New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-11-04
RPJTJSH RIGHTS AND CLAIMS.


BRITISH RIGHTS AND CLAIMS.
The fallacy of Great Brtains claim in |ehe%
uela has often been exposed; never more con
yincingly than in the letter from our l"huon
correspondent which is printed elsewhere III liii'
mornings paper. As stated by Inc Loh"on
Times" the British argument is tins: Inc Non
~ Doctrine can operate merely TO forbid fresh
copouests Of American territory by European
po,v.rs since the date of its PRONUNCIATION. But
Great Britain Is seeking no such cohques''
She demands merely the vindlcatloh VI nv
ORIGINAL rights. which were acquired long before
,ho limo of President Monroe. Therefore the
Nonroe Doctrine has no bearing upon the case
and the United States has no cause 10 li'eiicio
in the dispute. That is the argument anu 1t
would be quite conclusive were It's premises coi
rect But they are not; or one OF then Is NV
II would not be difficult to prove as lhueeu WI.
Ford clearly indicates, that the orlSlhil ris"'S
of Great Britain are shadowy ana uhcertan
and not at all to be accepted as V'lild WITHOUT
further proof or without approval py coui'
If arbitration Ii Is perfectly well kho"h 'n"'
tho whole region from the OrinocO 10 the l'S''
ouibo first belonged to Spain by the risn' VI
discovery: that by the treaties of 1918 ana i'oi
,ho rsseouibo was recognized rs the DOunuar!
between the Dutch and Spanish territories; thal
Snoin never conceded the right or the Dutcn "
settle west of the EssequibO, but always GROVE
them hack when they tried 10 do so; that Nehe|-
uela inherited all the rights of Spain, ana treat
RritaIn only those of Holland; and that the hrsl
british settlement west Of the Essequibo was
NOT made until 1927, which was four years alter
the pronunciation Of the Monroe Doctrine III
wow Of these facts as Mr.. Ford truly says noun
ing could be more preposterous than the BRUSH
claim Of Original rights.
Rut even that is not the worst or II. Inc
London Times Itself discredits its own argu-
ment. 1t says frankly that the terms OF se''ie-
mont which Great Britain would have accepted
IN 1914 had become impossible in 1850: those OF
1s,o vere insufficient in 1880: those Of 1850 were
moi enough in 1886: and few years hence sun
further extension Of claims may be made Are
ve 70 understand then. that at these former
dotes Great Britain WAS voluntarily waving
LARGO share of her original rights? We must
either believe that-whch Is not Delievapie-or
osa tina, those original rights have been grow
ing and expanding at lively rate acquiring as
II were a sort of "unearned increment. Ana
II they have been thus growing, If Great Britain
torial demands we should like to know the dr.
ference between that process and that very
"fresb conquest of American territory which
"thc London Times" so vehementy dis
claims With the rights and claims of Great
Britain In 1914 the Monroe Doctrine has nothing
70 do and the United States need not concern
itsolf But the claims and pretended rights Of
Great britain in 1914. and 1850. and 1880 and
vond the former are very different thing. TO
Them the Monroe Doctrine does apply, and with
thcm ihe United States is most emphatically
concerned
We shall be reminded. Of course that the pres
ont controversy consists Of two separate parts.
one Is the boundary dispute. The other is Great
Britain's demand for an indemnity for the ar
rest Of a couple of her police officers by the
Venezuelan authorities with when, or course.
the Monroe Doctrine has nothing to do. Our
answer is that the two cases are not ut all
seporate: that they are most intimately con-
nectcd and that the settlement OF the latter de-
pends entirely upon the settlement Of the former.
The arrest complained Of was made on disputed
ground. If that ground belongs to Great Brit
ain the arrest an outrage, ana Venezuela
oucht TO make prompt and ample reparation
for IT. III, on the OtlltI tpe Siouhu w
longs 10 Venezuela the arrest was perfectly
right AID proper, and the British claim for In
demnity is void But-and here Is the point on
which the whole business turns-if Venezuela
grants the claim and pays the indemnity, she
will be practically admitting that the disputed
ground belongs 10 Great Britain, and thus be
giving away her whole territorial case in adj
vance Ii is to compel her to do so that Great
Britain is so urgently pressing the demand for
indemnity. and II is to avoid thus committing
herself that VeneNela Is resisting that demand.
Common sense and common justice require that
the boundary dispute shall be settled first, for
not until then can ii be determined whether an
indemnity is due or not
The same mail which brought Us Mr. Ford's
letter brought MS also Il copy Of The London
Spectator" containing a leading article on the
same question THE dispute between England
land the United States over the Venezuela
boundary question" IT says, lis very dis
agreeable and unfortunate one: but II does not
mean war or any real risk Of war. .. What
ever else happens that will not. . On each
side Of the Atlantic there are millions OF quiet,
plain administrative men who would forbid
the outrage" These words which are sub
stantIally Identical with what The Tribune has
been saying again and again, are the words of
one Of the most authoritative OF English Jour
nails They are 10 be commended TO the consid-