('< X<;i;KSS. (Tut: VEXEZUKLAX BorxD.ARv COXTROVERSY.) 



159 



safe and con-vrvative credit, so indispensaK 

 br<>ad and growing commercial transactions and so 

 well substituted for the actual use of money. If a 

 fixed and stable standard is maintained such as the 

 magnitude and safety of our commercial transac- 

 tions and business require, the use of money itself 

 is conveniently minimized. 



Every dollar of fixed and stable value has through 

 the agency of confident credit an astonishing ca- 

 pacity of multiplying itself in financial work. Every 

 unstable and fluctuating dollar fails as a basis of 

 credit, and in its use begets gambling speculation 

 and undermines the foundations of honest enter- 

 prise. 



I have ventured to express myself on this subject 

 with earnestness and plainness of speech because I 

 can not rid myself of the belief that there lurks in 

 the proposition for the free coinage of silver, so 

 strongly approved and so enthusiastically advo- 

 cated by a multitude of my countrymen, a serious 

 menace" to our prosperity and an insidious tempta- 

 tion of our people to wander from the allegiance 

 they owe to public and private integrity. It is be- 

 cause I do not distrust the good faith and sincerity 

 of those who press this scheme that I have imper- 

 fectly, but with zeal submitted my thoughts upon 

 this momentous subject. I can not refrain from 

 begging them to re-examine their views and beliefs 

 in the light of patriotic reason and familiar experi- 

 ence, and to weigh again and again the consequences 

 of such legislation as their efforts have invited. 

 Even the continued agitation of the subject adds 

 greatly to the difficulties of a dangerous financial 

 situation already forced upon us. 



In conclusion, I especially entreat the people's 

 representatives in the Congress, who are charged 

 with the responsibility of inaugurating measures 

 for the safety and prosperity of our common coun- 

 try, to promptly and effectively consider the ills of 

 our critical financial plight. I have suggested a 

 remedy which my judgment approves. 1 desire, 

 however, to assure the Congress that I am prepared 

 to co-operate with them in perfecting any other 

 measure promising thorough and practical relief, 

 and that I will gladly labor with them in every 

 patriotic endeavor to further the interests and 

 guard the welfare of our countrymen whom in our 

 respective places of duty we have undertaken to 

 serve. GROVER CLEVELAND. 



EXECUTIVE MANSION. Dec. :-. 



The Venezuelan Boundary Controversy. 



The first action taken upon this subject was the 

 passage of a resolution in the House, Dec. 16, to the 

 effect that Senate document Xo. 226. first session 

 Fiftieth Congress, should be reprinted for the use of 

 members of the House. The document was de- 

 scribed as containing all the correspondence up to 

 1887 upon the Venezuelan question, giving the 

 statement of the English Government and that of 

 the Venezuelan Government, and the correspond- 

 ence of Mr. Baker and other officials representing 

 the United States in Venezuela, and purporting to 

 gis-e the history of the entire transaction, includ- 

 ing the original claims of Venezuela, of Spain, of 

 Holland, and of England the official claims. A 

 similar resolution was passed the next day by the 

 Senate. 



On Dec. 17 a message on the subject from the 

 President was laid before the Senate, as follows : 



To the Congress : 



In my annual message addressed to the Congress 

 on the 3d instant I called attention to the pending 

 boundary controversy between Great Britain and 

 the Republic of Venezuela, and recited the sub- 

 stance of a representation made by this Gov- 

 ernment to her Britannic Majesty's Government 



-ting reasons why such dispute should ! sub- 

 mitted 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 Ju- 

 lian Paunceforte, the British ambassador at this 

 capital. It will be seen that one-of these communi- 

 cations is devoted exclusively to observations upon 

 the Monroe doctrine, and claims that in the present 

 instance a new and strange extension and develop- 

 ment of this doctrine is insisted on by the United 

 States, that the reasons justifying an appeal to the 

 doctrine enunciated by President Monroe are gen- 

 erally inapplicable "to the state of things in which 

 we live at the present day," and especially inappli- 

 cable to a controversy involving the boundary line 

 between Great Britain and Venezuela. 



Without attempting extended argument in reply 

 to these 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 tran- 

 quil maintenance of our distinctive form of govern- 

 ment. It was intended to apply to every stage of 

 our national life, and can not become obsolete 

 while our republic endures. If the balance of 

 power is justly a cause for jealous anxiety among 

 the governments of the Okl World and a subject 

 for our absolute noninterference, none the less is 

 an observance of the Monroe doctrine of vital con- 

 cern 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 condi- 

 tions here or elsewhere, it is not apparent why its 

 application may not be invoked in the present con- 

 troversy. 



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 de- 

 clared to be " dangerous to our peace and safety." 

 and it can make no difference whether the Euro- 

 pean 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, how- 

 ever 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 councils every nation is entitled to 

 the 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 as securely as if it were specifically 

 mentioned, and when the United States is a suitor 

 before the high tribunal that administers interna- 

 tional law the question to be determined is whether 



