The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-12-19

sduCllOH WHICH DelOHSS 10 INCUMBENT
| of international law. They are not pre-
pared to admit that the interests of the
United States are necessarily concerned
in every frontier dispute which may
arise in any two of the States which pos
sess dominion in the Western hemi-
sphere; and still less can they accept the
doctrine that the United States. are
right in claiming that process of arbi-
tratiOn shall be applied to any demand
for the surrender of any territory where
one of those States may make against
another.
This controversy has undoubtedly
been made difficult by the incOnsiderate
acton of the Venezuelan government in
breaking off relations with her maiesty's
government, and its settlement has been
delayed; but her maiesty's government
has not surrendered the hope that it will
be adjusted by reasonable arrangement
at an early date.
II request that you will read the sub-
stance of the above dispatch to Mr.. Olnev
and leave him copy of it if he desires
SALISBURY"
Later-The correspondence ends with
another note from Lord Salisbury to Sir
Julian Pauncefote. in which he chal-
lenges Secretary Olney's first statement
that the dispute dates back to 1914 and
asserts that it did not begin until 1910
which assertion he proceeds to support
Dy a long statement of the conditions UNI
der which British Guiana was acquired
from the Dutch. the friendly relations
that had existed for long time between
the United States of Colombia. first and
afterwards Venezuela with Great Britain
and refers to the early DEGREES of the
Spanish government. He asserts that
the recent difficulties would not have
arisen if Venezuela had been content to
claim only those territories which were
reasonably asserted to have been quietly
IN possession of captaincy general Of
Venezuela.
He attacks the Spanish titles to the
lands as vague and illfOunded and con-
tends that to the validity of the Dutch
title under which Great Britain now
claims there exists most authentic declar-
ations.
Lord Salisbury says: "The fundamen-
tai principles underlying the Venezuelan
argument is that inasmuch as Spain was
originally settled, the right to the whole
continent or any territory of that con-
tinent which she can not he shown to
have acknowledged in specific and posi-
tive terms to have passed to another
power, can only have been acquired by
wrongful usurpatiOn, and if situated to
the north of the Amazon and west of the
Atlantic must belong to Venezuela as
her self-cOnstituted inheritOr in those re-
gions. 1t may reasonably be asked
whether Mr.. Olney would consent to re-
fer to the arbitration of another power
pretensiOns raised by the government of
Mexico, raised on such a foundation to
large tracts of territory which had long
been comprised in the federation"
Lord Salisbury then proceeds to state
the circumstances connected with the
marks of the ShOmberg line. He said
the object of this survey was to be able
to submit to other Nations the true
boundary of the British possessions.
SchOmberg held that Great Britain
might justly claim the whole basin of
the Guyuni and Yurari. but suggested
that claims to these sections return for
the recognition of the right to point
Yrarima. The SchOmberg line. says Lord
Salisbury, was in fact great reduction
of the boundary claimed by Great Brit
originated in desire to come to speedy
and friendly arrangement with weaker
power"
The hote next gave in great detail
a statement of the facts of the discussion
which has ensued with the Venezuelan
government. OF Lord Aberdeen's pro
posal. which speaks of friendly regard
for Venezuela, Lord Salisbury says it re-
manned unanswered for more than SIN
years. Lord Granville's proposition in
1881 also involving considerable reduc-
tons from the Schomberg line was, he
SAYS, likewise never answered.
Lord Salisbury charges that Nenezu-
ella has repeatedly violated the treaty
~, g xN-hi oh hnf "
ernments agreed to refrain from agSres-
sion upon the territory in dispute, for
which reason. in 1880, her majesty's gov
eminent desired not to grant the otter
of concessions which had not been recip-
rocated but to assert her undOubted rlEht
TO the territory within the Schomberg
line, while still holding open for negoti-
atoms. :,
Referring to Guzman Blanco's declina-
tion TO arbitrate the title of these I'M
settled lands alone and insistence OF a
full arbitration, Lord Salisbury says;
"This pretension is hardly less eXhorDi-
tant than would be a refusal by Great
Britain to agree to an arbitration OF the
boundary of British Colombia unless the
United States would consent to bring into
the question one-half the area of that
territory" He rapidly traces the history
of the colonies down to 1887 when the
situation had become so acute, owing TO
the Venezuelan desire for an evacuation
of the disputed territory He says that
no steps have been taken by the BRUSH
authorities to exercise jurisdiction be-
yond the Schomberg line nor to interfere
with the proceedings of Venezuelans,
although, pending a settlement, Great
Britain can not recognize these proceed
inrs as valid or comforting title. The
question. he adds, has remained IN TINS
nosition ever since. Great Britain has
from the first held to the same view as
to the extent of her territory, waving
portion of its claims, however, and beng
willing to arbitrate.
The discrepancy in maps is easily ac-
counted for and the British government
can not be made responsible for publlca-
tions made without their authority.
In conclusion Lord Salisbury says:
Although the negotiatiosn in 1870, 1871
and 1893 did not lead to any result, her
maiesty's government have not abandon,
ed the hope that they may be resumed
with better success and that when the
international policy of Venezuela are set
fled on n durable basis than has lately
onneared to be the case her majesty
government may be able to adopt more
moderate and conciliatory course IN re-
gard TO this question than that of these
proceedings.
Her maiesty's government are sincere
| " DESTROYS of being on friendly relations
with Venezuela and certainly have no