New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-11-04
ENGLISH DIPLOMACY.
THE GUIANA BOUNDARY DISPUTE AND
THE MONROE DOCTRINE

The British policy OF aggression on the Amer
;can continent has been proclaimed and empha-
s,ed with unwonted v.gor during the last few
aavs The Times" which receives the earliest
cues from the Foreign Office when public opinion
:. 20 be Influenced educated has asserted that
,he venezuelan question has nothing whatever
% do with the Monroe Doctrine. since the Eng
Itch claims rest wholly upon the vindication of
original rights and are not put forward for the
ocouisiton of fresh territory The St James's
gazette which seems to have established spe-
csal relations with the Colonial Office followed Up
this argument with a premature revelation OF
Mr. Chamberlains practical measures for devel-
oping a neglected estate Of the empire by plant
ing Maxim guns along disputed frontier. Then
came the announcement through the Press Assoc
citation that an ultimatum-which will probably
turn out TO be a message somewhat less peremp-
tory than ultimatum-had been presented by
Great Britain 10 Venezuela, requiring an indem-
nifty for the arrest Of Guiana police at the Uruan
station and debating the terms on which the
protracted boundary dispute should be settled.
These three incidents are ndubitable evidence
that Lord Salisbury is seeking new diplomatic
conquests over American traditions after his tri-
umphs in China and Constantinope, and that Mr..
Chamberlain is cooperating with him in policy
tending TO humiliate and irritate the United
States
The prologue OF this dipo matte play deserves
careful consideration since it is a deliberate at
tempt to forestall American criticism Of high
handed and wanton invasion Of Venezuelan terri
tory by Great Britain. Lord Salisbury and Mr..
Chamberlain are keen enough to perceive that
they can do what they Ike on the borders Of
British Guiana and the coasts of the Spanish
Main If Americans can be convinced that their
famous Monroe Doctrine has not been compro-
Go alxesu rs nd
boldly that the boundary dispute is
grounded upon historic claims which antedate
the Monroe Doctrine. and consequently lie en-
tlrely outside its scope. The original declaration
Of President Monroe is explained as proclama-
ton that II is undesirable from the American
point Of view that fresh conquest or settlement
by European Powers should be made In North or
South America. European frontiers and posses
sicrs already in existence have been respected
scrupulously by the American Government, and,
according to the British view, the disputed Dor
der between Guiana and Venezuela is one OF
them. British territory there extends over the
whole area conquered from the Dutch.
"It would be altogether begging the question:
remarks The Times in its most sententious and
81 authoritative manner, "to assume that the Brit
ish claim with regard to the boundary of Venezu-
Ella and British Guiana is claim put forward on
the part Of Great Britain for fresh territory
The object Of this contention Is plain II IS 10
place the disputed territory in Venezuela on a
level with Jamaica, Cuba, Martinique. or CANADA
ass European possession held prior to the Mon
i roe proclamation. and to justify the inference
that the United States is under no obligation TO
champion the cause Of the Spanish-American re-
public.
DISTRIBUTING ITS OWN ARGUMENT
Having assumed with amazing hexibility that
the boundary dispute is merely question OF MIS-
torc fact and original rights, and that fresh ter
ritory is not claimed by Great Britain Inc
Times discredits it's argument by admitting
that the British demands are expanding every
voar Terms which Lord Aberdeen would have
accented In 1874" il says. had become Impossible
IN 1850 The agreement of 1850 was insufficient In
1850. and in 1886 1t was found necessary TO pro-
claim the absolute right Of Great Britain 10 all
territories lying within the Schomburgk line.
That was the line surveyed by British agent
hfty-hve years ago as dividing about midway the
territories in dispute In 1850 Great Britain agreed
in a convention to regard 1t as neutral ground
upon which no encroachment should be mace Oh
either side But in 1856 every acre on the east
ward side was proclaimed TO be British territory
That would seem to have been fresh acquisition
Of territory in defiance Of the Monroe Doc'iiHe
and additional conquests are threatened
we stiu claim under our inheritance from the
Dutch the extreme limit Of the watershed OF all
rivers flowing into the Essequibo, but between
this limit and the Schomburgk line We are Will
ing 10 put the definition Of frontier line 10 ar
duration Within the Schomburgk line IL Is no
longer possible TO admit any question or the cur
taument of British jurisdiction. Few years
hence 1t may be equally impossible TO admit sucn
a question anywhere within the limits which we
believe 10 be ours OF right
The English have already annexed all the So
called neutral territory on their side OF the ino-
die line. and offer TO compromise their claim 10
The other half under penalty of taking the whole
of il in a few years. They assume TO have an MS
toric claim to everything as far as the Orihoco'
and are gradually taking possession OF the sugar
lands and gold fields refusing arbitration decaoe
after decade But they not making fresh ac-
ouistions of territory, And the Monroe Doctrine
has nothing TO do with It, because they nave III
herited II all from the Dutch.
THE HISTORIC FACTS OF THE CASE.
The historic facts relating to the Guiaras can
-. ~ ,,ods 70 order for the convenience of Brit
~ ai,lonacv Whatever territory the Enghsh
ho,5 ~, right In South America they acquired py
.o,oues, from the Dutch. The boundaries were
M, defined in 1871 and 1914 by treaties between
Gre, Britain and the Netherlands; but the I'M
rs Of legal inheritance from the Dutch are " =.
found IN the treaty Of 164s. which au'hofiAe0
spain and Holland TO retain the countries 'n.n
In actual possession of each in America ana "A
~. West indies" The Essequibo was the di'iu-
me line then. as we'll as iii 1871 and wheheN1'
The Dutch made encroachments upon the 'e,l..
tory west of the river toward the or'hOco .nsy
We're expelled by the spaniards. Inc coun..'
now in dispute was never in the peaoea ~. o.
session Of the Dutch; It could not ha'e ,ha
CURED by conquest from theh'' no' .rao,,es
English title TO it have been 'u''''e LOOT ,na,