The Algona Upper Des Moines from Algona, Iowa on December 25, 1895 · Page 6
Get access to this page with a Free Trial

The Algona Upper Des Moines from Algona, Iowa · Page 6

Publication:
Location:
Algona, Iowa
Issue Date:
Wednesday, December 25, 1895
Page:
Page 6
Start Free Trial
Cancel

j,4."!L: ^tl1"?i_ *>*• *,•>'' t'' lr '*?V^#»'*ii " «'"''*-' 'V-v' ' t 'j >;, .,1 ' *r," *' r ' . l • ""/•*, % i j- 5 * 4 ,', "' C "f-" 'jb/^k '*!'**; JivXV"'" '"'Is^fT'"' ftaptea ttf ihtftrfitioifal ftSf tfitf tbefntftgnt JiS if f>efejided Aifeed toh the JBet*eea the Cdctl'lfle S!eidfgeacJr fcdtssiaUslOH Assbclatloh Service.) PttSSldeht CJleVelaad sent to 'oottgre"ss Biessage oh the dispute on Tuesday last: To the cohgrress; lb toy annual mes- eage- addressed to the congress on the M instant, I called attention to the pending boundary controversy between Great Britain and the republic of , rights, - ftetiWed dlaifas. f*6t Is .this i£rib«sd in . the ferttisfi Fepm . pf-iriie minister not -admitting that the e IS figpflc'abKJ ttf pfg&enl states: "1ft dtelaflftg tliat 4 -l resist any stiCtt en* ' ^ TJriU&a States tefpHee" if It wars eohte'fflftlaled, P?esi- Tdeht'Mefrlfoe Afiouted a policy whioh re- feelVed Wie entire Sympathy of the feng-" Hah fcv£ttim<ifit orihat date/' H8 fur* tKer deelar?sj "Though the language of President Mdhfoe Is dll-ected to the attalhnient 6f objects Which most Englishmen woUld ag^e to be salutary, it is ifhpos- to admit that they" have been ih- PRESIDENT CLEVELAND. , ezuela and recited the substance of a ji representation made by this government to her Britannic majesty's government, suggesting reasons why such dispute should be submitted to arbitration for settlement an^l inquiring whether ' 'It would be so submitted. The answer of the British government, which was Ihen awaited, has since been received, and, together with the dispatch to which ,'' ft is a reply, is hereto appended. Such - reply is embodied in two communications addressed by the British prime v minister to Sir, Julian Pauncefote, the - British ambassador at this capital. ' - It will be seen that one of these com- munications is devoted exclusively to 'observations upon the Monroe doctrine and claims that in the present instance •• IB,' new and strange extension and devel- .opment of this doctrine is insisted upon toy the United States, that the reasons , Justifying an appeal to the doctrine 'enunciated by President Monroe are generally inapplicable to a controversy "involving the boundary line between Great Britain and Venezuela. Without attempting extended argu- jnenta 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 impor- " <a.nt 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 - cannot become obsolete while our republic endures. If the balance of power - {s justly a cause for jealous anxiety iamong'the governments of the old world •- and. a subject for our absolute non-interference, none the less Is an observance of the Monroe doctrine of vital concern to our people and their government. ! Applicable to Present Time. 1 Assuming, therefore, that we may '.properly insist upon this doctrine without regard to "the state of things in which we live," or any changed condi- , tions 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 ttyat 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 "dan- 'gerous to our peace and 9afety," and it .can ( make no difference whether the European system is extended by an ad- 'Vance of frontier or otherwise. 1* 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 ernbody any principle'of international law which "is founded on the general consent of na» tjons,'' and that "no statesman, how ever eminent, and no nation, however *s« /i, powerful, are competent to insert into Ttf.i'!',fjie code of international law a novel ifi,' principle which was never recognized %«> •iff?:' sefibed by any adequate authority in the code dfjhterhational law," Again h§ eaysi "They (her ftiajepty's goVetti* teeht) fUUy cbncur with the view whibh President Monroe apparently entertained, that any disturbance of the ex« isting territorial aistributloh in that hemisphere by any ft'esh acquisitions oil the part of any European state would be a highly Inexpedient change." In the belief that the doctrine for which we cohtend was clear and definite] that it involved our safety and welfare; that it was fully applicable to our present conditions and to the state of the world's progress, ahd 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 ns 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. Declined "by Grout Britain. It will be seen from the correspondence herewith -submitted that, this proposition has been declined by the British government, upon grounds which under 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 antV to the magnanmity of ono of the great powers of the world; nnd 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 tho 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 r 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 tho congress make an adequate appropriation for the expenses of a 'commission to bo appointed by the executive, who shall make the necessary investigation and report upon the matter with the least possible delay. Must Jflglit If Nooessnry. 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 1 responsibility incurred and keenly realize all tho Consequences that may follow. I am, nevertheless, firm in my conviction that while it is a grievous thing to contemplate the great English-speaking peoples of the world as'bping otherwise than friendly competitors -in the onward march of civilization arid strenuous and worthy rivals in all th'e arts of peace, there is no calamity which a great nation can invite which equals that which follows a supine submission to wrong and injustice, and the consequent loss of national self-respect and honor, beneath which is shielded and defended a people's safety and greatness. GBOVER, CLEVELAND. ff fibl, the Wilted §tatef i If «ol Jndfl.lMaft all, thttl'I , nifenial interest hi - the Uffalfs bf the" cbatttrtes jMififcB. atta-te ptfsh-its IfttWi- tion itiHnet WoUl'd b"6 ttnbtcolnffig and Undlg- hlfled, And tiight well Subject it to' the chirgS bt Impertinent tteddlifig Vfth affairs "Will Which It has not" ftSiittul e&ftcefn, „ „ "ttn the bthcr hand, If any.,sfleh Hglli tftd duty e*lst, their tfue BierfclSS arid discharge *ill fiot permit ot ahy actloii that shall fftbt be eftcfeht, ftitd that, if the p&1*6f 'of thcS United States is Inadequate,' shall ,'hbt result in the accomplishment of the end In jrtewr tho <iuestibft thuS presented^ 48 a mattil of principle ahd regafd being had to the settled national to! Icy, does Hot Seem difficult bf BO> lutloBi Yet thfe inotnentbUB practical fcofl- seduences dependent upon Jit detefidlnatlbn i-edUire that it shbtild be carefull? considered ahd that the grounds ot the" conclusion, af- flved at sh6uld be fully ahd frankly stated." the secretary lays it down as a cah&n bf international law that a nation may justly interpose in a contrbvefsy' between bthdf nations Whenever "what is r dbfte bf proposed by any of the parties primarily concerned Is a serious and direct menace to its own integrity, tranquillty, or welfare." The propriety of the rule when applied in good faith wilt not be Questioned in ahy quarter, though he says it has been given a wide scope 'and too often made a cloak for schemes bt wanton spoliation and aggrandisement. This leads him up to an elaborate review of tho Monroe doetrtho and Secretary Oiney, stating that tho proposition that America is in tto part open to colonization has long been con-, ceded, says that our present concern is With tho other practical application of the Mon-i roe doctrine, viz.! That America non-intervention in Buropo necessarily implied European nbn-intfirventlon In American affairs, tho disregard of which by any European power is to be deemed an act .of unfriendliness toward tho United States. Europe Is 'with a single, important excep- tlbn" committed to tho mbnarchlal principle, America is devoted to the' idea that ovory people has an Inalienable:'right ot self'gov- ernmcnt. Any European.control of our interests is necessarily both, incongruous and injurious, and if the forcible Intrusion of Eurppoan powers in American politics is to bo deprecated, the resistance .must come from the Ifuited States; .the only power with 'foffi sticte -ft fe'olifbe ate ndfte the less 6al beestf&e' ttdt imfte'dtately imffHrSeiit iti tthy 1 SUecinc: Sage. *h& tftitted States " e«,this continent ahd, its uc** , 0 «u..r. ,»»»., me adVafttagSS df this stipettoftty afS at ones' -imperiled if trie 1 principle be ftrt« mitted that EUfbpeah powers may <_ Vert •AHieflcatt States' ihto colonies thelf d*H, I'he fof-inciple could be eaL.., availed of and' afly poWef doing" 8d inittiediately. secure a base of / operations against us, ahd it is hot ittcohdeiVabie that the struggle "•"*'" going on fdr the acquisition of might be transferred to South _a< The weaker countries Would be absorbed and South America would be partitibned between European Would Bo Disastrous. The consequences tb the Uhited States would be disastfous, Loss of tfestige" Would be the least of theni, Ouf own rivals in peace, as Well as enemies in Wai-, Would be located at bur vet-y doors, We rhUst be armed to the teeth, convert the flower of our male population into soldiers and sailors, and thus annihilate a large share of the productive energy of the nation. Our Just apprehensions are hot tb be allayed by suggestions of the good will 6f European powers toward us, for the people of the united States have learned in the school of experience to what extent tho relations of states depend, not upon sentiment or principle, but upon selfish interests. They will not soon forget that In their hour of distress all their anxieties and burthens were aggravated by the possibility of demonstrations against their national life on the part of powers with whom they had long maintained the most harmonious relations. They have yet in mind that France seized upon the apparent opportunity of our civil war to set up a monarchy In Mexico, and had France and Great Britain held important South American possesslons-to work from, and benefit, the temptation to destroy our predominance by furthering: our dls- „ tts ftffBfi, J%Mt6i* Mtfftft WtOfof ftSd Wm*Wmt»M.jm* IS feS tefttaratea ftflftlftttfici if Weft <& as will e«aW« hlffl 16 Jaf/the *i*I8 before fcofcgtaki ft-htt fiSSt 4S«if4i jaalSage'. Al t8 frfSfdl fcdflltallsbu'ry aftstfe'ft SeTbrekry oinej* Jfc tw6 notes, both of-flato- «t Htlf m Tfte first Ts devoted entirely" tb A f§pl# tS'fftat of the tt'dtfi relating U the. tfonfoS doctrine. Which, he 'says, has nev«* bfifofe tliett'ln the Subject 6t a Writtefi cdiaffiuhi«M(6h the tfnite'd States to another gdterfittenl, al' though it bits largely., influenced American fofelgH ttUtibta. Lord Salisbury' says that this doctrine h&8 undefgoffe a "hbtable do- velopffient" slnee its enunciation by Pfesl* dent Mbhroe, Which had bflglnalljc received the entire Syiflpathy bf the English govefn- fteht. But the dangers apprehended by Pres-> Ideht Mbfifba, L6fd Sallsbufy says,, have no relation to the 6&h'ditlon& bl the present day, Wheh there Is no dattget bf a holy alliance 8f. bf attempts at BUfbpeah Cblbhlsatlofi bt Airieflca. Great Britain is imposing ho "sys-' te&" upon Venezuela, nor concerning herself With Venezuela*! political Institutions. The disputb ever a boundary has nothing to do with any of the questions dealt With ttf Monroe, the latter did not claim for the United .Stated the "nbvel prerogative" of setting a frontier difference of this Iclttd, nor did he seek to establish a protectorate ovei- Meklco of the Central American states. So, If the tfhlted States will not control the conduct of these communities it cannot undertake to protect them from the consequences attaching tb their misconduct. Arbitration Is nbt free from defects, and the claim bf a third natibn tb impose It on two Interested nations cannot bo reasonably justified, and has no foundation in the law of nations. ' Declines, to Accept Mdnroe Doctrine, Lord Salisbury expressly declines to ,be understood as accepting the Monroe doc- .trlne. International law being founded on the general consent of nations no statesman and no nation, however, powerful, . can. inject n novel principle not acceptable to any ' other government, and Secretary Olney's principle that "American questions are for American decision, (unsustalned by Monroe)" cannot be sustained by international law. The United States cannot affirm that Its Interests are concerned in American states becausn they are American, no more than if they were in Japan or China. . Monroe's language was never admitted to bo In.ter- MAP SHOWING GREAT BRITAIN'S ENCROACHMENTS IN VENEZUELA. the Long' f4 .before and which ha? not since been " 'ftctjepted ' by the government of any ^..,. kther cpuntry," 'fi, 5 -'.',) 'JPraoticaiy, the principle for which we >f£. joonteod has peculiar if not exclusive tv'oretetjon to tfce United states, it may iUot" have beep admitted in so many .. ,,*yorijB to the code of international law, ' " ' since, in international councils, OLNBI'S NOTE OF Summarizes the Situation in Standing Dispute, Accompanying the president's message is the correspondence on the subject. It starts with Secretary Olney's now celebrated note reopening the negotiations with Great Britain looking to the arbitration of the boundary dispute, bears date of July 20 last, arid is addressed to Mr. Bayard, The secretary begins by stating that the president has given much anxious thought to the subject and has not reached a conclusion without a lively sense of its great importance, as well as of the serious possibility involved m any action now tp l>e tafeen, He then comments on the Jong duration of the boundary dispute, the "indefinite" claims of both parties, and "the C9ntinuous growth of the undetoed BrJU Ish/'claims, 1 ' the fate of ' the various attempts at arbitration of the controversy, and the part In the matter heretofore taKen by the United States. Jfe shows that the British claims since the Sehomburg -line was run have moved, the frontier of British Guiana farther and farther to the westward of the line proposed toy kord Aberdeen Jn 1S84. The secretary then summarises the* situs; Jiqn at the beginning gf this year to be a? fpjjows: I, The title of territory of Indefinite but eonfeagedJy.very large extent is In between. $rea.t gr|ta{n and Yene• T Lord Salisbury 's(extreme)line,18SO. Lines discussed but not proposed. luinniiinuiWM Alteration of Sohomburgk line. Original Schomburgk line, 181], Lord Granville's line, 1831. Lord Aberdeen's line, 1844. Scnor Roja's line. i • Lord Bosebery's line, 1880. booooooc Senor Fortique line, 1SW. •4 4 out »+i kino °,' Consejo-Viso. v British occupation, 1884. , Point o£ collision, 1834, , 2. -The atspai-ity i« 9trengtij ef the , ,QStablisft her cjajmg. on y thresh pea.ce, | uj methods. v - ' * existed for half. ' strength adequate to the exigency. There can be but,one answer to the question whether, the safety and welfare of the United States are so concerned with the maintenance of the independence of every American state as against 'any European power as to justify arid require our interposition whenever that independence is endangered. Precedents of tho Bute. After quoting from the precedents of the validity of the Monroe dogtrine the Spcrtetary says; It is manifest that a rule which has been openly and uniformly acted upon by the executive branch, of the government for seventy years must have had the sanction of congress. Nor if the practical resUlts of the rule be sought for is the record either meager or obscure, Its first effect was indeed momentous and far-reaching, It was the component factor in the emancipation of South America, and to it the independent states of that region are largely indebted for their very existence. Since then the most striking single achjeve- jnent to be credited to the rule Is the evacuation of Mexico by the French. But we are also indebted to it for the Clayton'Eulwer treaty, neutralizing any interoceanlc canal across Central America and excluding Great Britain from any dominion there, It has been used in the case of Cuba as justifying the pp- sltlcm that while the sovereignty of Spain wUl be respected the island will not be permitted to become the possession of any other European power. It, has been influential in bringing abput the definite rellnquisbment of any sup- poped protectorate by Great Britain over the Mosquito coast. Ajitprlvmiu Mwst P«cWp American Quea> Uons, "American questions, it is said, are for American decision," says Secretary Oiney, and then applying (his doctrine in the reverse, he says; "If all JSurope were suddenly to fly to arms over the fate gf THrKey, would jt nbt be prgpofterpus tfcat any ' fln.4 ~ rnemberment might have been irresistible. From that grave peril we were saved in the past and may be saved .again in the future through the operation of the sure but silent voice of the doctrine proclaimed by President Monroe. Britain's Claim Expanded. His clear and unmistakable position on the Monroe doctrine laid down, Secretary Oiney goes at some length into the Venezuelan dispute, affirming that the British claim in two years apparently has expanded some 33,000 square miles, so as to command the mouth of tho Orinoco, and dismissing as valueless tlis contention that Great Britain's possession of Venezuela gives it any right to be treated as an American state. Ho shows Where Great Brltan. has arbitrated other boundary disputes and declares that it in effect gaya to Venezuela: "You are not strong enough to get anything by force and we wPrt't arbitrate unless ypu first give .up a part of tho territory." This, ho says, amounts to invasion and conquest, and our duty is summed up as folIpws: "In these ciroumstances ' the~duty~of~tlie Invoked, in th,e miseries and burdens of jth,e contest? What hays the states of to So w}t& the y$s,t armies impoyejishea by TOTS, in whlefc they - Appear? to him unniUtakable , Qre^t Britain's aasertipo of tp the disputed territpryj qpnjUlned with her vp tl»»5 MHe Jj»vesfjga,te4, bp» apprpprjatjoo <# th? territory t » ot , t9 F«}t«»t SWS'slYe Wtt» (ha,t the transaction Wll) b.p reg§r4e4 »9 il t« tb§ iwterests qt -tftf p-eopJe ef jfee ta ita" national lap, and the danger of such admission is shown by the "strange development" which the doctrine has received at Secretary Olney's hands. A fair inference, from Mr; Olney's arguments, Lord Salisbury says, is that the union between Great Britain and her colonies in America is "inexpedient and unnatural," something disclaimed by Monroe and emphatically denied by her majesty's government and the American people subject to the crown, Concurring in Monroe's views that a disturbance of territorial distributibn in the western hemisphere would be inexpedient, it does not admit this to be international law and cannot accept the doctrine that the United States is entitled to demand arbitration of territorial disputes between states, In conclusion, Lord Salisbury says that he hopes that the difficulty, made moro difficult by Venezuela's inconsiderate action in breaking diplomatic relations, will be adjusted by a reasonable arrangement at an early date, Declines to Arbitrate, Lord Salisbury's second note deals entirely with the boundary dispute pn its merits, beginning with the statement that Great Britain, does not recognize that any other country lias a material interest in tho controversy, yet makes the statement in this fashion because, owing to the rupture of diplomatic relations, It is not otherwise possible to communicate it to the Venezuelan government, Lord Salisbury asserts that Seoertary Oiney, acting on an ex-parte presentation of the case by Venezuela, ha? fallen Into much misapprehension, He enters into an elaborate history pf the British claim, founded on tho Dutch ,cessiop, tells how the celebrated Sohomburs line was run, of msny concessions offered by Great Britain to Venezuela to reach an. arrangement, and suggests that the Venezuelan insistence uppn the arbitration of the whole terri^ tory would bo paralleled by a refusal of Uveat Britain to arbitrate the Alaskan boundary Jlno, unless half of Alaska were thrown Into arbitration. ficcuo Fplio>v8 the Receipt of The president's message reached, the senate abqyt $;§0. Senator Morgan, phaJwian, pf the cpmtnittee 9n fpyeign relations, examined the. message' Q| the present m $ then njeYfiO, *9, go Jn.tP ex T oeutjve season, Jt wag yadepsteod thg,t JWPW, w&,s, t,0 diJ&Hes tft§ Yene*, ~~ luestfQD' - - -. senate reewtsiea It? th.e 1 neg^ -*»«.| «*v* fnents Weft *eferf^ td, fot-telfn FeWtloiiSi afed the ' 61 Washington special; tft 1 trie* I-- ... troversy thai haa 16d to unpleasaftt.fell tiohs With Briglaha IS as follows] '-' l i« Venezuela disputes the claim df Bruisll Ctuiana to any territory West of the.ESSk,, q'tiifao' river-a stream fUhnlfig° n6fth fftm^ the ts-eat watershed near the e^Uatdf ',"" emptylMg into the dattrlbeatt s6ai, SchoWbUrgk lihe 19 ill dfa irtegUlfti 1 —-g. SIR JULIAN PATJNCEFOT33. " (British Minister at Washington.) V 'fvfcjK, and south direction, including about 25,000 •&$ miles of territory. •{ >;ls. It is the tract in regard to which Lord ' $$ Salisbury declines arbitration. Still west('|f of the Schomburgk line is a tract of about" ,« the same extent claimed by Great Britain,vy*- the title to which the British premier ad-'fr mils Is somewhat doubtful and may 'bSJ open to arbitration. This statement show'SAj-wj the basis of the $80,000 claim for damages >''•*¥ against Venezuela. , ,' *"** The Urini, or, as it Is variously called, Yurunarl, country is located a'consider- :-f able distance west of tho Schomburgk'H'g line, within the territory, in regard to K*?I which the British would not reject arbi-",A tration. It appears that some members •/ '3, of the British colonial police force enter,"H ; this territory from time to time and are">"' J stationed at various points. Venezueian '' troops are also in the country In small ' numbers. In November, 1804, Sergeant '' Behrens and another member of the.-, colonial police named Baker encountered r j '-tfx near Urini river a squad of Venezuelan X™ soldiers and were arrested. They were, immediately released and personal apologies were made, which they refused to ac-\'- 4M cept. They reported the case to the Guiana"*'-Vf^ authorities and a report was made --*"•*-* them to the British government. " • - .-, v , Great Britain is not on speaking terms * with Venezuela, owing to the boundary"*dispute, but the German minister to Vene- ,' zuela Is in charge of such British inter- 'n-,>a ests as shall require attention, When the .,'"(",'M report of the arrest of the Guiana police' 1 f" inspectors was received in London the' I" British foreign minister formulated -his claim for damages and sent it to the German government at Berlin to be trans- 'i mitted to the German minister in Vene-i-' zuela. This circuitous method of doing V business accounts for the delay in the receipt of the claim by Venezuela. Its re-v jectlon appears to have been prompt and i'' decisive. If Venezuela had admitted the claim, even if the amount had not been enor- '' „,», mous, it would have been an admission .tJ-'fjM that the territory in dispute belonged toC : *m Great Britain and that the men had a -kM' 1 right to be In the place where they were' '""' arrested. But Venezuela claims that they were more trespassers. The whole ques->' tion of the title to the territory was involved. The amount of the claim for damages,'! even if the claim were Just In principle, < is outrageous. Some months ago three or ', four Americans in Guatemala were il^J'y legally arrested and held in 'custody'"j twelve days. The outrage led to a claim i for damages which was settled by Guate- "i mala for $300 in the case of each man ar-'jf rested, or $25 a day for his lost time. Hisf feelings were soothed by an apology. The! Guiana policemen were not detained ani hour by the Venezuelan soldiers and the" apology was made on the spot. They had". % ' no claim for lost time, as their wages'*); were not interrupted. The immense mulct'il demanded by Groat Britain, oven if there V Imd been just grounds for the claim; was f t outrageous and absurd, . . ? % i 1 The copious extracts quoted from Salisbury's letters by the president an ' <* - A POWERFUL FLEET. Ten Warships Dispatched to Vq»ezupij»t|J by Secretary Herbert, ;' ' '" Washington special: The secretary oi navy has ordered the following powerful to the coast of Venezuela: Admiral flagship, tho armored cruiser NDW ' Schley, 8,200 tons and 21 knots, c Ht 3-inch and twelve 4-inch guns; tho H , Indiana, Oapt, EJvans, pf 10 288 tons' auu'!j knots, carrying four 18-inch, eight 8-inph't four 6-inch guns; the battleship Maine, f- manQer Crpwnlnsbleld, pf Q.qsa tons' i' knots, carrying four 10-inch and sis guns; the battleship Tesas, Qapt. QJ 6,315 tons and 17 knots, carrying two and six 6-ineh guns; t}ie protected

What members have found on this page

Get access to Newspapers.com

  • The largest online newspaper archive
  • 11,200+ newspapers from the 1700s–2000s
  • Millions of additional pages added every month

Try it free