VOL. XII., No. I

Published Weekly by

PRICE.-Per year, in advance, $3.00; four months, on trial, $1.00; single copies, 10 cents.

RECEIPTS.-The yellow label pasted on the outside wrapper is a receipt for payment of subscription to and including the printed date. EXTENSION. The extension of a subscription is shown by the printed label the second week after a remittance is received. DISCONTINUANCES.-We find that a large majority of our subscribers prefer not to have their subscriptions interrupted and their files broken in case they fail to remit before expiration. It is therefore assumed, unless notification to discontinue is received, that the subscriber wishes no interruption in his series. Notification to discontinue at expiration can be sent in at any time during the year. PRESENTATION COPIES.-Many persons subscribe for THE LITERARY DIGEST to be sent to friends. In such cases, if we are advised that a subscription is a present and not regularly authorized by the recipient, we will make a memorandum to discontinue at expiration, and to send no bill for the ensuing year.

TOPICS OF THE DAY.

THE MONROE DOCTRINE AND THE VENEZUELA DISPUTE.

CONFL

`ONFLICTING reports, counter-reports, and denials render it difficult to determine the exact status of the Venezuela controversy at this juncture. No official statements having been published, material for discussion is supplied entirely by newspaper correspondents claiming to have reliable information from diplomatic sources. But it is generally accepted as true that England's recent "ultimatum" to Venezuela contained no reference to the long-standing boundary dispute, and merely demanded apology and reparation for the arrest and maltreatment of certain British police officials in the territory claimed by England as her own. The English press regards the affair as a mere repetition of the "Corinto incident" and denies that the Monroe doctrine has any bearing whatever on the present issue between the two countries. In the United States, however, many take a totally different view. Since, it is argued, the territory on which the arrest occurred is itself a subject of controversy, the issues can not be separated, and England's demand for reparation vir'tually prejudges the question and assumes that the Venezuelans trespassed on her territory.

The view which the United States Government takes of the issue has not been revealed.

The elaborate statement which

Secretary Olney is reported to have submitted to the British Cabinet through Ambassador Bayard is understood to set forth the grounds upon which the United States claims the right to recommend arbitration of the territorial dispute and the bearing of the Monroe doctrine on the whole matter. No reply to this statement has yet been made, but Lord Salisbury is said to have promised to consider the case very carefully and explain the British position fully in due time. Meanwhile some newspapers are already discussing the possibility of a war between the United States and

England

over the vindication of the Monroe doctrine.

The Essential Difference Between the Nicaraguan Case and the Venezuelan.—"It is plain that this Uruan incident

WHOLE NUMBER, 289

differs materially from the Bluefields affair, considered as a basis for a peremptory demand for reparation. In the Bluefields case the claim was that the rights guaranteed by international law to consular officers had been violated by the Nicaraguan authorities in the person of Mr. Hatch. The policemen, on the other hand, who were arrested at Uruan were entitled to none of the privileges of consular officers, and the functions which they were exercising were illegal and punishable, if there be foundation for Venezuela's claim that Uruan lies far within her territory. Manifestly, then, the Bluefields affair and the Uruan incident present situations rather opposite than parallel from a diplomatic point of view. In the former instance, the substantiation of Nicaragua's claim of jurisdiction would not justify the harsh treatment of a consular officer. In the latter case, the confirmation of Venezuela's claim of jurisdiction would entirely justify the arrest of foreign policemen illegally trying to exercise their functions on the soil of an American republic. The boundary question, in a word, lies at the root of the question of reparation for the arrest of the British policemen. The two questions are inseparable; and England has no more moral right to settle the one than the other by a high-handed use of physical force. The principle propounded by the late Secretary Gresham in the Bluefields affair, that the Monroe doctrine could not be construed into preventing the collection of claims against American governments, is not applicable to a case where the validity of a claim depends on the determination of a boundary controversy. If Great Britain is to act as judge in a cause to which she is a party, and to make the arrest of her policemen at Uruan illegal by the simple process of declaring that place to be within her territory, the Uruan incident might be repeated next year in the very heart of Venezuela, nay, in the capital itself. Mr. Gresham admitted that the Monroe doctrine would be infringed by the occupation of territory on this continent by a European power. But territory is occupied by implication when England demands an indemnity for the arrest of British policemen at Uruan, seeing that the arrest could not be complained of unless that place were assumed to be under British jurisdiction."— The Sun (Dem.), New York.

Delicate and Complicated Question.-"Great Britain would clearly violate the principles of the Monroe doctrine and invite armed interference by the United States if she should seize and take permanent possession of territory acknowledged to belong to Venezuela. But there would be no obvious violation of that doctrine if she should temporarily seize a port of Venezuela for the purpose of collecting indemnity, nor would there be ground for interference if by so doing she should compel Venezuela to acknowledge her claim to the disputed territory. Such acknowledgment would, in fact, bar the United States from interference. Great Britain would not be extending her dominion in America, but merely taking possession of territory long since acquired. Yet this course of procedure, befogging the main issue, would leave that issue undetermined except by the pressure of a stronger power brought upon Venezuela, and the Monroe doctrine would remain unacknowledged, yet not disputed. It will be seen that, tho the original boundary question is very simple and ought to be determined by arbitration, Lord Salisbury and Mr. Chamberlain are getting it into a position where the boundary question will become secondary, and yet be determined by the coercive measures brought against Venezuela."-The Ledger (Rep.), Philadelphia.

It May Mean War, but the Monroe Doctrine Must Stand. "While we have no interest in the disputed territory, this country stands pledged by the promulgation of the Monroe doctrine to oppose any such forcible enlargement of monarchical posses. sions on this side the Atlantic as Great Britain evidently contemplates. The case is one where that doctrine must be asserted and not only asserted but enforced. Practically Great Britain is committed to it; but that is of small importance, because the

question of its committal is not likely to be raised. Her disposition evidently is to ignore the Government of the United States in the matter entirely. This Government has more than once tendered its good offices as an arbitrator, and one of the last acts of 'the Fifty-third Congress was a joint resolution recommending the reference of the boundary dispute between Venezuela and Great Britain to friendly arbitration. For Great Britain to proceed as she is doing toward the forcible settlement of the dispute is little less than an insult to our Government.

46

"That the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine in this matter may mean war we are well aware, tho we think Great Britain with all her arrogance will hesitate to invoke that result. But even tho it does mean war, the doctrine must be enforced. The only alternative is its total and final abandonment; for if there is any lack of firmness or determination now it will be utterly useless to attempt any assertion of the doctrine in the future. There is really but one course open to the Government, and that is to insist at the proper time, which seems to be very near at hand, -that Great Britain either submit its claim to Venezuelan territory to arbitration or recognize the act that if forcibly asserted the force must be large enough to overcome not Venezuela alone but the United States as well."- The Free Press (Dem.), Detroit.

"Such an attempt to separate the two issues is shrewd diplomacy, and makes the position of our own government more difficult and delicate. If Great Britain so phrases the ultimatum said to have been sent to Venezuela as to include in it only a demand for reparation for the injury done Behrens and his companions, and neither puts the amount of the indemnity too high, nor asserts ownership of the territory within which Behrens was, which is beyond the Schomburgk line, it would only remain for our GovThere ernment to accept the situation, as in the Corinto case. would be no sufficient pretext for interference beyond a friendly protest. The Monroe doctrine would not cover a simple attempt to collect indemnity, without permanent occupancy of Venezuelan territory, and without such infraction of the Monroe doctrine, our justification for interference would not exist, whether it would exist under any circumstances or not. The probabil

...

ities still remain that our good offices will bring about a fairly satisfactory settlement of the boundary question, and overwhelmingly against any serious trouble with Great Britain over this matter. Public opinion rules in Great Britain as it does here, and in neither country are the people ready for a war or anything approaching one, over a matter so trivial, and in which we have at most only a secondary and remote interest."-The Republican (Ind.), Springfield.

แ

over the 'Monroe doctrine,' but it has not got the sober sense of the conservative people with it in any such foolish enterprise. The countries of South America are nothing to us, and they must take care of themselves. They are independent powers in the family of nations, and they must fight their own battles as other independent powers do."-The Times (Dem.), Richmond.

"It would not only be a blunder, but one of those blunders that are worse than crimes, for the two great English-speaking nations of the world to fly at each other's throats, and England has too much to lose to provoke such a course. But nations have signalized the close of this century by repeatedly submitting questions of the gravest importance to arbitration, and they will undoubtedly follow the sensible precedent thus established by themselves, unless some hot-headed Venezuelan precipitates a war by proceeding to extremes before the fool-killer can stop him.”—The Times (Dem.), Kansas City.

"British subjects were arrested for trespassing on the territory of Venezuela. They were there for the purpose of asserting the authority of Great Britain over the territory, so as to strengthen the future claims of the British Government. The British ensign was hauled down because it was an insult flaunted in the face of Venezuela. The whole affair, so far as Great Britain is concerned, was an attempt to extend the territorial possessions of Great Britain in America, and if this is not a violation of the Monroe doctrine, then American diplomacy has no meaning, and all pretense of maintaining the dignity and honor of the nation had better be abandoned.”—The American (Rep.), Bal. timore.

"The point for the United States to consider is whether this country would be justified in going to extremes in behalf of the Venezuelan contention. It requires a stretching of the Monroe doctrine to make it apply in such a case, and no profit could come to the United States from a war with England on that score. Our commercial relations with Great Britain are a thousandfold greater than those we sustain with Venezuela, and there is really nothing but sentiment that could make the United States the champion of the South American republic in such a case. England may be in the wrong, but the United States can not afford to enter on the quixotic mission of redressing the grievances of petty nations, where she herself has no concern. War with a power like Great Britain would be a very serious matter, and is not to be entered on lightly."-The American (Dem.), Nashville.

"Is the alleged encroachment of Great Britain upon Venezuelan territory in any way, shape, or form a menace or a possible menace to the United States, either in itself or as setting an objectionable precedent? If it is, it should be resisted; if it is not, Venezuela should be left to settle with Great Britain upon what terms she can. There is no room here for sentiment or philanthropy. This country has no call to play the part of Don Quixote, or any less fanciful knight-errant. Its Venezuelan policy, like all it other policies, must be simply that of a sagacious and enlightened self-interest. The idea that the Monroe doctrine requires us to be the champions of weak nations in distress, upon the principle that virtue is its own reward, is ludicrous in its inadequacy."-The North American (Rep.), Philadelphia.

VENEZUELA

-The Journal, Detroit.