The National tribune., 1895-10-24
THE VENEZUELAN TROUBLE.

, /
our whole future foreign policy is in
volved. Stated in their briefest form
the main facts are these:
| In 1903 Great Britain took possession
ofthe Dutch possessions in Guiana, South
America, and at the peace of 1914
handed back the settlement of Surinam
to the Dutch, but retained those at
Essequibo, Berbice, and Demerara.
Essequibo bordered on the Spanish
colony of Venezuela, the Esseguibo
River being the dividing line. This
fact is abundantly supported by docu-
ments, treaties, and other communica-
tions between the Dutch and Spanish
diplomats for centuries. The British
only succeeded to such territory as Hol-
land possessed, while the Venezueans,
when they achieved their independence,
in 1923, succeeded to all the rights en-
joyed by Spain. Almost at once, the
British in Guiana began to encroach
upon the territory of their western
neighbors, though always against the
protest of the Venezuelans. In 1910
the British Government sent out Sir
Robert Schomburgk to survey the coun-
try in dispute. Without taking the
trouble to make any careful examina-
ton he drew boundary far into Vene-
zuelan territory, and this line bears his
name. The Venezuelans, vino had
nothing to do with bis appointment,
were deeply incensed at this injus-
tice, and protested SO vigorously
against it that Lord Aberdeen, the
British Prime Minister, distinctly dis
avowed Schomburgk's act, and ordered
the line obliterated by the colonial
authorities.
The discovery of rich deposits of
gold in Venezuelan territory has excit-
ed the cupidity of the British colonists,
and they have pushed far beyond even
the Schomburgk line. In the mean
while company of American citizens
has secured important concessions for
working gold mines, and other pur-
poses, in the territory which the British
are trying to reduce to possession.
The matter has been steadily growing
more fragrant, and now armed forces of
Nenezuelans and British confront one
another. The last Congress recognized
the gravity of the situation, and direct
ed the State Department to communicate
TO the British Government the earnest
desire of this country that Venezuela's
rights should be respected.
1t seems that last August Secretary
Olney sent instructions to ambassador
Bayard to make strong representations
to her Majesty Government of the
views Of the United States in regard to
the matter. 1t has not transpired just
what were the exact terms of Secretary
Olney's note to ambassador Bayard, nor
precisely what Mr.. Bayard said to Lord
Salisbury, but from the outbreak in
leading English papers it would appear
that there was tolerable forceful pre-
seniation of the Monroe Doctrine, with
a direct application of the same to the
Venezuelan matter.
The expressions Of the London Times
and similar papers are not of an agree
able nature. They condemn the Mon
roe Doctrine, and talk of getting an
agreement between all the great Eu-
ropean powers to disregard it. They
insist that England has a perfect and
absolute title to all the territory in dis
pute, and they do not propose to sur
render what +" is rightfully ours" Some
of them suggest that there may be an
arbitration Of the rights to the country
beyond the Schomburgk line, but they
will consent to none as to that within
that line, and they want any arbitration
to also pass upon the validity and scope
of the Monroe Doctrine.
Last week Sir Julian Pauncefote
called upon the President, and it was
said that be came to state that his Gov
eminent, as well as others in Europe,
dissented strongly from the interpreta-
ton we had placed upon the Monroe
/ Doctrine. IT was subsequently, learned