VENEZUELA AND AFTER 307 



United States is practically sovereign on the 

 American continent, &quot;and its fiat is law upon 

 the subjects to which it confines its interposi 

 tion.&quot; The challenge of such audacious and 

 arrogant dogmas it was naturally difficult to 

 resist, and Lord Salisbury was not of the tem 

 perament to ignore it. His response to Olney s 

 despatch took the form of two notes of the same 

 date, November 26, 1895. One was devoted to 

 a demonstration that the Monroe Doctrine had 

 no standing in international law; that Mr. 

 Olney s version of its content and implications 

 had never before been heard or dreamed of; 

 that neither in the Monroe Doctrine nor else 

 where could the United States find warrant for 

 the assertion of an interest in every boundary 

 dispute between an American state and a 

 European power; and that Great Britain would 

 repel with emphasis and something of indigna 

 tion Secretary Olney s sweeping assumption 

 that her connection with her American colonies 

 was unnatural, inexpedient, and destined to 

 cease. In his second note Lord Salisbury re 

 viewed the course of the controversy with 

 Venezuela, presenting facts and considerations 

 that for the first time gave to the British case 

 a reasonable, if not wholly convincing, founda- 



