international law a novel principle. . . . The United States have a right, like any other nation, to interpose in any controversy by which their own interests are affected; they are the judge whether those interests are touched, and in what measure they should be sustained. But their rights are in no way strengthened or extended by the fact that the controversy affects some territory which is called American. . . . The Government of the United States is not entitled to affirm as a universal proposition, with reference to a number of independent States for whose conduct it assumes no responsibility, that its interests are necessarily concerned in whatever may befall those States simply because they are situated in the Western Hemisphere. ...

President Cleveland sent Olney's dispatch and Lord Salisbury's reply to Congress on December 17, 1895, accompanied by a vigorous message, which was hailed with enthusiasm by half the nation as a brave assertion of our national honor, and deplored by the other half as a piece of blustering jingoism, whose only effect would be to raise a horrid war cloud to spoil the bright holiday season. After stating Lord Salisbury's position on the Monroe Doctrine, Cleveland said:

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 tranquil maintenance of our distinctive form of government. It was intended to apply to every stage of our national life, and cannot become obsolete while our Republic endures. If the balance of power is justly a cause for jealous anxiety among the governments of the Old World and a subject for our absolute non-interference, none the less is the observance of the Monroe Doctrine of vital concern to our people and their Government. . . .

It will be seen from the correspondence herewith submitted that this proposition [of arbitration] 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 towards 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 their dispute to impartial arbitration, and having been finally apprised of her refusal to do so, nothing remains but to accept the situation, to recognize its plain requirements, and deal with it accordingly.... Assuming that the attitude of Venezuela will remain unchanged, the dispute has reached such a stage as to make it now incumbent upon the United States to take measures to determine with sufficient certainty for its justification what is the true divisional line between the Republic 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.1 . .

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 wilful aggression upon its rights and interests, the appropriation by Great Britain of any lands or the exercise of governmental jurisdiction 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

1 In accordance with the president's recommendation, Congress passed a law on December 21, authorizing the appointment of a commission to investigate the true boundary line and appropriating $100,000 for the expenses of the commission. For the work of the commission see Muzzey, An American History, p. 567.

peoples of the world as being otherwise than friendly competitors in the onward 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 equals that 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.

We conclude this section with two comments of the British press on the message just quoted, the first (a) from The Saturday Review (weekly) of December 21, 1895; the second (b) from The National Review (monthly) of January, 1896.

(a)

President Cleveland's second Message to Congress, in answer to Lord Salisbury, is handled in another column as a fair specimen of "American Election Literature." We wish to draw attention here to the fact that Lord Salisbury's answer to Mr. Secretary Olney was not only not provocative, but eminently conciliatory. Lord Salisbury went so far as to accept the Monroe Doctrine in exactly the form in which, according to Mr. Goldwin Smith, it is held by the majority of Americans; he expressed his full agreement in the view "that any disturbance of the existing territorial distribution in the Western hemisphere by any fresh acquisition on the part of any European State would be a highly inexpedient change." It has been admitted by several of the more serious American journals,1 that President Cleveland's Message in reply is not only unjustifiably arrogant, but hostile in tone to a degree almost without precedent in diplomatic communications.

The truth of the matter is that President Cleveland, having at length realized that his tariff-policy had cost the Democratic party New Jersey and Kentucky, resolved to win the support of the Irish and Jingoes in the United States by twisting the

1 Notably the Evening Post, the New York World, the New York Herald, and the Boston Herald.

British lion's tail. Unluckily the Republican Senators drew him into a declaration of "spirited foreign policy" six months too soon. His Message is already being ridiculed with impartial criticism. The London Stock Exchange has shown an exact and humorous appreciation of the situation by telegraphing to the New York Stock Exchange its hope that in the event of hostilities between the two countries the British warships would not have their movements interfered with by irresponsible excursion steamers issuing from New York and other ports. The New York Exchange, we understand, has replied to the effect that they hope that our warships are better than our yachts.1 In fine, the sensible people on both sides of the water have recognized that President Cleveland has played Dogberry to no purpose. He has written himself down an ass, and that is about all he has accomplished.

(b)

It is unnecessary to say that the dominating event of the past month has been President Cleveland's stupefying effort to plunge the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon race into a bloody war. At the time of writing it is uncertain whether he will succeed or not; now-a-days we find ourselves one moment in a tornado of sensational excitement, and the next in an almost enervating calm; and it may be that by the time these pages are in the reader's hands, affairs will have resumed a comparatively normal condition and the Americans will have recovered their sense of proportion. On the other hand it is just conceivable that Mr. Cleveland might strike a popular chord of hatred to England. The people of whom he is the official mouthpiece may be weary of peace and progress, and, having selected something"cheap" to run into, are prepared to embark on an adventure against the British Empire. In any case a grave situation has been created, and with all the goodwill in the world — and we have not as a nation been unmindful of our kinship to the American people, from whom we have pocketed

1 Referring to the repeated attempts of the British yachts to "lift" the American cup in the races in New York Bay.

affronts that we should not have tolerated at the hands of any other country, and which none of the older members of the company of nations would offer one another unless war were intended the incident, if it retains the modest dimensions of an "incident," cannot but affect the cordiality of our future relations with the United States. . . .

For the moment it is irrelevant to examine the merits of the dispute; let us assume that Venezuela is right on every point, and that the colony's [Guiana's] claim is a spurious one, which Lord Salisbury has adduced untenable arguments to support. Still the amenities of international intercourse among civilized nations are held to preclude recourse to public menace until every form of diplomatic expostulation has been exhausted. The disheartening aspect of this document to all who labor to strengthen the ties between English-speaking peoples lies in the fact that a popularity-seeking President of great experience in gauging the opinion of his countrymen, should think it worth while to read the United States out of the comity of nations in order to obtain the anti-English vote.

The chief issue before the National Democratic Nominating Convention of 1896 at Chicago was the free coinage of silver at the ratio of 16 to 1. The majority report on the platform favored the measure, but a strong minority report, supporting the single gold standard was ably supported by Senator Hill of New York, Senator Vilas of Wisconsin, and ex-Governor Russell of Massachusetts. The debate was closed by the Honorable William J. Bryan of Nebraska, with an ardent speech in favor of free silver, which won him the Democratic nomination for the presidency and brought him into the prominent position in American politics which he has occupied now for twenty years.

MR. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION:

I would be presumptuous, indeed, to present myself against the distinguished gentlemen to whom you have listened if this