no better results.

   The course to be pursued by this government in view of the present condition does not appear to admit of serious doubt. Having labored faithfully for many years to induce Great Britain to submit this dispute to impartial arbitration, and having been now finally apprised of her refusal to do so, 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 regarded as admissible by Venezuela, though any adjustment of the boundary which that country may deem for her advantage and may enter into of her own free will cannot of course be objected to 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 incumbent upon the United States to take measures to determine with sufficient certainty for its justification, what is the true divisional line between the republic of Venezuela and British Guiana

   The inquiry to that end should, of course, be conducted carefully and judiciously, and due weight should be given to all available evidence, records and facts in support of the claim of both parties.

   In order that such an examination should be prosecuted in a thorough and satisfactory manner, I suggest that the congress make an adequate appropriation for the expenses of a commission to be appointed 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 accepted, it will, in my opinion, be the duty of the United States to resist by every means in its power as a willful aggression upon its rights and interests the appropriation by Great Britain of any lands or the exercise of governmental jurisdiction over any territory which, after investigation, we have determined of right belong to Venezuela.

   In making these recommendations, I am fully alive to the full responsibility incurred and keenly realize all the consequences that may follow.

   I am, nevertheless, firm in my conviction that while it is a grievous thing to contemplate the two great English-speaking peoples of the world as being otherwise than friendly competitors in the onward march of civilization 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 a supine submission to wrong and injustice, and the consequent loss of national self-respect and honor, beneath which is shielded and defended a people's safety and greatness.

   GROVER CLEVELAND, Executive Mansion, Dec. 17, 1895.

ENGLAND'S VIEWS OF IT.

Comments of the British Press On the President's Message.

   LONDON, Doc. 18.—All of the morning papers devote more or less of their editorial space to a discussion of President Cleveland's message on the Venezuelan question and to the merits of that question itself.

   The Daily Telegraph (Liberal) publishes an editorial, contending that America has no concern in the Venezuelan dispute. The editorial goes on to say:

   "In truth, this invocation of the Monroe doctrine seems, on this side of the water, to be irrelevant. By what right does the Washington government demand the arbitration of this matter, when the very theory which guides their interference has absolutely nothing to do with the points in dispute? What nation has ever agreed to the Monroe doctrine? How often has the Washington government itself ventured to advance it?"

   The Daily Graphic says in an editorial: "The epitaph of the Monroe doctrine has been written in the Venezuelan correspondence. President Cleveland's message is a document which self-respecting Americans will not read with either pride or pleasure. It only serves to illustrate another of the inherent absurdities of the modern interpretation of the Monroe doctrine. President Cleveland does not propose to instruct Mr. Bayard to demand his passports nor does he contemplate an invasion of Canada or an expedition to Demerara. He is struck by the awkward fact that he must first ascertain what there is to fight about.

   "Does President Cleveland seriously think that we can admit the proposition that the frontiers of European colonies in the two Americas are to be held at the good pleasure of a committee of Washington gentlemen?"

   The Times says in its editorial on the situation:

   "It is impossible to disguise the gravity of the difficulties that have arisen between Great Britain and the United States. President Cleveland's message and its reception on both sides of the senate give additional importance to the dispatches between Washington and London. The details of the boundary dispute are insignificant in comparison with the far-reaching claims advanced in Mr. Olney's dispatch and emphasized in President Cleveland's message.

   "Convinced as we are that a rupture between the two great English speaking communities would be a calamity not only to themselves, but to the civilized world, we are nevertheless driven to the conclusion that the concessions this country is so imperiously summoned to make are such as no self-respecting nation, least of all one ruling an empire that has its roots in every quarter of the globe, could possibly submit to."

   The Standard, the Conservative organ, in an editorial on the message says: "The position President Cleveland assumes is preposterous. No American citizen would for a moment dream of admitting its soundness in any analogous case in which the honor and Interests of America were concerned. There can be but one answer. We decline to humiliate ourselves and we refuse to accept the decision of Washington in matters altogether outside its jurisdiction."

COMMENTS OF THE PRESS.

What American Newspapers Say of the President's Attitude.

   NEW YORK, Dec. 18.—The World today says:

   "President Cleveland's message to congress on the Venezuelan matter is a serious blunder. It is a blunder because it is based upon a wrong conception, because it is not sustained by international law or usage, and because it places the United States in a false position. The president in his message, like Secretary Olney in his dispatches, assumes that the policy of Great Britain in Venezuela involves a menace to this country.

   "Are our 'peace and safety as a nation,' the 'integrity of our free institutions' and 'the tranquil maintenance of our distinctive form of government' threatened by an extension, however unwarranted and arbitrary, of the English possessions in Venezuela? The preposterous nature of this jingo bugaboo is sufficiently indicated by pointing to Canada and to British Columbia on our very border.

   "England is not a 'foreign nation' in this hemisphere. Great Britain owns more territory on this continent than we do. She was here before we were a nation. If she had the hostile intentions which the president's words impute, did she need to wait for a boundary dispute in distant Venezuela, with a hybrid race, to assail us or to menace our republican institutions?

   "The assumption is absurd. And with it falls the structure of ponderously patriotic rhetoric reared upon it by the president.

   "It is a grave blunder to put this government in the attitude of threatening war unless we mean it and are prepared for it, and can appeal hopefully to the sympathies of the civilized world in making it. Do these conditions exist? Will any of the senators who applauded the president's message yesterday seriously affirm that they do? If these conditions do not exist, what remains for us except a few weeks or months of bluster and a more or less graceful backdown?"

   ROCHESTER, Dec. 18.—In an editorial on President Cleveland's message to congress, referring to the Venezuelan question, The Post-Express says: "It is simple, sound and strong, moderate in its proposed remedy, but none the less to the point; and the best American sentiment will go with it."

   The Rochester Morning Herald says today in part: "These are solemn and pregnant words, and their gravity is fully admitted by the president himself. But the course of the English government has left us no other alternative, unless we are prepared to consent to a formal repudiation of the doctrine proclaimed by Monroe."

   BUFFALO, Dec. 18.—The Express today editorially commends the message of President Cleveland as "bold and patriotic."

   "At, last," The Express says, "the people of the United States will present a solid front with regard to our foreign policy, unbroken by partisan bickerings or jealousies. This is something which never has occurred before in our history as a nation. It is not too much, therefore, to say that the message read to the houses of congress yesterday is the most important document which Grover Cleveland ever penned."

   ALBANY, Dec. 18.—The Press and Knickerbocker today says:

   "President Cleveland has silenced the tongues and closed the mouths of his carping critics with such abruptness that he has left most of them breathless and even gasping. His recommendations have every mark of sincerity, the policy outlined is sufficiently emphatic, and the position he takes will receive the backing of every true son of America."

   SYRACUSE, Dec. 18.—The Syracuse Post this morning says in part editorially:

   "Mr. Cleveland's letter is a vigorous, patriotic defense of the Monroe doctrine, and a strong appeal to congress to stand firmly by it in this controversy. That is a position of patriotic firmness which every citizen, regardless of party, should heartily approve."

IRISHMEN TO THE FRONT.

National Alliance Offers Its Aid One Hundred Thousand Strong.

   NEW YORK, Dec. 18.—The following manifesto has been issued by the executive council of the Irish National Alliance of America and a copy of it has been sent to President Cleveland:

   To the Members of the Irish National Alliance and the American public:

   We declare it incontrovertible that no bitter, more perfidious or more unrelenting enemy than Great Britain to the United States has ever existed. England has ever been the vengeful foe of American liberty and republican institutions.

   Imbued with this conviction and seeing that Great Britain has avowed her intention to trample upon the Monroe doctrine by her attempt to rob Venezuela of her territory and has dared to violate the integrity of our territory in Alaska we hereby offer, as a proof of our loyalty and devotion to the country of which we are citizens, to place at the disposal of the president of the United States without delay 100,000 soldiers, as brave as have ever shouldered a rifle, and every man of whom is a believer in the principles and teachings of the Irish National alliance.

   Our army, which is now organized, is ready to serve the American republic in any part of this continent, and should the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine need its aid, will either on Irish soil or English ground establish the fact that the intrepidity, the valor, and the determination of the Irish brigade will again prove the loyalty of Irishmen to the United States. We remain,

   WILLIAM LYMAN, President.

   P. V. FITZPATRICK, Treasurer.

   JOHN P. SUTTON, Secretary.