Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-04-17
Who is Responsible

THE GAZETTE the single impression
that the responsibility of war will be
entirely with Russia. In other words,
that England is morally free from
blame in the affair. That the large
majority of Englishmen believe this
to be the case there can be no doubt,
but it would seem at least one dis
tinguished and outspoken Englishman
thinks differently. The Hon. John
Morley is a Radical member OF pariia-
ment; he is also editor-in-chies of the
Pail Mall Gazette, the most influential
and ibest.known afternoon paper in
Great Britain. The Pail Mall Gazette
of March 80 makes out very strong
case against England; it fearlessly
fiaunts a direct challenge in the face
OF the British government. Here is
what it says:
Considering the gravity of the dis
pute about the delimitation of the
Afghan frontier, it is of the highest
Importance that there should be no
confusion concerning the fundamental
facts which undeilie the whole con-
troversy. Now, we wish to make di-
rect appeal 1) to ministers on the one
hand and to the chiefs of the OPPOSE
ton on the OF, her, % to the editors of
the ,,times, Daily New, Standard,
Morning Post, Daily Telegraph, Sat
urday Review and Spectstor, ct hoe
gen u omne, and (3) to Sir Henry Raw
linsOn, Sir Richard Tempe, sir
Douglas Forsyth, and all other emil
nent authorities on Central Asian
questions, to answer II they can the
following statement of what, after
very careful examination of the whole
facts, we believe to be the absolute
truth about the Afghan frontier:
First and foremost there is, we take
1t, complete agreement amongst all OF
us that after an agreement has been
arrived at to refer the question of the
ownership of territory in dispute TO
the adjudication of a joint commission,
the SEIZURE of that territory, or of any
part of 1t, pendente lite, is an act OF
bad faith and lawless violence, Justify
ing the other party to the agreement
in refusing to go on with the adiudica-
ton and in taking such steps as may
be necessary to protect its own inJer-
ests under the altered circumstances.
Whichever litigant in the present con-
trOversy seized and held the debatable
or debated land, or any portion OF it,
was the aggressor, upon whom must lie
the responsibility for the present diff.
Guilty and for all future complications
which may arise therefrom. Upon
that we are all agreed.
Now comes the point with regard to
which we most earnestly invite q
straight answer to q straight question.
Who was the aggressor? Who was
the litigant that first seized the de-
batable or debated land, or any por-
ton of it? After careful examination
OF all the correspondence, public and
private, now accessible te us, as well
as after exhaustive discussion of the
point in question with experts on both
sides, we are prepared to maintain
that there Is not the slightest shadow
of doubt that it was the Afghans-
that is to say, the English, for they
are our clients-who first laid hands
upon the territory which England and
Russia had just agreed should be adj
Indicated upon by the joint commits.
sion. Let us have this question cleared
up before proceeding TO discuss any
bhibB Ous vi lts thlhk
that followed will bear an altogether
different complexion according to the
decision of this simple question OF fact:
Who first seized territory that was
sub juoice?
We challenge our contemporaries
before they write another word that
can be construed as q menace of war
to dispose of the following thesis,
which, IL not overthrown, will saddle
upon England, If peace should be
broken, all the guilt and crime of an
unjust war:
1. That Russia and England agreed
in May To refer the whole question of
what was Afghan and what was not
Afghan OF the northwest frontier 10
the decision Of joint commission.
2. That in the whole OF the debata-
BILE or debated land there were few
points the Afghan title to which was
more than Perjdeh.
8. That the question whether Penj.
deb was Afghan or was not Afghan.
was specially mentioned In the In.
structions OF Sir Peter Lumsden az
one upon which the joint commission
had 10 adjndicate, and, further, that
Sir Peter Lumsden had full authority.
u ne thought fit, to assign Penjdeh 10
Russia
4 That when the agreement with
Russia was arrived at there were no
Afghans or Russians In any part of the
debstable land, the nearest Afghan
being at Bala Murghab and the near
est Russians at Sarakhs.
That while Russia and England
were making the final arrangements
Tor the disratch OF the joint commits
sion that was to settle the ownership
OF all the disputed territories, the AT
gnans suddenly seized Penjdeh in
June, and have held it ever since.
o That the Russians protested, but,
rs England did not recall the Afgbans,
Russia In October replied by sending
email force ON to Pnli-Khstum, and
held back her commissioner until an
understanding had been arrived at that
would put stop TO such high-handed
appropriation OF the territories which
were sub judice.
That is the thesis which we chal-
ienge all those who are denouncing