hose principles of
international law which are based upon the theory that every nation
shall have its rights protected and its just claims enforced.

Of course this Government is entirely confident that under the sanction
of this doctrine we have clear rights and undoubted claims. 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 founded 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 s