430 AMERICAN DIPLOMATIC QUESTIONS 



admit of serious discussion. If it were to be adopted, the Monroe 

 doctrine would be too valueless to be worth asserting. Not only 

 would every European power now having a South American 

 colony be enabled to extend its possessions on this continent 

 indefinitely, but any other European power might also do the 

 same by first taking pains to procure a fraction of South American 

 soil by voluntary cession. 



The declaration of the Monroe message that existing colonies 

 or dependencies of an European power would not be interfered 

 with by the United States means colonies or dependencies then 

 existing, with their limits as then existing. So it has been inva- 

 riably construed, and so it must continue to be construed unless it 

 is to be deprived of all vital force. Great Britain cannot be 

 deemed a South American state within the purview of the Monroe 

 doctrine, nor, if she is appropriating Venezuelan territory, is it 

 material that she does so by advancing the frontier of an old 

 colony instead of by the planting of a new colony. The differ- 

 ence is matter of form and not of substance and the doctrine if 

 pertinent in the one case must be in the other also. It is not 

 admitted, however, and therefore cannot be assumed, that Great 

 Britain is in fact usurping dominion over Venezuelan territory. 

 While Venezuela charges such usurpation, Great Britain denies 

 it, and the United States, until the merits are authoritatively 

 ascertained, can take sides with neither. But while this is so 

 while the United States may not, under existing circumstances 

 at least, take upon itself to say which of the two parties is right 

 and which wrong it is certainly within its right to demand that 

 the truth shall be ascertained. Being entitled to resent and resist 

 any sequestration of Venezuelan soil by Great Britain, it is neces- 

 sarily entitled to know whether such sequestration has occurred 

 or is now going on. Otherwise, if the United States is without 

 the right to know and have it determined whether there is or is 

 not British aggression upon Venezuelan territory, its right to pro- 

 test against or repel such aggression may be dismissed from 

 consideration. 



The right to act upon a fact the existence of which there is no 

 right to have ascertained is simply illusory. It being clear, 

 therefore, that the United States may legitimately insist upon 

 the merits of the boundary question being determined, it is 

 equally clear that there is but one feasible mode of determining 

 them, viz., peaceful arbitration. The impracticability of any 

 conventional adjustment has been often and thoroughly demon- 

 strated. Even more impossible of consideration is an appeal to 

 arms a mode of settling national pretensions unhappily not yet 



