Daily Kennebec journal., 1895-12-09
ENGLAND and Venezuela.

= There is little doubs as to the nature OF
Lord Salsbury's reply to the question,
whether England will arbitrate respecting
the boundary line between Venezuela and
Guiana. Salisbury himself is recognized
as something of iingoist Moreover
Englands position had previously been
known TO our government in semi-
official way. She has already informed
! Venezuela that she will arbitrete con
cerning only SO much Of the contested
territory as lies west of the Schaumburghk
line. That is doubtless the tenor OF salis-
bury reply to the state department OF
the United Stats. What President Cleye-
land will have TO say when be transmits
these documents to Congress, can only be
surmised His position is, that II Eng
land insists in her refusal to arbitrate- it
will be ground for prot st from onr
government
There Is little doubt bur that popular
feeling respecting this Venezuelan con-
) trovcrsy has been largely aft, cted by the
kno vledge that Venezuela is a small
country and England big one and also
becius Of England's greed for territory
An Unsuitable and conscienceless stlfish-
ness that has become historical together
with proverbial habit Of bullying weaker
nations. 1t gees without the saying
no xever, that there should be as impartial
| judgment of the controversy as II the con-
ditinns were reversed and Venezuela the
historical bully. In this spirit several
article have been written, of late, which
favor England S side of the dispute The
authors of these articles assume to have
more complete knowledge Of all the facts
bearing upon the controversy, than is pos
sesscd by the great majority of people
A recent article in that excellent publca
tioD. the Social Economist, is written in
essential features OF Venezuelas claim
and the ground upon which it is based.
It asserts that this ground is, in
effect, that the country belonging
to Spain and later to Venezuela by
right Of discovery cannot have been
lost to her through neglect to occupy it
or failure to drive out intruders Quot
ing from Vattel, ''If it has left unculti
waited and desert places in the country,
nobody has right to take possession of
them without its consent. Although it
makes no actual use of them, these
places belong to it, it has an interest
in pre- serving them for future use, and
ought not to be accountable to any person
for the manner in which it makes use of
its property" Now whether this is the
chief ground on which Venezuela bases
her claim can only be decided by ref
erence to the papers in the case. But
suppose this assumption be allowed.
In reply, it is stated that this text from
Vattel refers only to waste places in an
old country; but that to new country,
never occupied by the original owners,
1t does not apply; that the recognized
law of nations, especially in regard to
new countries provides that those who lay
claim to territory cannot continue to neg
lect 1t without losing the right of owner
ship to those who settle it and retain pos
session. In this view of the case it is
argued that Spain never did more in the
disputed territory than to establish few
missions, whereas the Dutch and English,
did establish trading posts and forts there,
and in 1897 the efforts Of Spain to drive
them out were unsuccessful, although in
previous expeditions one in 1875 and the
other in 1868, they did drive the intru-
ders across the Essiquibo, whence the lat
ter soon returned and resumed possession
But supposing England able to es-
tablsh her claim by the law of nations
to the territory in dispute, she cannot do
so before any tribunal save that of her
own will, unless she submit the matter
to arbitration. The United States has
not said that England has no right to
that territory Venezuela has said that,
and has offered to submit the matter to
for England to say there is nothing to ar
bitrate believing she is right Accord
ing to the arguments adduced in the ar
ticle in the Social Economist, referred to,
England has the same right to the terri
tory, claimed west of the Schaumburghk
line, as she may have on the other
side That line was a purely arbitrary
one. 1t has never been recognized by
one of the parties to the dispute and on one
occasion at least was discredted by the
other. Nothing appears to show that the
Dutch and English settlers west of the
Schaumburghk line had not held posses
sion long enough to claim the territory at
that time rs well as had those east of the
line to claim their territory. Why estab-
lish the line where Schaumburghk did?
Why not include as the English claim now
does, the east bank of the Ornoco9 Why
did the Statesman's Year Book for 1877