The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-12-18

dent charge. Bnt they are not prepared
to admit that the recognition of that expe-
diency 10 clolhed with the sanction which
belongs 10 doctrine of International law.
They are not prepared to admit that the
interests OF the Uni ed States are necessa-
rily concerned in every frontier dis pute
which may arise between any two OF the
states which possess dominion in the
western hemisphere, and still less can they
accept the doctrine that the United States
is entitled to claim that the process of ar
bitration shall be applied TO any demand
for the surrender of territory which one of
those states make against another.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS.
have commented in the above remarks
only upon the general aspect of Mr..
Olney's doctrines, apart from the special
considerations which attach to he con-
troversy between the united kingdom and
Venezuela in it's present phase. This con-
troversy has undoubtedly been made more
difficult by the inconsiderate action of the
Venezuelan government in breaking oil
relations with her majesty's government,
and its settlement has been correspond
ingly delayed; but her majesty's govern
ment have not surrendered the hope that
II will be adjusted by u reasonable arrange
ment at an early date.
| request that you will read the substance
of the above d spatch to Mr.. Olney and
hc6Nc Hitl a Copy VI ~ " ilc uCSiTCS
sALlsBURY's SECOND NOTE.
The correspondence closes with another
note from Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian
Pauncefote. intended for delivery to Secre.
tary Olney, of the same date as his preced-
ing note. from which it was prob ably
separated because IL deals entirely with
the merits of the British claim to The terri
tory in dispute.
Lord Salisbury explains that he is pre-
vented from addressing the Venezuelan
government itself, IN consequence of
suspension of diploma ic relations. Lord
Salisbury begins with the statement that
cher majesty's government, while they
have never avoided or declined argument
on the subject with the government of
Venezuela, have always said that the ques-
ton was One which had no direct bearing
on the material interests of any other
country and have consequently refraued
hitherto from presenting any detailed
statement of their case either to the
United States or to other foreign govern
ments."
AN ERRONEOUS VIEW.
"Probably for this reason" says Lord
Salisbury, "Mr. Olney's statement bears
the impress of being mainly, if not entirely,
founded on ex parte Venezuelan state
ments, and gives an erroneous view of
lenges Secretary Olney's first statement
that the dis cute dates back to 1914. and
asserts that it did not begin until $40,
which assertion he proceeds to support by
a long statement of the condition under
which British Guiana was acquired from
the Dutch, the friendly relations that had
existed for a long time between the United
States of Colombia, first. and afterward
Venezuela and Great Britain, and with
reference to the early DEGREES of the Span
ish government. He asserts that the recent
difficulty would never have arisen
If Venezuela had been content to claim
only those territories which could be
proved or reasonably asserted to have been
quietly in the possession of a captaincy
general of Venezuela. He attacks the
Spanish title TO the lands as vague and
ill-founded, and claims that in the validity
OF the Dutch tile under viii II Great Brit
ain now claims there eXis the most au-
thentic declaration. As far back as 1859
Holland had prote ted against Spanish in
ours ons into their settlements in the
basin of the Cuyani, and to this claim the
Spanish government never attempted 10
reply. the archives showing that they had
no means TO rebut it. Lord Salisbury
says:
THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE
"The fundamental principle underlying
the Venezuelan argument is that inasrnuch
as Spain was originally entitled of right to
the whole American continent any terri.
tory on that continent which she cannot be
shown 10 have acknowledged in specific
and positive terms to have passed 10 an
other p ,wer can ouly have been acquired
by wrongful usurpation, and, if situated to
the north of the Amazon and west of the
Atlantic, must necessarily belong to Vene-
znela as her self.constituted Inheritance IN
those regions. 1t may reasonably be asked
VI a Mr.
to tne bitra ion of another power pre,en.
sions raised by the verument of Mexico,
raised on such a fund .tion to large tracts
OF rrltory which had long been COM
prised in the federalion.'
THE sCHoMBERG LINE
Lord Salisbury then proceeds to state
the circumstances connected with the
marking OF The Schomberg inc. He says
the British government informed Vene-
zuela in 1889 of its intention to provision
ally survey this boundary, it's purpose
Delng. AFTER the survey, to communicate to
OF er governments its views AS to the true
lines OF the british boundary and then
settle any details as 10 which those goveru-
ments iuieht object. At the very outset
Schombeig placed two boundary post, at
Ioiht uarlna, on the remains of the
Dutch fort, and while the posts there and
at the nou,h of the Auaruea we're
recovered at the urgent enreaty of
Venezuela, the agreement was made
on The distinct understanding that
treat Britain should not thereby
ABA, don her claim to that position.
schomberg held tina Great Britain might
justly claim the whole basin of the Cuyani
ana III uai, ut sugges ed that the claims
OF this region be surrendered in return for
the recognition of the rgh TO Point Bar
inn. Tee Schom6erg line, says Lord Sal
lsbury, was in fact great reduc ion of
the boundary claims by Great Britain as a
mater OF right, aud lis proposal origina-
teu IN desire 10 come to speedy and
friendly arrangement with weaker power,
DETAILS OF DISCUSSION
The note next gives in great detail a
statement It the main facts of the discuss
sions wiIich have ensued with the Vene-
zuelan government. OF Lord Aberdeen's
proposal, winch made g,eat concession.
out OF friendly regard for Venezuela, Lord
Salisbury says il remained unanswered for
more Than six years, wherefore the Veue.
zuelan government was notified that il had
iapsed. Lord Granvllle's proposition in
1881, also involving considerable reduc.
tons from the Schomberg line, was, he
says, likewise never answered.
. Lord Salisbury charges that Venezuela
mas r.pea,ed violated the treaty of
1901 by the terms of which boz, h govern
men,s agreed 10 refrain from aggression
upon the territory III dispute, for which
reason, III 1850, her majesty's government
ueciueu not ~ repeat the offer of conces-
sioiis which had not been reciprocated, but
10 assert her undnub,ed right to the terri.
Tory within the Scnoinberg line, while sull
hoiuiIs open Tor nominations and even