The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-01-03

close any canals railroads which might be
Now whether Great Britain was in the occupation of
Ruatan al the date CT the convention by good or bad
s O that ns The have
been different had the question arisen between her and
the State Honduras The question between the United
States and Great Britain however, Is the validity
her title butn matter what have BEEN whether
she has not agreed to her under this
tlenot what was the state Of things before but what
she agreed should become after the conclusion Of the
convention Still out OF deferense to tbs British state
which contends that the British title good TO
this island conclusion Of the convention, is but
proper examine the which this claim was
| founded.
Ancient possession Is invoked to sustain this claim,
and said that lit is well known that [in l742 the
English formally settled at Ruaan;" but Ia reply,
donec. We informed by Reefs Cyclopeda, published
in London in 1919, that the English in the year l742
formed settlement here lin Rustan) for the purpose OF
carrying on the cg1ood trade, but it WAS soon aoan-
| doned."
| In answer TO TIE map published by Jeariss in
| l7ee, cited by Lerd Clarendon, it may be observed
| that there is another copy Of the very same
Wap the sh s Ruasn is MT esonsS an
possession. At ,he date If this map, re- than bali
century ago the Of that portion tito o. AmsFs s Sa
published at London in ISL By James . wyd SesTa
Islands with the adjacent coasts Of Yucatan. Honduras,
Carcass &C., be four in the British Museum, i
Of much higher authority and upon It's "a Rustan aud
same vie. presen ed by he author former
nap of The West Indies and Bahama islands," &c, pub
4
| II may also be confidently asserted well known
historical fsct that The English tie occupation
bey abandoned it Immediately thsreaser IN obedience to
that treaty. Brooks General Gazetteer, pabished at
LoLdon IN 1852 distinctly state this fact 1t says, This
beauti nj island par tally covered with wood was once
in possession of the English who fortified its excellent
hafeor but abaneonc it when they wihdrew from the
Geography. pabhed in London in 1851 aud 1852, de.
scrbes it IS island of the north coast Of Central
America I" formerly belonging to the English" g Near
/
erected by the English during their former
this island cease be spanish and become English i
is admitted by Captain Henderson, officer Of the Bri
H aduras sn authority which will net be disputed, that
it was sin Spanish island in 1904 The next we hear
is that the possession of Honduras in 1885,
whilst confeder alton Of the Central American States
still nuee exist in that mot in 1888,
as in the former satement) captured from that state
The follouing extract from Crows ''Gospel in Central
America an able and interesting work prepared ,Isr
gives correct account Of the tranacisn. The author
says in 1885, The only notable breach upon an
good order the seizure the island Of Ruatan in the
Bay Of Honduras by authorities of the neghborpg
British settlement. But upon complaint by the federal
theoretically disaowed by his government. though it
has since been accay repeated in precisely the same
there is snoher evidence similar character in the
| possession of Mr. Buchanan but as II proceeds from
American sources it is best to le the iacs esPe
sta ,meat rest the authority Of British author
Of highly respectable character The author then pro
and annexation in 1884, cenouncing it as an
| Ievolutis NJ
| Lord Clarendon ia his statement admits that this
island and that OF Bonseca have doubtless been at
reus times left unoccupd and at others claimed held
by other powers Gays is certain that in 1888
1889 and 1s4o (it ought TO have been 1si Great B
tain not only asserted her right 10 the same but declared
| her intent 10 main ain that right by force"
That IL in substance Bri ain captured this
Island from Honduras in 1884, and expelled the troops of
that State ON it ard now maintains that this capture
10 hat Grnaf VIC
claim this isl.nd by TIE right Of conquest because the
capture made in time Of profound peace She can
", org and cutra ge into The foundation of British
title OF the msrner in which the seizne Of Ruatan
| by the superintendent Of Belize in 1S4l, Hr
| Grove speaks in the isliowir language =
As he expected, Colonel McDcnaa found only inhsbi
he . II s@a % a
Re Of snd b o @ in h ss
however he be had The mo,a
ns ufs IL ns due
The rr reye III sss uSA precautions and
The British statement contests the principle that the
Central American provinces having by successful
luon become ncerelee staes snceeeaed within their
respective limits 10 al the territorial rights of Spain.
As the statement presents reason for denying this
principle it i rot deemed necessary 70 assign reasons in
lis support in addition TO those Of The former American
statement The principle cannot, 1t is conceived be
eessfuy controvered. We're any third power inter-
pose and seize that portion of territory which the
cIated colony defend all powers might exercise
the right AID thus the utmost confusion injus
| n,
France have taken possession Of another portion of
toneuras. and the u tied states OF part of San SALIVA
dor arc thus successful revolution instead ct proving
benefit to these who had asserted and maintained their
iDdepepc ence, would give Tise to general scramble
among the nations for proportion of the spoil.
But the British statement not only denies that the
treaty with Mexico, of the 26th december, 1925, is q
recogI iiop of the principle asserted, but mainan that
At the date Of this treaty Grea, Britain was in pos
session for special purposes of the instruct Of Belize,
which she had acquired from Spain under the treaty
| have olicite
and obtained from Mexico an agreement that British sub
cts SHOULD not re distur 1ed in The enjoyment OF this
unless upon the principle that Mexico had
inherited the veregn rights Of old Spain the Belize
settlement Had she then intended t. claim this settle
sought and obtained Mexico a continuance OF ner
special license The idea of absolute asking
| lar manner, from person in whom he recognze,
lille, would be, 10 the least novelty IL not ab
su6iy Greatly to Der credit and q cd faith however
Great Britain ag to hold nn.er Mexico in the very
sms manner me had held under old SPAIN and thus
How does The Bri h st.tement snswer this argument
Itssys that 'he treaty "simpy pulse. that British
cent than under Mexico when spanish province" And
sit was natural ia recognizing the Independence OF
Mexico that Great Britain should make such stipua-
ton" 1t certainly natural that she should do this
but only the prI cple that Mexico might otherwise
have asserted her rights the Of old SPAIN
and at any moment have terminated the license.
The British statement observes that since the
of the slsuo in 1871 attempt has been made by Hon.
duras to capture IT, and that the eomman dant of
Ifuxo, when two three occasions complaints had
been made T. h for redress gnst the set'ers of Rn
tan lad referred hem to Belize teliog them that the
island WAS British. But what inference be drawn
from lhese facts
Honduras from her ieebleness has comp PEELED to
sunni and 70 resort 10 the only NEEDY viii h the weak
lave against the powerful Complaints and proteta
against the act which she has ceased 70 make
hnve been her only resource How ridcuous IL would
have been for her 70 attempted u re-capture this
island ir,m Great Britain And the commsndant of
Tiuxiilo would matter OF course, refer pl4qans
against the settlers in Rua az to Great Brlia IL
dress-the power in possession, ard the ooy p,ser
In existence which could apply the remedy.
If, therefore, the question defending had been between
Great Britain and Honduras and the pin. TO be Dc.
cieed by an impartial umpire were which Of the two
Powers held the best title 20 the island there could DE
but little doubt IL Is conceived, what would be mis- de
csn Bat, before remarked the ques N Is not be
tween these parties, but between Great Btitsn ami
the United States Us eec does depend upon the
validity IvsliSity OF the British u lie, but wbe her
G.. y - = Il IL