doing it. We aim to restore the farmer to his former political prestige as the balance-wheel of the nation... "The League will endeavor to spur the farmer to the performance of every political duty. It urges him, first of all, to attend the primaries of his party. Members of local and State Leagues are advised to select first the object on which there is the most unanimous demand, and spare no effort to accomplish it... Agree upon such a man for a Republican candidate, and another for the Democratic candidate. Then let the farmers go to the caucuses or primaries of their respective parties, getting out a big enough attendance to control the same and nominate their man. If the farmers succeed in securing their nominee in both parties, then let the election be conducted on party lines. But if only one farmer candidate secures a regular nomination, the members of the League should unite on him and elect him. . . The farmers' movement is by no means exclusively political in its scope and significance... ... It means the rapid accomplishment of a purpose, which all the national farmers' organizations have been approaching, and which has but recently been stated distinctly the federation of the farmers of America in a gigantic organization, to be known, perhaps, as the American Association of Agricultural Organizations. The purposes of this movement are social, economical, and educational, as well as political... Even the most conservative of the farmers' organs, the American Agriculturist, endorses the movement. The great scope and utility of such a combination is thus set forth by the Agriculturist: The Grange or Patrons of Husbandry, the Farmers' Alliance, with its northern and southern organizations, the Farmers' Mutual Benefit Association, the Patrons of Industry, not to mention several lesser societies, are each and all striving to advance the farmers' condition, socially, educationally, and financially. The Farmers' League supplements these orders by carrying the farmers' wants into actual politics - a field not usually touched upon by the other organizations, several notable instances excepted. Let us imitate the example of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, one of the simplest but most powerful levers for promoting scientific work. Form the American Association of Agricultural Organizations. Let its active board be composed of executive officers of the various national orders among farmers, including the American Association of Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Sta tions. This representative body could devise ways for general cooperation on all matters upon which the various orders could agree. Measures upon which it was impossible to harmonize the respective bodies would be left to them. Thus the individuality of the various orders would not be interfered with; they would all work together on subjects of common interest, each continuing its work in special lines in its own way. The farmers' uprising is yet crude and unshapen. It has genuine evils to combat. It has honesty of purpose to guide it. Its leaders are sincere and unselfish. That it will take a prominent part in shaping the immediate destinies of the American people, no one who has thoroughly investigated the movement can doubt. I venture to prophesy that its influence will be to the nation a blessing and not a curse. 210. THE CONSERVATION ACT Approved March 3, 1891, the act marks the development of sentiment against the exploitation of natural resources which was threatening to deprive further generations of essential raw materials. Statutes at Large of the United States, Vol. 26, part 2, 1095 1103 BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,.. SEC. 14. That none of the provisions... of this act shall be so construed as to warrant the sale of any lands belonging to the United States which shall contain coal or the precious metals, or any town site, or which shall be occupied by the United States for public purposes, or which shall be reserved for such purposes, . SEC. 24. That the President of the United States may, from time to time, set apart and reserve, in any State or Territory having public land bearing forests, in any part of the public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations, and the President shall, by public proclamation, declare the establishment of such reservations and the limits thereof. Approved, March 3, 1891. 211. THE VENEZUELA QUESTION 1. In Cleveland's message of December 9, 1891, the following extract serves as introduction to the critical phase of the Venezuela boundary controversy with Great Britain. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. 9, pp. 180-181. 2. OLNEY'S LETTER ON VENEZUELA. The following letter from the American Secretary of State to our Minister at Great Britain in connection with the Venezuela Question, states a very interesting extension of the Monroe Doctrine. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1895, part 1, pp. 545562. 3. LORD SALISBURY'S REPLY. Lord Salisbury's rejoinder to Olney's note, November 26, 1895. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1895, part 1, pp. 563567. 4. CLEVELAND'S MESSAGE ON VENEZUELA, DECEMBER 17, 1895. The following message on the part of President Cleveland brought the Venezuela Question to a crisis. The matter ended by Great Britain's concession of arbitration which, in the end, practically confirmed her claims. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol. 9, pp. 655-658. EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 9, 1891. I should have been glad to announce some favorable disposition of the boundary dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela touching the western frontier of British Guiana, but the friendly efforts of the United States in that direction have thus far been unavailing. This Government will continue to express its concern at any appearance of foreign encroachment on territories long under the administrative control of American States. The determination of a disputed boundary is easily attainable by amicable arbitration where the rights of the respective parties rest, as here, on historic facts readily ascertainable... Mr. Olney to Mr. Bayard. Washington, July 20, 1895. His Excellency THOMAS F. BAYARD, SIR: I am directed by the President to communicate to you his views upon a subject to which he has given much anxious thought and respecting which he has not reached a conclusion without a lively sense of its great importance as well as of the serious responsibility involved in any action now to be taken. It is not proposed, and for present purposes is not necessary, to enter into any detailed account of the controversy between Great Britain and Venezuela respecting the western frontier of the colony of British Guiana... The claims of both parties, it must be conceded, are of a somewhat indefinite nature. On the one hand Venezuela, in every constitution of government since she became an independent State, has declared her territorial limits to be those of the Captaincy General of Venezuela in 1810. Yet, out of "moderation and prudence," it is said, she has contented herself with claiming the Essequibo line— the line of the Essequibo River, that is to be the true boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana. On the other hand, at least an equal degree of indefiniteness distinguishes the claim of Great Britain. To the territorial controversy between Great Britain and the Republic of Venezuela,.. the United States has not been and, indeed, in view of its traditional policy, could not be indifferent... ... Venezuela has repeatedly brought the controversy to the notice of the United States, . . and has not ceased to solicit the services and support of the United States in aid of its final adjustment. These appeals have not been received with indifference and our Ambassador to Great Britain has been uniformly instructed to exert all his influence. in the direction of the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between Great Britain and Venezuela and in favor of arbitration of the boundary controversy... The important features of the existing situation, as shown by the foregoing recital, may be briefly stated. 1. The title to territory of indefinite but confessedly very large extent is in dispute between Great Britain on the one hand and the South American Republic of Venezuela on the other. 2. The disparity in the strength of the claimants is such that Venezuela can hope to establish her claim only through peaceful methods... 5. Great Britain, however, has always and continuously refused to arbitrate, except upon the condition of a renunciation of a large part of the Venezuelan claim and of a concession to herself of a large share of the territory in controversy. 6. By the frequent interposition of its good offices at the instance of Venezuela, by constantly urging and promoting the restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries, by pressing for arbitration of the disputed boundary, by offering to act as arbitrator, by expressing its grave concern whenever new alleged instances of British aggression upon Venezuelan territory have been brought to its notice, the Government of the United States has made it clear to Great Britain and to the world that the controversy is one in which both its honor and its interests are involved and the continuance of which it can not regard with indifference. The Monroe administration... did not hesitate to accept and apply the logic of the Farewell Address by declaring in effect that American non-intervention in European affairs necessarily implied and meant European non-intervention in American affairs... The Monroe administration, however, did not content itself with formulating a correct rule for the regulation of the relations between Europe and America. It aimed at also securing the practical benefits to result from the application of the rule. Hence the message just quoted declared that the American continents were fully occupied and were not the subjects for future colonization by European powers. To this spirit and this purpose, also, are to be attributed the passages of the same message which treat any infringement of the rule against interference in American affairs on the part of the powers of Europe as an act of unfriendliness to the United States... ... We are now concerned,.. only with that other practical application of the Monroe doctrine the disregard of which by an European power is to be deemed an act of unfriendliness towards the United States... The rule in question has but a single purpose and object. It |