(Continued from first page.)

(b) Policy risks war unnecessarily.- (1) Active interference in the boundary dispute is not demanded by our interests.- (x) Particular territory claimed by Great Britain is of no importance to us. G. S. Boutwell in Boston Herald, Feb. 2, 1896; F. S. Woolsey in Forum XX, 712 (Feb. 1896); O. S. Strauss, ibid, pp. 718-719; C. L. Rice, ibid, 723,- (y) No danger that this case will furnish a precedent for further advances dangerous to us by Great Britain.- (x) This advance (if advance it is) is under a bona fide boundary dispute which existed before the British conquest of Dutch Guiana in 1814: Maps in Harvard, Boston Public and Athenxum libraries of dates 1657-1814.- (1) British claims have not been progressively extended: Venezuelan Memorandum in U. S. Senate Ex. Does. 50th Cong. 1st Session Vol. 11. No. 226, pp. 23-37, Venezuela Memorandum in Foreign Relations of U. S. 1894 pp. 812-840.- (B) No other bona fide boundary dispute involving important territory is possible,- (y) The whole idea of British advances hostile to U. S. is preposterous.- (A) No territory gained by such advances could compensate for the hostility of the U. S.

II. The President's message is bad as to its manner of laying down the policy for this particular case.- (a) Risk of war is unnecessarily increased.- (1) Threat of war in advance of commission's finding served no purpose.- (x) War could have been threatened after the finding: A. Carnegie in No. Am. Rev. Vol. 162 p. 135 (Feb. 1896).- (2) Threat of war in advance made peacable accommodation more difficult.- (x) Made it harder for England to yield: C. F. Adams in Boston Herald, Jan. 12, 1896; Harper's Weekly, Dec. 28, 1895, p. 1232; ibid, Jan. 11, 1896, p. 26; Senator Wolcott in Cong. Rec. p. 980 (Jan. 22, 1896).- (y) Inflamed public opinion: G. S. Boutwell ut supra.

III. The President's message was bad in its effects upon future diplomatic policy.- (a) Future relations with American States.- (1) Will tend to place us in an attitude of supervision over them: Boston Herald, Dec. 18, 1895; Nation LXI, pp. 437 (Dec. 19, 1895) and 459 (Dec. 26, 1895); Woolsey in Forum XX p. 712 (Feb. 1890); Rice, ibid, p. 729.- (x) Message is commonly held to imply a broad doctrine of supervision.- (y) A doctrine of this kind, once thought to be enunciated is adhered to and amplified by the people. Monroe Doctrine.- (2) This attitude of supervision is bad.- (x) Will involve us in unnecessary embroilments.- (a) American states will be encouraged by our attitude to engage in difficulties with European powers: G. S. Boutwell, ut supra; Nation, LXI, p. 455 (Dec. 26, 1896); Senator Sewall in Cong. Rec. p. 868 (Jan. 20, 1896).- (b) Future relations with Great Britain.- (1) Feelings of hostility and distrust greatly fostered.- (x) These were strong enough already as is shown by-(a) Response to message: Pub. Op. Dec. 26, 1895 (pp. 841-843); Rice in Forum XX pp. 725-726 (Feb. 1896).- (c) Future foreign relations generally.- (1) Feeling in favor of jingoistic policy everywhere and always strengthened.- (x) This was strong enough already as is shown by -(x) General condemnation of Cleveland's foreign policy before Dec. 1895.- (b) Response to message: Pub. Op. ut supra.

IV. The President's message was bad in its general effects upon civilization.- (a) It tends to strengthen the war spirit.- (1) Readiness shown to think of war: Nation LXI, p. 458 (Dec. 26, 1895).- (2) General appeal to bellicose feeling: Senator Walcott in Cong. Rec. p. 976 (Jan. 22, 1896).- (b) Tends to pervert standards of national honor and greatness.- (1) Insistance on immediate forcible resistance to "anything like an insult," as a test of national honor: C. E. Norton in Forum XX, p. 649-651 (Feb. 1896); Wm. James in Cong. Rec. p. 461 (Dec. 31, 1895); Nation, LXI, pp. 420-421 (Dec. 12, 1895); and ibid p. 458 (Dec. 26, 1895).