pute should be submitted to arbitration; and, through the friendly intervention of the United States, a treaty to that effect was agreed upon between Venezuela and Great Britain. The arbitration was concluded in 1899, and resulted in fixing a territorial line which was a compromise between the claims of the contending nations, which has been peacefully accepted by them.

President Cleveland's conduct received the enthusiastic indorsement of the great mass of the people of the United States. There were, however, a number of newspapers, political writers, and public men of prominence who disputed his position, as not warranted by the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. I do not agree with the latter. I regard the President's action as a consistent, judicious, and necessary application of the true intent and spirit of that doctrine.

It is gratifying to note that the effect upon European nations has been most salutary. Not since the triumph of our government in the Civil War had anything, up to that time, occurred which gave our country greater prestige abroad. The London Times, in commenting on the arbitration treaty with Venezuela, said: "From the point of view of the United States the arrangement is a concession by Great Britain of the most farreaching kind. It admits a principle that in respect of South American republics the United States may not only intervene in disputes, but may entirely supersede the original disputant and assume exclusive control of the negotiations. Great Britain cannot, of course, bind any other nation by her action, but she has set up a precedent which may in the future be quoted with great

effect against herself, and she has greatly strengthened the hands of the United States government in any dispute that may arise in the future between a South American republic and a European power in which the United States may desire to intervene."1

A writer in the Nineteenth Century magazine (London, Dec. 1896), in collating European sentiment on the subject, gives the following result: "The best informed French and German journalists, . . . though they acknowledge the equity and prudence of the compromise [to arbitrate] which has been reached, think it necessary to point out that it involves possibilities of considerable gravity, not merely to England and the United States, but also to the civilized world in general;" and he cites, as indicating the prevailing sentiment, the Cologne Gazette, which "insists that a precedent has been established by the joint action of the two Anglo-Saxon powers, the effects of which are likely to be felt long after the British Guiana boundary question has been forgotten."

1 London Times, Nov. 14, 1896.

"2

2 The same writer discusses at some length the consequences involved in the interposition by the United States in a controversy between a South American and European nation. He refers to the vast extent of the yet unoccupied territory of Brazil, and says: "Let us suppose — not an extravagant supposition-that some time in the early part of the next century a couple of millions of Germans find themselves living in Southern Brazil, and that they also find the government of a gang of half-caste attorneys and political adventurers at Rio Janeiro no longer tolerable. The Uitlanders revolt and are beaten; they appeal to their own government for protection and annexation. What will the United States do? . . . It is conceivable that even the prestige of the United States might not be sufficient to induce a powerful European monarchy to abandon a large population of its own subjects without a struggle.

The United States delegates to the International Peace Conference, which met at The Hague, in 1899, in signing the convention for the peaceful settlement of international conflicts, made in the conference the following declaration which was entered in the protocols: "Nothing contained in this convention shall be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in, the political questions or policy or internal administration of any foreign state; nor shall anything contained in the said convention be construed to imply a relinquishment by the United States of America of its traditional attitude towards purely American questions." This declaration did not commit any other nation to the policy set forth, but it was a solemn notice to the world of the continued adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine.

From the foregoing historical review I think it may be fairly deduced that the principle or policy of the government of the United States, known as the Monroe Doctrine, declares affirmatively:

First. That no European power, or combination of powers, can intervene in the affairs of this hemisphere for the purpose, or with the effect, of forcibly changing

But this would be 'antagonizing the interests and inviting the opposition of the United States,' and according to the Olney doctrine would have to be opposed by the forces of the Union. If the scramble for South America once begins, neither the latent resources nor the moral influence of the United States will avail to protect its clients without the display of effective material strength." Nineteenth Century, London, Dec. 1896.

the form of government of the nations, or controlling the free will of their people.

Second. That no such power or powers can permanently acquire or hold any new territory or dominion on this hemisphere.

Third. That the colonies or territories now held by them cannot be enlarged by encroachment on neighboring territory, nor be transferred to any other European power; and while the United States does not propose to interfere with existing colonies, "it looks hopefully to the time when . . . America shall be wholly American."

Fourth. That any interoceanic canal across the isthmus of Central America must be free from the control of European powers.

While each of the foregoing declarations has been officially recognized as a proper application of the Monroe Doctrine, the government of the United States reserves to decide, as each case arises, the time and manner of its interposition, and the extent and character of the same, whether moral or material, or both.

The Monroe Doctrine, as negatively declared, may be stated as follows:

First. That the United States does not contemplate a permanent alliance with any other American power to enforce the doctrine, as it determines its action solely by its view of its own peace and safety; but it wel comes the concurrence and coöperation of the other in its enforcement, in the way that to the latter may seem best.

Second. That the United States does not insist upon

he exclusive sway of republican government, but while avoring that system, it recognizes the right of the people of every country on this hemisphere to deternine for themselves their form of government.

Third. That the United States does not deny the right of European governments to enforce their just demands against American nations, within the limits above indicated.

Fourth. That the United States does not contemplate a protectorate over any other American nation, seek to control the latter's conduct in relation to other nations, nor become responsible for its acts.

It has been said that the Monroe Doctrine has no binding authority, first, because it has not been admitted into the code of international law; and, second, because it has never been adopted or declared by Congress. In reply, it may be said that the principle which underlies the Monroe Doctrine - the right of self-defense, the preservation of the peace and safety of the nationis recognized as an elementary part of international law. The doctrine did not require congressional action to control the conduct of the Executive, any more than the policy announced in Washington's address of non-interference in European affairs. But since the action of Congress on President Cleveland's Venezuelan message, it can no longer be contended that Congress has not formally given its approval to the doctrine, and that too, as the opponents of its latest application admit, in its most extreme form. It stands to-day as a cardinal policy of our government. In the prophetic language of Mr. Jefferson, "it sets our