The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1895-12-18
THE CORRESPONDENCE.

Washington. Dec. T.-Although the
matter submitted to congress in connec-
tion with the foregoing message consists
of three diplomatic notes only, they are
very voluminous. Mr.. Oncy's note to Mr..
Bayard concerning the threatening aspect
of affairs between Great Britain and Vene-
zuela is first in the correspondence 1t is
dated July 20 last, and deals with the
boundary question at great length Be-
ginning at the inception Of the dispute,
Mr. Olney carries his argument of the
American claim for arbitration based on
the Monroe doctrine down TO the present
time, and gives emphasis to his state
ments by quoting the sentiments of Presi-
dent Monroe in full. and notes that 'its
pronouncemsnt by thee Monroe admins
tration at that particular time was un-
questionably due to the inspiration of
Great Britain, who a once gave 1t an open
and unqualified adhesion which has never
been withdrawn"
Olncy Defines Encland's Position.
Mr.. Olney gives in his note firm en-
dorsement to the principle enunciated by
Monroe. and defines Great Britain's posi-
tion in this frank and unambiguous man.
ner: "She Great Britain) says to Vene-
Zuela: You can get none of the debatable
land by force, because you are not strong
enough; you can get none by treaty, be-
cause / will not agree, and you can take
your chance of getting portion by arbi-
tration only II you first agree to aban-
don to me such other portions as ] may
Designate" Continuing, Mr.. Olney says
it Is not perceived how such an attitude
can be defended, nor how 1t is reconcila-
BILE with that love OF justice of the English
race. and holds that If such position be adj
hered to 1t should be regarded as amount
ing in substance TO ain invasion and con-
quest of Venezuelan territory
In conclusion Mr.. Olney says that, in
these circumstances, the duty of the
president appears to him unmistakable
and imperative. To ignore her refusal
to have the title investigated and not to
protest and give warning against the SUBJ
stantial appropriation by Great Britain of
the territory for her own share, 1t would
ignore an established policy with which
the honor and welfare of this country are
closely identified. lie, therefore, in
structed Mr.. Bayard to lay the views given
before Lord Salisbury. and said: "They
(the views) call for a definite decision upon
the point whether Great Britain will con-
sent or will decline to submit the Vene-
zuelan boundary question in its entirety
to impartial arbitration"
Expressing the presidents hope that the
conclusion will be on the side of arbitra-
tion, Mr.. Olney concludes that IL the
president 'is 20 be disappointed In that
hope, however.-a result not to be antici-
pated and in hts judgment calculated to
greatly embarrass the future relations
between this country and Great Britain
1t is his wish to be made acquainted with
the fact at such early date as will enable
him to lay the whole subject before con-
gress in his next annual message"
What Salisbury Said in Reply.
Lord Salisbury's reply Is addressed to
Sir Julian Pauncefote, British ambassa-
dor at Washington, under date of Nov.
20 last. This dealt only with the ap-
pication of the Monroe doctrine In the
case at ISSUE and was followed on the
same day by another note discussing the
boundary dispute per se.' At the out
set Lord Salisbury states that, so far as
he Is aware. the Monroe doctrine has
never been before advanced on behalf Of
the United States in any written COM
munication addressed to the government
of another nation. He gives what he be-
lieves Is the British iterpretation of the
doctrine, and maintains that the dangers
which were apprehended by President
Monroe have no relation to the state Of
things in which we live at the present
day, and adds with thinly-covered irony,
that 1t is Ineligible that Mr.. Olney
should invoke In defense of the views on
which ne Is now insisting. an authority
(Monroe) which enjoys so high a popu-
larity with his own fellow countrymen."
says We shouldn't Mcddle.
The dispute between Great Britain and
Venezuela, AYERS Lord Salisbury Is a
controversy with which the United States
has no apparent practical concern. Con-
tinuing in short, pit~' sentences. he says
II is difficult indeed, to see how the
question in controversy can materially
| affect any state or community outside
those primarily Interested that the dis.
puted frontier of Venezuela has nothing
TO do with any Of the questions dealt with
by President Monroe; that It Is not a ques-
tion of the colonization Of any European
power of any portion Of America, nor OF
the imposition upon the communities Of
South America Of any system of govern
ment devised in Europe. 1T is.' ne eay..
| 'simpiy the determination of the frontier
of British possession which belonged 10
| the throne Of England long before the Re.
public Of Venezuela came into existence ''
A. ne proceeds in the discussion, the
language of Lord Salisbury becomes tart.
He ssguss on the theory that the 1onroa