motion of Bland it was agreed that the debate should continue for fourteen days, eleven days to be allotted to general debate under the rules of the last House, and the last three days to the consideration of the bill and amendments under the five-minute rule; that upon the close of the debate, votes should be taken in the following order: on free coinage of silver at the present ratio, then at the ratio of 17 to 1, then at the ratio of 18 to 1, then at the ratio of 19 to 1, and finally at the ratio of 20 to 1; and that in the event of these several votes resulting in the negative, the House should vote on an amendment to revive the so-called Bland-Allison act of February 28, 1878 [No. 102]. The bill was then taken up, and formed the principal subject of debate until August 28. The disastrous panic, due in part to the anxiety caused by the shrinkage of gold reserve notwithstanding the rapid increase in the volume of silver certificates, made the debate one of extraordinary public interest, while the advocates of silver carried on a vigorous agitation for free coinage in the event of a repeal of the compulsory purchase clause of the act of 1890. The votes taken August 28 resulted as follows: on the free coinage substitute, 125 to 226; on free coinage at the ratio of 17 to 1, 101 to 241; at 18 to 1, 103 to 240; at 19 to 1, 104 to 238; at 20 to 1, 122 to 222; on reviving the Bland-Allison act, 136 to 213. The bill was then read a third time and passed, the vote being 239 to 109, 5 not voting. The Senate had under consideration a bill to the same effect as the House bill, as far as repealing the purchase clause of the act of 1890 was concerned; August 29 this was reported by the Committee on Finance as a substitute for the House bill. The bill was not considered until October 30, when the substitute was agreed to and the bill passed, the final vote being 43 to 32. November 1, by a vote of 194 to 94, 65 not voting, the House concurred in the Senate amendment. A bill to "coin the seigniorage" was vetoed by President Cleveland May 27, 1894. REFERENCES. Text in U.S. Statutes at Large, XXVIII, 4, 5. For the proceedings see the House and Senate Journals, 53d Cong., Ist Sess., and the Cong. Record. Practically every aspect of the silver question was touched on in the debate.

An Act to repeal a part of an act approved July fourteenth, eighteen hundred and ninety, entitled "An act directing the purchase of silver bullion and the issue of Treasury notes thereon, and for other purposes."

Be it enacted That so much of the act approved July fourteenth, eighteen hundred and ninety, entitled "An act directing the purchase of silver bullion and issue of Treasury notes thereon, and for other purposes," as directs the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase from time to time silver bullion to the aggregate amount of four million five hundred thousand ounces, or so much

thereof as may be offered in each month at the market price thereof, not exceeding one dollar for three hundred and seventyone and twenty-five one-hundredths grains of pure silver, and to issue in payment for such purchases Treasury notes of the United States, be, and the same is hereby, repealed. And it is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to continue the use of both gold and silver as standard money, and to coin both gold and silver into money of equal intrinsic and exchangeable value, such equality to be secured through international agreement, or by such safeguards of legislation as will insure the maintenance of the parity in value of the coins of the two metals, and the equal power of every dollar at all times in the markets and in the payment of debts. And it is hereby further declared that the efforts of the Government should be steadily directed to the establishment of such a safe system of bimetallism as will maintain at all times the equal power of every dollar coined or issued by the United States, in the markets and in the payment of debts. APPROVED, November 1, 1893.

No. 126. President Cleveland's Venezuelan

Message

December 17, 1895

THE controversy over the boundary between Venezuela and Dutch Guiana, dating almost from the beginning of European settlements in the region, became of immediate interest to England in 1814, when Berbice, Demerara, and Essequibo were ceded by the Netherlands to Great Britain. Negotiations with Great Britain for the settlement of the dispute were begun in 1841, and continued with more or less interruption thereafter, but without result. An offer to arbitrate, made by the United States in December, 1886, was declined by Great Britain. The following year diplomatic relations between the latter power and Venezuela were broken off, but correspondence on the subject on the part of the United States continued. A joint resolution of February 20, 1895, "earnestly recommended " arbitration "to the favorable consideration of both the parties in interest." In a communication of July 20, 1895, Secre

tary of State Olney strongly asserted the interest of the United States in the controversy because of its bearing on the Monroe Doctrine. To this communication Lord Salisbury replied in two notes dated November 26. An appropriation of $100,000 for the expenses of the commission proposed by President Cleveland in his message of December 17 was promptly made, and the commission, the members of which were David J. Brewer, R. H. Alvey, F. R. Coudert, Daniel C. Gilman, and Andrew D. White, organized in January, 1896. February 2, 1897, a treaty was concluded between Great Britain and Venezuela for a tribunal of arbitration to determine the boundary line in dispute. The report of the American commission was submitted February 27. The tribunal of arbitration met in Paris June 15, 1899, and October 3 delivered its award.

REFERENCES.

Text in Senate Journal, 54th Cong., Ist Sess., 55, 56. The papers accompanying the message are in the Cong. Record, pp. 191–199. The official documents are voluminous, comprising the Report and Accompanying Papers of the Commission; British Blue Books, United States, No. 1 (1896), Venezuela, Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 (1896); Official History of the Discussion, etc. (Atlanta, Ga., 1896); Venezuelan Documents; Venezuelan Briefs; Case of Venezuela; Printed Argument on behalf of Venezuela; Counter Case of Venezuela; British Case; British Counter Case; and the Proceedings of the tribunal of arbitration. See also Senate Exec. Doc. 226, 50th Cong., Ist Sess.

To the Congress :

In my annual message addressed to the Congress on the 3d instant I called attention to the pending boundary controversy between Great Britain and the Republic of Venezuela, and recited the substance of a representation made by this Government to Her Britannic Majesty's Government suggesting reasons why such dispute should be submitted to arbitration for settlement and inquiring whether it would be so submitted.

The answer of the British Government, which was then awaited, has since been received, and, together with the dispatch to which it is a reply, is hereto appended.

Such reply is embodied in two communications addressed by the British prime minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British ambassador at this capital. It will be seen that one of these communications is devoted exclusively to observations upon the Monroe doctrine, and claims that in the present instance a new and strange.extension and development of this doctrine is insisted

on by the United States, that the reasons justifying an appeal to the doctrine enunciated by President Monroe are generally inapplicable "to the state of things in which we live at the present day," and especially inapplicable to a controversy involving the boundary line between Great Britain and Venezuela.

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 can not 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 noninterference, none the less is an observance of the Monroe doctrine of vital concern to our people and their Government.

Assuming, therefore, that we may properly insist upon this doctrine without regard to "the state of things in which we live," or any changed conditions here or elsewhere, it is not apparent why its application may not be invoked in the present controversy.

If a European power, by an extension of its boundaries, takes possession of the territory of one of our neighboring Republics against its will and in derogation of its rights, it is difficult to see why, to that extent, such European power does not thereby attempt to extend its system of government to that portion of this continent which is thus taken. This is the precise action. which President Monroe declared to be "dangerous to our peace and safety," and it can make no difference whether the European system is extended by an advance of frontier or otherwise.

It is also suggested in the British reply that we should not seek to apply the Monroe doctrine to the pending dispute because it does not embody any principle of international law which "is founded on the general consent of nations," and that no statesman however eminent, and no nation however power

ful, are competent to insert into the code of international law a novel principle which was never recognized before, and which has not since been accepted by the Government of any other country."

Practically, the principle for which we contend has peculiar, if not exclusive, relation to the United States. It may not have been admitted in so many words to the code of international law, but since in international councils every nation is entitled to the rights belonging to it, if the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine is something we may justly claim, it has its place in the code of international law as certainly and as securely as if it were specifically mentioned, and when the United States is a suitor before the high tribunal that administers international law the question to be determined is whether or not we present claims which the justice of that code of law can find to be right and valid.

The Monroe doctrine finds its recognition in those 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."