THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1896.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10045, 4 February 1896, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1896.

Lord Salisbury, in speaking to a deputation representing the Nonconformist unions, is said to have 'strongly supported the original Monroe doctrine." The prominence which lie gave to the subject in addressing the important body which formed the deputation shows that lie considers we are not yet done with this troublesome business. It has now, however, passed into a region of calmer discussion, the result of which we feel sure will be, that it will be seen that the position taken up by President Cleveland is untenable. Public feeling in America has been much divided on the subject from the first. In some quarters there has been a surprising outburst of hostility to Great Britain, with a great deal of vulgar vapouring about what was to be done to the British lion, In England public opinion lias been wonderfully calm, There has been very little or no bragging or blustering, and there has been no display of ill-feeling towards the American people. On the contrary, universal regret has been expressed that a claim has been put forward which may to some extent impair the cordial feeling of friendship which for many years past has existed between the United States and Great Britain. It must be acknowledged, however, that in many of the best and most influential quarters in America the subject lias been discussed so fully and fairly as to leave nothing to be desired. In almost every case where the arguments have been gone into, the conclusion has been come to that the United States have no just reason for going to war, or for flourishing the Monroe doctrine, in the difference which has arisen between the United States and Venezuela about a boundary line. Lord Salisbury's statement that Britain "strongly supported the original Monroe doctrine," perhaps requires some explanation. We take it that he refers to the time when that doctrine was first promulgated. At that period the Napoleonic wars had not long terminated, and the Governments of Europe were strongly reactionary. Russia, Prussia, Austria, and France had formed the Holy Alliance, the object of which was to extend monarchical principles, to restore the Monarchs who had been deposed by Napoleon, or who had been displaced by a revolutionary party amongst their own subjects. The Holy Alliance for some time contemplated the restoring to Spain the Spanish-American States which had successfully revolted. But Great Britain stood out from the Holy Alliance, and it was iudeed an object of aversion to the bulk of the English people. One of the reasons which induced England to have nothing to do with the Holy Alliance was the absurd and tyrannical proposal to force the Spanish-American States again under the misgovernment of Spain. The last number of The Forum, an American magazine of the first class, dealing with this point, says:—" England came out in open opposition to the scheme of the Holy Alliance. She sought to enlist the sympathy and co-operation of the United States, whose Government was naturally very much interested in the question. As a republic, it could not view, except with great displeasure, the extension of the reactionary movement to this continent, and so great was the power of the alliance that the United States, then a young nation, and a pioneer in free government, was not entirely free from the fear that the Alliance would ultimately extend its interference to ourselves." It was really, therefore, the action of England that drew forth the Monroe doctrine. The discussions which took place at the time prove conclusively what President Monroe and the American people understood by the doctrine. The famous Daniel Webster said :—" an armament had been furnished by the Allies to act against provinces the most remote from us, as Chili or Buenos Ayres, the distance of the scene of action diminishing our apprehension of danger, and diminishing also our means of effectual interposition, might still have left us to content ourselves with remonstrance. But a different case would have arisen if an army, equipped and maintained by these Powers, had been landed on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, and commenced the war in our own immediate neighbourhood." In all the discussions there is never a word about boundary lines. The Monroe doctrine was one of defence. Here is a dispute about a boundary line, and it does not matter a farthing to the United States how it is settled. There would be no danger to the United States of North America if wo got our .utmost claim. And certainly it seems absurd that the American President and Congress should set up a Commission to examine into the dispute, and should tell us that we must submit to the decision of that Commission. The campaign of Napoleon 111. in Mexico, having for its object the establishment of a European prince or monarch of that country, might have been construed as a danger to the United States, and therefore as a breach of this doctrine. But England carefully stood out from that enterprise, on the ground that it had no right to force a king upon the Mexicans, It abstained from giving tho least cause of offence i to America,

The people of Great Britain, we feel sure, would do anything short of sacrificing the national honour rather than commence war with America, and that sentiment is also universal in tho colonies. And the same feeling must pervade the citizens of the United States. Not a man in America feels in the smallest degree alarmed that in any settlement of (he dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela any interest of the United States will be endangered. Probably every American thinks that the statesmen of Great Britain would not enter into such a dispute at all, unless they were convinced that they had right on their side. The dispute is not of yesterday. The whole subject has been gone into carefully and repeatedly. Great Britain has given way as far as it can with honour, or consistently with its duty to its subjects. There is no need for America to interfere in any way whatever.