Birmingham state herald., December 18, 1895, Image 1

About Birmingham state herald. (Birmingham, Ala.) 1895-1897

Image provided by: University of Alabama Libraries, Tuscaloosa, AL

                
BIRMINGHAM STATE HERALD.
VOLUME 22; BIRMINGHAM, ALA., WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1893. NUMBER. 33.
WAR TALK AT THE CAPITAL
Southern Brigadiers Rubbing
Their Hands in Glee,
“AMERICA FOR AMERICANS”
And “Yankee Doodle” and "Dixie" Will Min
t
gle as One Chorus
IF GREAT BRITAIN CRIES “TO ARMS”
The President’s War Message Considered
the Ablest State Paper Emanating
From the Executive Mansion in
Years—Will Be Heeded.
Washington, Dec. 17.—(Special.)—Talk
of war Is rife around the corridors and in,
the cloak rooms, and many an old south
ern brigadier i§ tonight rubbing his
hands with glee and itching to once again
get in the saddle that they may show to
the world that “America is for Ameri
cans,” and to show their brothers of the
north how they can fight beneath stars
and stripes, ns once they did under the
stars and bars. And with "Yankee Doo
dle” and “Dixie" who is it that doubts
results? President Cleveland’s message
to congress today has struck a respon
sive chord in the breasts of democrat
and republican alike, and had Speaker
Heed recognized Mr. Crisp this evening
resolutions appropriating $100,000 would
have passed the house, but the republi
cans scorn to want the resolution to come
from their side and a motion to adjourn
was carried, Dingley being recognized
for that purpose.
The message is commended by all as
the ablest state paper emanating from
the executive mansion In years, and there
Is no doubt but its suggestions will be
carried out.
Governor Oates on the Message.
Montgomery, Dec. 17.—(Special.)—Gov
ernor Oates was asked tonight what he
thought of Mr. Cleveland’s Venezuela
message. ”1 indorse every word of it,”
repiied the governor. “The president takes
a high toned, patriotic position. His opin
ion is pointed. If congress stands to him,
and I believe democrats and republicans
■will do so, it means that England must
step back or a clash will result. In my
judgment Great Britain will select the
former course. I believe the American
people will also solidly approve the pres
ident’s declarations in the matter, differ
with him as they may on other proposi
tions.”
Governor Stone's Opinion.
Jackson. Miss.. Dec. 17,-The Southern
Associated Press correspondent called on
Governor Stone this evening and asked
his opinion on President Cleveland’s
message to congress on the Venezuelan
matter. The governor's reply was in sub
stance as follows:
”1 am not prepared to be interviewed
on the subject, having just read the mes
sage very hurriedly, but will say I am
heartily in favor of enforcing the Mon
roe doctrine. 1 am not posted as to
■whether or not its principles are involved
In the controversy between Great Brit
ain and Venezuela, but suppose the pres
ident and Secretary Olney are.”
Governor Stone is a staunch friend and
supporter of tho president in most other
Imatters and is doubtless ready to back
ihim up in this, as are all other Mississip
pians, though they are not spoiling for
a fight.
American Diplomats Delighted.
Washington. Dec. 17.—The diplomatic
representatives of the American repub
lics in Washington were highly elated
over the president's message and nearly
all of them cabled copious extracts of the
document to their respective govern
ments. Ever since the Cortnto affair
they had been somewhat despondent
over the supposed Indisposition of the
TTnited States to resist foreign aggres
sions of the American continent, but to
day they could not find language ade
quate to express their admiration for
President Cleveland's forcible utterances,
particularly as to the possible resort to
other competition than those in the arts
of peace. None of the American minis
ters of charge d’affaires, however, con
sented to speak authoritatively for their
governments in the absence of instruc
tions, nor would any be led into a public
Interview on the subject. One who has
had perhaps more experience In the In
ternational affairs of the TTnited States
than most of his colleagues In the diplo
matic corps said that while he was grat
ified to see that the United States had
finally taken a firm stand on the Mon
froe doctrine, it would be unwise to con
sider It established in the code of all
nations, and although he believes Eu
ropean nations would be compelled to
recognize Its force hereafter, he was not
by anv means sure that its effect could
be made retroactive, as its application
to the Venezuelan matter certainly would
be. Aside from this he hoped (and he
believed all American republics would
support the United States) that England
would be forced, by war if necessary, to
give up the territory she had stolen from
Venezuela, and he trusted that congress
would authorize the executive to furnish
arms and men to drive out the 400 squat
ters referred to by Lord Salisbury.
Another representative of a govern
ment that had had a dispute with Great
Britain in the matter of land grabbing
declared that If the United States was
sincere In this matter, and supported
President Cleveland’s suggestions for a
boundary commission beyond England’s
Influence, It would result In the greatest
desideratum, an alliance for both peace
and war of the most progress
ive American republics. The boun
dary question In Alaska, he said,
could then he as quickly settled
as that In Venezuela, and the rapid en
croachments of Beliz on both Mexico and
Gautemala would be terminated and the
title to the territory of Brazil now
claimed by French and British Guiana
would be terminated.
With the bulldozing power of Great
Britain nullified he believed her com
mercial supremacy would disappear and
that trade would flow on north and south
lines instead of east and west.
Another of the South American repre
sentatives was disposed, In vie\v of the
United States in past years, to await the
sober second thought of the people in
legard to the message.
He thought he should like to hear what
Senator Sherman (the new chairman of
foreign relations) said about the readi
ness of the United States to go to war
about Venezuela, where its interests were
so small compared with what they prom
ised to be in Nicaragua and Cuba. His
opinion was that Great Britain would
recede behind the Schmnburg line in the
British claim and that the United States
would not resort to force in the attempt
to compel her to do so. He thought, how
ever, that Lord Salisbury would very
promptly concede the remainder of the
Venezuelan contention, and that the
United States would secure Venezuela’s
acquiescence in that boundary.
The Treasury Don’t Want War.
Washington, Dec. 17.—The opinion is
expressed in treasury circles that the
president’s message to congress today on
the Venezuelan boundary question will
have the effect of causing the return by
English holders of American securities
and stocks for sale and thus further de
pleting the treasury gold reserve, as gold
would have to be sent abroad in pay
ment of them.
-o —
READY FOR WAR.
Republicans and Democrats Alike Praise
the President’s Message.
Washington, Dec. 17.—The demonstra
tion which followed the reading of Pres
ident Cleveland’s message in the senate
today was strongly indicative of the gen
eral sentiment. Without any division on
party lines,and with the republicans even
more pronounced in their applause than
the democrats, the message met the
heartiest approval, nearly all the sena
tors clapping their hands and giving oth
er evidences of gratification, while the
few spectators in the galleries—the doors
of which had only been opened five min
utes before—joined in the applause with
out any apprehension of taping reproved
by the presiding officer. The strongest
expressions in the message were those
which were favored. Among those were
the following sentences: "The course to
be pursued by this government, in view
of the present condition, does not appear
to admit of serious doubt."
"The dispute has reached such a stage
as now to make it incumbent upon the
United States to take measures to de
termine with sufficient security for Its
justification which is the true divisional
line between the republic of Venezuela
and British Guiana."
"It will, in my opinion, be the duty or
the United States to resist, by every
measure in its power, as a willful aggies
sion upon its rights aVid interests, the ap
propriation by Great Britain of any
lands or the exercise of governmental
jurisdiction over any territory which,
after investigation, we have determined
of right belong to Venezuela."
It was in connection with this last sen
tence that Senator Morgan of Alabama,
chairman of the committee on foreign re
lations, remarked in an undertone that
there was no mistaking the meaning of
that, and Senator Frye, republican, of
Maine, remarked. "That is capital.
The trend of opinion as expressed by
senators and representatives after the
adjournment of the respective bodies
was in line with the foregoing sketch of
the scene in the senate chamber.
Mr. Livingston of Georgia, who has
been conspicuous in his championship of
Venezuela, found much to commend in
the President’s message. He said: "Mr.
Cleveland’s message is clear-cut Ameri
can. He distinctly recognizes the Mon
roe doctrine in all its length and breadth.
and especially applicaoie 10 me
pending between Great Britain and
Venezuela. He declares emphatically
for resistance against British oppression,
and like the man that he is against fur
ther delay and further appeals on our
part for arbitration. He suggests the
very method contained in my resolutions
now before congress, for a commission
to ascertain for ourselves the true
boundary line, and then enforce the find
ings of that commission, even if war
shall be the result. His message will find
a warm response In the hearts of all
Americans. He recognizes the terrible
conflict that would follow, If fight we
must, between the two great Knglish
speaking people, yet admits there Is no
calamity which a great nation can invite
which equals supine submission and loss
of national honor and self-respect."
Representative Sherman, repumici.,
of New York—If the utterances of the
president contained in his message on
Venezuela are in any manner the result
of his recent ducking outing, I very
much regret that his secretary of state
did not accompany him on that trip. The
message has in it an American ring that
is as gratifying as it has been unusual
during this administration. I might al
most use the word “Jingo in reference
to it. did not the word grate on the dem
’ocratlc cars. I am glad to commend it
without qualification.
Representative Quigg. republican, of
New York—President Cleveland’s mes
sage is admirable in every respect. His
statement of the grounds upon which the
Monroe doctrine is made applicable to the
Venezuelan boundary question cannot be
answered. His definition of our duty in
the presence of Great Britain’s refusal
to arbitrate is clear and true. I phall
vote for the commission he proposes and
entertain the policy he outlines in every
way I can. During a visit to Demarara
and Venezuela three years ago I exam
ined the situation very thoroughly and no
doubt exists In my mind of the Justness
of Venezuela’s contention. The senti
ment of all parties and of the whole C"”tt
try will indorse the president’s posuiuu
heartily. .,, . „. .
Mr Grosvenor. republican, of Ohio—
The message Is a strong, clean cut de
mand for the observance and defense of
the Monroe doctrine, and in the light of
the dispatch from the British govern
ment. it is only a little short of a declara
tion of war unless England recedes or
seeks further diplomacy. The position
taken by the president is, at first glance,
a step in advance of the former official
declarations of pur country. If the atti
tude of England, as announced, is the ul
timatum, then the message is a menace
of war. .
Mr. McCall, republican of Massaehu
setts_The reply of Lord Salisbury at
tempts in effect to do away with the
Monroe doctrine. Since Great Britain
declines to submit the Venezuelan boun
dary to arbitration we must ascertain
that boundary for ourselves and then re
sist any encroachment upon it. The.
message of the president is a spirited and
noble document, and should receive the
united support of both parties.
Mr. Cummings, democrat, of New York
—The message breathes the spirit of
Thomas Jefferson, .Tames Monroe and
Andrew Jackson. President Cleveland’s
action stands in strong contrast with
the cowardly action of Lord Salisbury in
Armenian affairs. The president stands
by the Monroe doctrine and he undoubt
edly means every word he says.
Mr. McCreary, democrat, of Kentucky,
who was chairman of tile foreign affairs
committee in the last congress—It is vig
orous, positive and able. As a reaffirma
tion of the Monroe doctrine it will attract
wide attention and I believe be gener
ally- indorsed by the people. The pres
ident having tried faithfully to induce
(Continued on Fifth Page.)
CLEVELAND’S MESSAGE.
He Gives the British Lion’s Tail a Good
Twist.
IT IS A REAL WAR DOCUMENT.
j
Lord Salisbury Refuses to Arbitrate
the Venezuelan Matter.
SAYS IT IS NONEOFOUR BUSINESS
Congress Asked to Provide n Commission to Decide
What Is the True Boundary Line and to Back
Its Verdict Up With Force.
Washington, Dec. 17.—The president
sent to congress today the Venezuelan
correspondence, accompanied by the fol
lowing significant message:
To the Congress: In my annual mes
sage 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 repre
sentation made by this government to
her Britannic majesty’s government sug
gesting reasons why such dispute should
be submitted to arbitration for settle
ment and inquiring whether it would be
so submitted. The answer of the Brit
ish government, which was then await
ed, has since been received, together
with a dispatch to which a reply is hen_-<
to appended.
Such reply Is embodied in two commu
nications addressed by the British prime
minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote, Brit
ish ambassador at this capital. It will
be seen that one of these communica
tions is devoted exclusively to observa
tions upon the Monroe doctrine, and
claims that In the present instance a
new and strange extension and develop
ment of this doctrine Is Insisted upon by
the United States; that the reasons jus
tifying appeal to the doctrine enunciated
by President Monroe are generally Inap
plicable "to the state of things in which
we live at the present day,” and especial
ly Inapplicable to a controversy involv
ing the boundary line between Great
Britain and Venezuela.
Without attempting extended argu
ment 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 mainte
nance of a distinctive form of govern
ment. It was Intended to apply to ev
ery stage of our national life, and cannot
become obsolete while our republic en
dures. If the balance of power is justly
a cause for jealous anxiety among the
governments of the old w'orld and a sub
ject for our absolute non-interference,
none the less is an observance of the
Monroe doctrine of vital concern to our
people and their government.
Assuming, therefore, that we may prob
ably insist upon this doctrine without re
gard to “the state of things in which we
live,” or any changed conditions here or
elsewhere, It is not apparent why its ap
plication may not be invoked in the pres
ent controversy.
If a European power, by extension of
its boundaries, takes possession of the
territory of one of our neighboring re
publics 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 sys
tem of government to that portion of this
continent which is thus taken.
This is the precise action which Presi
dent Monroe declared to be "dangerous
to our peace and safety,” and it can
make no difference whether the European
system is an extension by an advance of
frontier or otherwise.
It is also suggested In the British re
ply that we should not seek to apply tho
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 powerful, are
competent to insert into the code of in
ternational law a novel principle which
was never recognized before, and which
has not since been accepted by the gov
ernment of any other country.
Practically, the principle for which we
contend has a peculiar if not extensive
relation to the United States. It may
not have been admitted in so many
words to the code of international law,
but since international counsels 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 in
ternational law as certainly and as se
curely as if it were specifically men
tioned. and when the United States is a
suitor before the high tribunal that ad
ministers international law the question
to be determined is whether or not we
present the claims which the Justice of
that code of law can find to be right an^
valid.
j ne Monroe ooctrine nnus 11s recogni
tion in those principles of international
law which are based upon the theory
that every nation shall have its rights
protected and Just claims enforced. Of
course, this government is entirely con
fident that under the sanction of this
doctrine we have clear rights and un
doubted claims. Nor is this Ignored in
the British reply. The prime minister,
while not admitting that the Monroe
doctrine is applicable to the present con
ditions, states "in declaring that the
United States would resist any such en
terprise if it was contemplated, that
President Monroe adopted a policy which
received the entire sympathy of the Brit
ish government of that date.”
He further declares: "Though the lan
guage of President Monroe is directed
to the attainment of the objects which
most Englishmen would agree to be salu
tary, 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 en
tertained that any disturbance effecting
territorial distribution in that hemis
phere by any fresh acquisition 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 contro
versy, and without any convictions as to
the final merits or the dispute, but anx
ious to learn in a satisfactory and conclu
sive 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 in
cluded within her lines of ownership—
this government proposed to the govern
ment of Great Britain a resort to arbitra
tion as the proper means of settling the
question, to the end that a vexatious
boundary dispute between the two con
testants 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 govern
ment upon grounds which, under the cir
cumstances, seem to me to be far from
satisfactory. It is deeply disappointing
that such an appeal, actuated by the
most friendly feelings toward both na
tions exactly concerned, addressed to thq
sense of justice and to the magnanimity
of one of the great powers of the world
and touching its relations to one com
paratively weak and small, should have
produced no better results.
The course to be pursued by this gov
ernment, in view of the present condi
tion, does not appear to admit of serious
doubt: Having labored faithfully for
many years to induce Great Britain to
submit this dispute to Impartial arbitra
tion, and having been now finally ap
prised of her refusal to do so, nothing re
mains but to accept the situation, to rec
ognize Its plain requirements and deal
with it accordingly.
Great Britain's present proposition has
never thus far been regarded as admis
sible by Venezuela, though any adjust
ment of the boundaries which that coun
try 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 justifi
cation what Is the true divisional line be
tween the republic of Venezuela and the
British government. Inquiry to that end
should of course be conducted carefully
and judicially, and due weight should he
given to all available evidence, record:)
and facts in support of the claims of
both parties.
In order that such examinations
should be prosecuted in a thorough and
satisfactory manner, I suggest that the
congress make an adequate appropria
tion for the expenses of a commission to
be appointed by the executive, who shall
make the necessary investigation and re
port upon the matter with the least pos
sible delay.
When such report is made and accept
ed, It will in my opinion be the duty of
the United States to resist by every
means in its power, as a willful aggres
sion upon its rights and interests, the ap
propriation by Great Britain of any
lands or the exercise of geve/nmental
Jurisdiction over any territory which,
after investigation, we have determined
of right as belonging to Venezuela.
In making these recommendations I
am fully alive to the responsibility incur
red and keenly realize all the conse
quences that may follow. I am neverthe
less firm In my conviction that while it
Is a grievous thing to contemplate the
two great English-speaking people of
the world as being otherwise than friend
ly competitors in the onward march of
civilization and strenuous and worthy
rivals In all arts of peace, there is no
calamity which a great nation can invite
which equals that which follows a su
pine submission to wrong and Injustice,
and the consequent loss of national wlf
respect and honor, beneath which is
shielded and defended a people’s safety
and greatness.
GROVER CLEVELAND.
Executive Mansion. Dec. 17. 1895.
Although the matter submitted to con
gress In connection with the foregoing
message consists of three diplomatic
notes only, they are very voluminous.
Mr. Oiney's note to Mr. Bayard concern
ing the threatening aspect of affairs be
tween Great Britain and Venezuela Is
first in the correspondence. It is dated
July 20 last, and deals with the boundary
question at. geat length. Beginning
at the very inception of the dispute
which has now assumed so serious an as
pect, Mr. Olney carries his argument of
the American claim for arbitration, based
on the Monroe doctrine, down to the pres
ent time, and gives emphasis to his
statements by quoilng the sentiments of
President Monroe in full and notes that
"Its pronouncement by the Monroe ad
ministration at that particular time was
unquestionably due to the inspiration of
Great Britain, who at once gave to it an
open and unqualified adhesion, which has
never been withdrawn."
Mr. Olney gives in his note a firm in
dorsement to the principle Indorsed by
Mohroe, and defines Great Britain’s posi
tion in this frank and unambiguous man
ner: "She (Great Britain) says to Vene
zuela: 'You can get none of the debata
ble land by force, because you are not
strong enough: you can get none by
treaty, because I will not agree, and you
can take your chance of getting a portion
by arbitration, only if you first agree to
abandon to me such portions as I may
designate.' ”
Continuing, Mr. Olney says It is not
1 perceived how such an attitude can be
defended, nor how K is reconcilable with
that love of justice and fair play so char
acteristic of the English race; and holds
that if such position be adhered to it
should be regarded as amounting in sub
stance lo an invasion and conquest of
Venezuelan territory.
In conclusion Mr. Olney instructed
Mr. Bayard to lay the views given before
Lord Salisbury, and said: “They (the
views) call for a definite decision upon
the point whether Great Britain will
consent or will decline to submit the
Venezuelan boundary question in ils en
tirety to impartial arbitration.’’
Expressing the president’s hope that
the conclusion will be on the side of ar
bitration, Mr. Olney concludes with the
pointed statement that “if the president
is to be disappointed in that hope, how
ever, a result not to be anticipated, and
In his judgment calculated to greatly
embarrass the future relations between
this country and Great Britain, it is his
wish to be acquainted with the fact at
s i' h early date as will enable him to lay
the whole subject before congress in his
next annual message.”
Lord Salisbury’s reply Is addressed to
Sir Julian Pauncefote, British ambassa
dor at Washington, under date of No
vember 26 last, this dealt only wun me
appropriation of the Monroe doctrin ^
In the ease at issue, and was follows **
on the same day by another note discuss
ing the boundary dispute per se. At the
outset Lord Salisbury states that so far
as he is aware the Monroe doctrine has
never been before advanced on behalf
of the United States in any written com
munication addressed to the government
of any other nation. He gives what he
believes is the interpretation of the doc
trine and maintains that the dangers
which were apprehended by President
Monroe have no relation 4o the state of
things in which we live at the present
day. and adds, with thinly covered irony,
that "it is intelligible that Mr. Olney
should invoke in defense of the views on
which he is now insisting an authority
(Monroe) which enjoys so high a popular
ity with his own fellow countrymen.”
The dispute between Great Britain and
Venezuela, avers Lord Salisbury, Is a
controvery with which the United States
have no apparent practical concern.
Continuing in short, pithy sentences he
says it is difficult indeed to see how the
question in controversy can materially
affect any state or community outside
those primarily interested: t'hat the dis
puted frontier of Venezuela has nothing
to do with any of the questions dealt with
by President Monroe, and that it Is not
a question of the colonization by an Eu
ropean power of any portion of Ameri
ca, nor of the imposition upon the com
munities of South America of any sys
tem of government devised in Europe.
"It is,” he says, “simply the determina
tion of the frontier of a British posses
sion which belonged to the throne of
England long before the republic of Ven
ezuela came Into existence.” As he pro
ceeds in the discussion the language of
Lord Salisbury becomes tart. He ar
gues in theory that the Monroe doctrine
in Itself is sound, but disclaims any in
tention of being understood as express
ing any acceptance of it on the part of
her majesty’s government. He quotes
Mr. Olney as saying: "That distance
and 3000 miles of intervening ocean make
any political union between a European
and an American state unnatural and
inexpedient will hardly be denied," and
adds that "the meaning of these words
is that the union between Great Britain
and Canada, between Great Britain, Ja
maica and Trinidad, between Canada
and British Honduras or British Guiana
are Inexpedient and unnatural.”
President Monroe.says his lordship,dis
claims any such Inference from his doc
trine. but in this, as in other respects,
Mr, Olnev develops It. "He lays down,”
says Lord Salisbury, "that the inexpedi
ent and unnatural character of the union
between the un-American state is so ob
vious that it will hardly be denied. Her
majesty’s government is prepared em
phatically to deny it on behalf of both
the British and American people who are
subject to her crown. They maintain
that the union between Great Britain and
her ties in the hemisphere are both nat
ural and expedient, but they are not pre
pared to admit that the recognition of
that expediency is clothed with the sanc
tion which belongs to adoption of inter
national law. They are not prepared to
admit that the interests of the United
States are necessarily considered In ev
ery frontier dispute which may arise be
tween the two states which possess do
minion in this hemisphere, and still less
can they accept the doctrine that the
United States is entitled to claim that
the process of arbitration shall be ap
plied to any demand for the surrender
of territory which one of those states
may make against another.”
Lord Salisbury concludes with the
statement that her majesty's govern
ment has not surrendered the hope that
the controversy beween themselves and
Venezuela will be adjusted by reason
able arrangemnts at an early date.
The second note of November 26 is
devoted to a discussion of the boundary
dispute exclusive of Its relation to the
Monroe doctrine, mis uispuicri, How
ever, sounds the keynote of Great Brit
ain’s position with reference to Mr. Ol
ney’s representations. Lord Salisbury
states that Great Britain has repeatedly
expressed its readiness to submit to ar
bitration the conflicting claims of Great
Britain to the territory of great mineral
values, and follows this statement with
these important words: “But they (the
British government) cannot consent to
entertain or to submit to the arbitration
of another power ora foreign jurist,how
ever eminent, claims based on extrava
gant pretensions of Spanish officials In
the last century, and Involving the trans
fer of large numbers of British subjects,
who have for many years enjoyed the
settled rule of the British colony, to a na
tion of different race and language,
whose political system Is subject to fre
quent disturbance and whose institu
tions as yet too often afford very Inade
quate protection to life and properly.
No issue of this description has ever
been Involved In the questions which
Great Britain and the United States
have consented to submit to arbitration,
and her majesty's government are con
vinced that in similar circumstances the
government of the United States would
be equally os firm in declining to enter
tain proposals of such a nature.”
MEANS A REVOLUTION.
Process for Making Tubular Forms From
Hot Metal Ingots.
Washington, Dec. 17.—An epoch In the
process of metal working as Indicated in
the judgment of United States Consul
General Mason at Frankfort In the devel
opment in Germany of a process of mak
ing tubular forms directly from a hot
metal ingot, confined in a mold, into
which a suitable shaped steel mandrel is
driven by hydraulic pressure.
The process is so much superior to tu
bular forms as ordinarily constructed
and is so economical that the German
government has required all steel shells
for guns to be made in this way. Cannon
tubes up and beyond 6 Inches caliber are
cheaply and speedily produced. Copper
tubes of ordinary sizes and any length up
to 20 feet, and any desired thickness, are
turned out, and Mr. Mason predicts that
the new process will revolutionize ma
chinery construction in making it pos
sible and economical to substitute tubes
for solid axles, shafting, driving rods
and other parts. I
SENATE AND JOUSE PLEASED
Mr. Cleveland’s Message Is Grat
ifying to Both Parties.
REPUBLICANS ESPECIALLY
Mr. Crisp Wanted $100,000 Appropriated
^-mmcdiatelv, as Requested.
J_
V
TH^iRST PARTISAN DEBATE OCCURS
/ —
4' lew Cut cf Mr. Cannon's Amendment
A to the Rules Providing lor the Ap
pointinent of Three Comniii
') tecs on Elections.
Washington, Dec. 17.—The proceedings
of the house today were enlivened by a
partisan debate growing out of Mr. Can
non's amendment to the rules providing
for the appointment of three committees
on elections. In support of the amend
ment Mr. Cannon spoke of the great pre
ponderance of contests from the south
and quoted allegations that notwith
standing the repeal of federal election
laws fraud still existed in the elections
in that part of the country.
Mr. Crisp, democrat, nf Georgia, led
the opposition to the amendment, declar
ing that tlie effect of its adoption would
work injustice to democratic eontestees;
that there was nothing in the history of
the republican party to warrant the as
sumption that election contests would be
decided by this house upon any other
than partisan grounds. Propositions to
amend the amendment were made, but
were all rejected, and after four hours’
debate the proposition was agreed to.
Mr. Cannon introduced the resolution
discussed yesterday in the speaker's
room, amending the rules so as to provide
for the appointment of three committees
on election of nine members each, to be
.known as 1, 2 and 3 respectively, and in
creasing the membership of other com
mittees. Certain changes in the rules,
made necessary by the increases in com
mittees and membership since the Fifty
first congress, were also proposed. Ail
ol' the changes were agreed to by unani
mous consent except those relating to
the committees of elections.
Mr. Cannon explained the necessity for
the resolution. All of the eontestees, he
said, were democrats; twenty-two of the
contestants were republicans, eight pop
ulists, one an independent democrat
and one a fusionist. This latter classifi
cation aroused an audible smile all over
the floor.
Mr. Crisp, democrat, of Georgia, led
the opposition to the proposition to In
crease the number of committees on
elections. What was there, he asked, in
the history of the republican party to
Justify the assertion that election' con
tests would be decided upon their mer
its? He referred to the action of the
house In the Fifty-first congress In elec
tion cases, and had the clerk read from
the Record the proceedings in the Miiler
Elllott case, from South Carolina, where
the contestant was seated without de
bate, on the reading of the report of the
committee on elections, and when he had
been sworn In "these Judicially minded
gentlemen," said Mr. Crisp, "demanded
that the next case be called; and,” ha
continued, “if the cases had been on the
calendar, so that they might be consider
ed, I have no doubt that the ‘Judicial’
majority would have voted to unseat ev
ery man on this side of the house.”
An interruption by Mr. Walker led to a!
colloquy between him and Mr. Crisp, in
which the history of "counting a quo
rum” in the Fifty-first congress was
brought under discussion.
Mr. Crisp was made the target for a
volley of questions by several republican
members respecting the action of the
democrats in the Fifty-first congress. Mr.
Boutelle asked if he thought the demo
crats did right In retiring from the house
bodily In order to obstruct the considera
tion of public business.
Mr. Crisp—I believe they were justified
in proceeding In any lawful way to pre
vent the consummation of the outrages
proposed by the republicans, and the
people of the country evidently took the
same view,for they reversed the majority
in the next house, giving the democrats
150 majority. (Applause.)
Further along the results of the elec
tion of 1804 were the subject of repartee
between the two gentlemen. Mr. Crisp
said he read somewhere that the gen
tleman from Maine (Mr. Boutelle) con
sidered the result as a vindication of his
course in regard to Hawaii.
Mr. Boutelle—The gentleman from
Georgia certainly cannot claim that It
was a vindication of his course on the
Hawaiian matter.
Mr. Boutelle them caused general
laughter by assuming a serious air and
saying: "By the way, before the gen
tleman from Georgia proceeds would he
kindly yield to me for a few minutes for
some reflections In regard to Hawaii?”
The ex-speaker did not comply with the
request, but said there was a message
from the president regarding the Venezu
elan frontier question on the speaker’s
desk and this republican house, because
of a partisan debate projected by the
gentleman from Illinois (Cannon), could
not take time to have it read.
Mr. Hulick asked was not the delay re
ally due to the absence of the president
duck hunting?
Without answering the question Mr.
Crisp said the message should be read,
adding: "It is a frank, manly defense of
the Monroe doctrine.” (Applause.)
Mr. Dalzell, republican, of Pennsylva
nia. replied to Mr. Crisp, and the debate
was continued by Mr. Bartlett of New
York and Mr. Johnson of Indiana.
jjr. nancy oi 1 pxas asuni ivii. cunuuii
If he would consent to modify Ills resolu
tion so as to provide that the members
of the proposed election committees
should take a special oath.
Mr. Cannon replied that long observa
tion as a lawyer had satisfied him that
a man who would lie when the truth was
called for would swear to It.
The debate was further participated In
by Messrs. Wheeler of Alabama. Milliken
of Maine, Lacey of Iowa and Powers of
Vermont.
Pending an arrangement for closing
debate several amendments were pro
posed. one by Mr. Terry of Arkansas,
proposing to allow six hours debate in
the house on each side.
This was defeated by a vote of y»as 51,
nays lfH, several contestees being ex
cused from voting.
The original amendment to the rules
offered by Mr. Cannon was adopted with
out a division.
The message on the Venezuelan boun
dary was then laid before the house and
read by the clerk. When that portion
(ContinuedonS’ourth Page.)