Nor is this ignored in the British reply. The prime minister, while not admitting that the Monroe doctrine is applicable to present conditions, states: In declaring 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 Government fully concur with the view which president Monroe apparently entertained, that any disturbance 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 contend was clear and definite, that it was rounded 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 continent 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 arbitration as the proper means of settling the question, 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 recognize its plain requirements, and deal with it accordingly.
Great Britain's present proposition has 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.
Assuming, however, 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. In order that such an examination should be prosecuted in a thorough and satisfactory manner, I suggest that the Congress make an adequate appropriation 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 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. However, when the commission finally rendered a decision on October 3, , it directed that the border follow the Schomburgk Line. Of far greater significance, the Anglo-Venezuelan boundary dispute incident asserted for the first time a more outward-looking American foreign policy, particularly in the Western Hemisphere.
Internationally the incident marked the United States as a world power and gave notice that under the Monroe Doctrine it would exercise its claimed prerogatives in the Western Hemisphere. Menu Menu. Home Milestones Venezuela Boundary Dispute, — Milestones: — For more information, please see the full notice.
Name: RICE Author Lallier, Charline Estelle. Degree Master of Arts. Abstract Through a second-hand book catalogue, the Rice Library was able to secure, in the spring of , a small, but unique collection of documents. These were the volumes actually used by Sir Richard Webster afterwards Lord Alverstone when he was Attorney-General, in preparing his case for presentation to the Arbitral Tribunal which determined the boundary line between Venezuela and British Guiana.
Each book of this collection contains the autograph of Sir Richard and two of them have marginal notes in his handwriting. The Synopsis is particularly well marked with "cites" and "mentions" which show the materials which appeared to Sir Richard to be particularly significant. He has also marked errors and given the references which verify the corrections.
In addition, the Rice Library has a full set of the London Times Weekly for the years when the dispute was in its most critical stages.
0コメント