160 



CONGRESS. (THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY.) 



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 confident 

 that under the sanction of this doctrine we have 

 clear rights and undoubted claims. Nor is this ig- 

 nored in the British reply. The Prime Minister, 

 while not admitting that the Monroe doctrine is 

 applicable to present conditions, states: "In de- 

 claring 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 of 

 objects 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 Govern- 

 ment) fully concur with the view which President 

 Monroe apparently entertained, that any disturb- 

 ance 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 con- 

 tend 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 conti- 

 nent 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 arbi- 

 tration as the proper means of settling the ques- 

 tion, 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 one 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 

 rcf.ijrnjz,. its plain requirements, and deal with it 

 :i'-enrdii)gly. Great Britain's present proposition 

 Ins 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 can not of 

 course be objected to by the United States. 



A-Miining, however," that the attitude of Vene- 

 zuela will remain unchanged, the dispute has 

 reached such a stage as to make it now incumbent 



iipon the United States to take measures to deter- 

 mine with sufficient certainty for its justification 

 what is the true divisional line between the Repub- 

 lic of Venezuela and British Guiana. The inquiry 

 to that end should of course be conducted carefully 

 and judicially, and due weight should be given to 

 all available evidence, records, and facts in support 

 of the claims 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 ap- 

 propriation 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 jurisdic- 

 tion over any territory which, after investigation, 

 we have determined of right belongs to Venezuela. 



In making these recommendations I am fully 

 alive to the 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 be- 

 ing otherwise than friendly competitors in the on- 

 ward 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 

 follows a supine submission to wrong and injustice 

 and the consequent loss of national self-respect and 

 honor, beneath which are shielded and defended a 

 people's safety and greatness. 



GROVER CLEVELAND. 



EXECUTIVE MANSION, Dec. 1~. ls:i.',. 



Accompanying the message were documents the 

 correspondence on the subject, including Mr. 01- 

 ney's letter to Mr. Bayard, dated July 20, 1895, re- 

 viewing the efforts of the United States to have the 

 controversy settled by arbitration, and explaining 

 the position of the Administration in reference to 

 the application of the Monroe doctrine to the sub- 

 ject and the consequences to be apprehended if any 

 European power should be allowed to establish a 

 precedent for the appropriation of the territory of 

 the weak South American states. Following Mr. 

 Olney's letter was a short communication to Mr. 

 Bayard from A. A. Adee, acting secretary, dated 

 July 24, giving the authority for a reference in the 

 letter of the Secretary of War, as follows : 



" In Mr. Olney's instruction No. 804, of the 20th 

 instant, in relation to the Anglo- Venezuelan bound- 

 ary dispute, you will note a reference to the sud- 

 den increase of the area claimed for British Guiana, 

 amounting to 83,000 square miles, between 1884 

 and 1886. This statement is made on the authority 

 of the British publication entitled the ' Statesman's 

 Yearbook.' 



" I add for your better information that the same 

 statement is found in the ' British Colonial Office 

 List,' a Government publication. 



In the issue for 1885 the following passage occurs, 

 on page 24, under the head of British Guiana: 



" ' It is impossible to specify the exact area of 

 the colony, as its precise boundaries between Vene- 

 zuela and Brazil, respectively, are undetermined, 

 but it has been computed to be 76,000 square miles.' 



" In the issue of the same list for 1886 the same 

 statement occurs, on page 88, with the change of 

 area to ' about 109,000 square miles.' 



"The official maps in the two volumes mentioned 

 are identical, so that the increase of 33,000 square 

 miles claimed for British Guiana is not thereby ex- 



