"We will oppose with all our means forcible interposition of any other "If we have any right to interfere at all it applies as well to the case of a "It is impossible that the United States could acquiesce in the conquest by "The United States will never consent to its transfer (Cuba) to either of WASHINGTON. 231 SPEECH OF HON. JOHN W. DANIEL. The Senate having under consideration the joint resolution (S. R. 49) to enforce the Monroe doctrine Mr. DANIEL said: Mr. PRESIDENT: I ask that the resolution submitted by the Senator from New Jersey be read. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The resolution called up by the Senator from Virginia will be read. The Secretary read the resolution submitted by Mr. SEWELL on the 16th instant, as follows: Resolved, That the Monroe doctrine, as originally propounded, was directed to the special prevention of the threatened action of the Allied Powers in reference to the revolted colonies of Spain, and the occupation, by way of colonization, of any supposed derelict territory on this hemisphere. 2. That the question of resisting any acquisition of territory by conquest was limited, as stated by Mr. Webster, to cases in which, by reason of proximity, such acquisition would be dangerous to our safety and the integrity of our institutions. 3. That the true ground upon which the Monroe announcement was based and upon which any similar position has been taken rests for its justification upon what may be our interests, and our interests only; and that neither by the Monroe doctrine nor any other official declaration have we ever come under any pledge to any power or State on this continent that binds us to act merely for their protection against invasion or encroachment by any other power. 4. That when a case arises in which a European power proposes to acquire territory by invasion or conquest, it is then for us to determine whether our safety and the integrity of our institutions demand that we shall resist such action by armed force if necessary. 5. That the Executive has pressed the Monroe doctrine beyond what was contemplated at the time of its announcement, and that the resultant sequence of the positions thus taken seems to be a committal of this Government to a protectorate over Mexico and the Central and South American States; that this would be most unwise and dangerous, and would violate the sound and well-established policy that we should avoid all entangling alliances with foreign powers, whether they be European or American. 6. That this action was premature, looking to the history of the controversy, and inopportune in view of the business and financial condition of the country. 7. That neither Congress nor the country can be, or has been, committed by the action or position of the executive department, in reference to the Venezuelan boundary controversy, as to the course to be pursued when the time shall have arrived for a final determination. It will then be our province and our duty to adopt such a line of policy and to take such action as may be then demanded by our sense of duty to the country and by a due regard for its honor and dignity, the welfare and safety of our people, and the integrity of our institutions. Mr. DANIEL. Mr. President, resolutions of the general assembly of Virginia indorsing the message of the President upon the Venezuelan complication with Great Britain were some days since laid by me before the Senate, and in venturing to-day to address the Senate upon that subject I have the gratifying assurance that I shall speak not only my own earnest personal convictions but those as well of the honored constituency which I in part represent. Least of all the nations of the earth can Great Britain fitly object to the assertion of the Monroe doctrine by the United States, for, in the language of Edward Everett, it was announced not merely with the approval of the British minister of foreign affairs but had his earnest and oft-repeated solicitation. Least of all nations does it become her to contend that it is not recognized as international law because it is not founded on the general consent of nations, for Great Britain herself invoked the United States to its utterance, not only without the consent but as well against the strong menaces of France, Austria, Russia, and Prussia. Least of all nations can Great Britain fairly controvert that governmental policy which underlies the Monroe doctrine, for she, foremost and most conspicuously of all nations, has intervened in the affairs of the world at large, not only whenever her peace and safety were even remotely involved, but also wherever and whenever her capital could be invested, her commerce expanded, or territorial aggrandizement be exercised. Even as to the existing dispute with Venezuela we perceive the outcropping of her own Monroe doctrine so to speak, by her demand in a cession to Venezuela, at one time proffered, that no portion of the territory proposed to be ceded should be alienated at any time to a foreign power. Yes, Mr. President, even the term "jingoes," now derisively applied to Americans who would resist foreign encroachments on American soil, is borrowed from the nomenclature of our British kin across the sea, they using it specially to designate the followers of Lord Beaconsfield, who favored a vigorous foreign policy. The expression was caught up from a popular song which ran: We don't want to fight, but, by jingo, if we do We've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money, too. The American jingoes are only chips of the old block—and very mild, moderate, abbreviated, and conservative chips at that, considering the block. Least of all can the great nation from whom we derived "the language of Milton, the code of Blackstone, and the creed of Christ" flout the policy of arbitration. The main reason assigned by her prime minister for not accepting it—that is that many thousand British subjects have settled upon the disputed territory— begs the question. If they are there lawfully, an honest arbitrament would so ascertain and end the controversy. If they are but squatter sovereigns and land grabbers, or within Venezuela's rightful borders, neither they nor their sovereign can take advantage of their own wrong;-then they are a colony within the recognized denunciation of the Monroe doctrine, and even within the pale of the diluted resolutions of the Senator from New Jersey and the attenuated Americanism of the opposition. ARBITRATION. It Arbitration is the modern and the rightful method of settling differences between nations. It is the substitute for war. appeals to humanity. It is necessary to civilization. It is Christianity. The refusal of Great Britain to arbitrate a question, nominally one of boundary between British Guiana and the Republic of Venezuela, involving many thousand square miles of territory, has led to controversial correspondence between the British Government and the United States. In this correspondence our Gov ernment has stood for and recommended arbitration, but Great Britain has stood out against it and repelled it. The circumstances of this controversy peculiarly impressed the policy of arbitration. 1. Boundary lines must rest on historic evidences and are readily capable of demarcation. Every civilized nation has a system of jurisprudence under which such a subject is easily explored and adjudicated. 2. Venezuela is in possession of much of the disputed territory, and has been long in possession. The loss to her would be greater than the gain to Great Britain, for it would be accompanied with all the humiliation and distress which are associated with the bereavement of national territory and the degradation of the national name. 3. Venezuela is the weaker nation. Would Great Britain treat Russia, Germany, France, or America as it treats her? Oh, it is excellent To have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous This is a free translation into our language of the French phrase "noblesse oblige." The anxiety of the United States for a peaceful solution of the issue and their great concern in the interests involved have been continuously manifested, and, in every form of dignified diplomacy, have been communicated to the British nation. Presidents have written messages, Secretaries of State have tendered the good offices of the United States, and Congress has passed resolutions-all in the spirit of conciliation, and all in vain. In his message to Congress of December, 1891, Benjamin Harrison, then President, expressed his regret that the dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela, touching the boundary of British Guiana, had not been disposed of, and that the friendly efforts of the United States in that direction had thus far been unavailing. This Government, he said, will continue to express its concern at any appearance of encroachment on territories under the administrative control of the American States, and he well added: The determination of the disputed boundary is easily attainable by an amicable arbitration where the rights of the parties rest, as here, on historical facts readily ascertained. President Cleveland, in his message to Congress of December, 1894, said: The boundary of British Guiana still remains in dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela. Believing that its early settlement, on some just basis alike honorable to both parties, is in the line of our established policy to remove from this hemisphere all causes of difference with powers beyond the sea, I shall renew the efforts heretofore made to bring about a restoration of diplomatic relations between the disputants and to induce a reference to arbitration, a resort which Great Britain so conspicuously favors in principle and respects in practice, and which is earnestly sought by her weaker adversary. In February, 1894, the Congress of the United States resolved: That the President's suggestion made in his last annual message to this body, namely, that Great Britain and Venezuela refer their dispute as to boundaries to friendly arbitration, be earnestly recommended to the favorable consideration of both the parties in interest. To all of those appeals-and to the appeals of the present Administration, of which I shall more specifically speak-and well knowing the American policy and the American interests in the question involved, Great Britain has turned a deaf ear. We fix the responsibility of the first wrong on Great Britain and we |