New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-01-21
SALISBURY'S TWO VOICES.
WITH ONE HE REBUKES HIS CRITICS FOR
THEIR INSINUATIONS.
WITH THE OTHER HE ORDERS DONE THE VERY
THING HE SO INDIGNANTLY DENIED HIM
SELF CAPABLE OF DOING-AND MR.
CHAMBERLAIN WAS THE MAN
HE WAS THEN THCN-
DERING AGAINST.
fly TELEGRAPH TO THE rRrBuNE.1

DERING AGAINST
Try TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBuNE1
Washington, Jan. 20-There is CHAPTER OF the
Venezuelan boundary dispute which Is little known
1t relates in general to Engand's vacillation and
In particular to the Inconsistency of Lord Sails
bury. The chapter serves TO show that the whiri-
zig of time makes strange bedfellows in English
notifies and confirm the recent sneering remark
of Emperor William that Great Britain can form
no alliance In Europe owing TO the shifting policy
of her officials IL Will appear that Mr. Chamber
lain who is now in the foreground in Lord Sails
bury's Cabinet once occupied lowly place in
His Iordships political estimation.
In the State Department, as has been announced
In these dispatches, there records which show
that at one time Engand's Secretary for Foreign
Affairs. Earl Granville was in favor of submitting
the Venezuelan boundary dispute to arbitration.
Lord Granville then addressed himself to Guzman
Blanco. who represented Venezuela at London.
General Blanco strove earnestly and most ntelli-
gently to bring about settlement OF the questions
now in controversy. He repeatedly put the case
Of his country before the British Foreign Office in
a firm. clear way. 1t is a matter of record that
on May Is. 1885, Earl Granville agreed TO one of
General Blanco's contentious. that in a proposed
treaty between Venezuela and England then under
discussion a provision should be inserted submit
ting all differences to arbitration. including the
boundary question. Earl Granville thus expressed
himself in note OF that date TO General Blanco:
VI. L
the receipt on the 18th inst OF your note dated the
9TH inst. respecting the proposed new treaty be-
have the honor inform you that Her Majesty's
Government agree to the substitution of the phrase
Of f1s nfh the srcs
pecti1g arbitration and that they further agree
tration shall include, all differences which may
those only which arise on the Interpretation of
the treaty.
on June Of the same year General Blanco SUBJ
mitted the following feature of the proposed treaty
covering the special point under discussion
tween. the United States Of Venezuela and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland any
differences which cannot be adjusted by the usual
means Of friendly negotiation the two contracting
ierences 10 the arbitration Of third Power or OF
@ to sn that he wsn result of such
shall be binding upon both Governments The arbi-
two Governments by common consent. falling which
each of the parties shall nominate an arbitrating
pire The procedure OF the arbitration shall in each
ing which the arbitratng Power. or Powers. shall
be themselves entitled to determine 1t beforehand.
Earl Granville amended this article by inserting
merely that the award of the arbirators should be
carried out speedily possible" His Lordshp
shortly afterward left office and was succeeded by
the present head of the British Foreign Office. Lord
Salisbury lost little time in regulating what his
predecessor had agreed to in the way Of reaching
an understanding looking 10 a settlement OF the
boundary dispute On July 81. 1885. as the State De-
partment records show, he informed General Banco
as follows
Her Majestys Government are unable to concur
the given by their predecessors In office to
the general arbitration article proposed by Nenez-
in IT of matter other than those arising OF the
Interpretation alleged violation Of this particular
putes and controversies whatsoever would be with
out precedent in the treaties made by Great Brit
the title Of the British Crown to territory or other
Sod not pds themselves to re to
arbitration.
General Blanco replied TO this shift OF policy in
December following. In note TO the Foreign Of
fee he pointed out the vacation of the British
Government and the Inconsistency Of Lord Sails
bury, as follows:
In regard to the arbitration clause az applicable
to every difference. I once more invoke the argu-
Wet ta that it is right acquired by Venezuela
since it having been preferred on her part and
s muSa on PA has 81 am
from which It is not Lawful for any OF the %ag
10 make use Of your own words IN speech dey
sa a that before the Of
public opinion: .o.. - 81.
charges are somewhat numerous will venture
to divide them into two heads and the first head is
charges is. those that are founded the mon
oee No% he Se chsmberan has other charges
we condemned muddled and Inadequate has been
carried out. Well. II was muddled and inadequate
! expressed that opinion in opposition, and all that
] have learned In office has only confirmed me in
that view. But unfortunately II was an agreement
10 which England has set her hand. and Mr. Cham
berlain's Intention. l understand ii. is that we
ought to have torn up the agreement to which Eng,
land has set her hand because our adversares were
in Office the time. do not like to say what name
would be applied to such proceeding in private
life. What would you.think OF a man who through
his ssd to ssen
said: I have changed my agent and therefore shall
treat the agreement having never taken place?
There is no term of contempt and opprobrium which
YOU think strong for such man. Yet that is
the standard of morality according to which Mr.;
Chamberlain desires that the affairs OF England
should be conducted. ,
we do not approve of the principles of the
Egvptian loan but we approve still less of any
ion that is false to the pledged faith of England
and II Mr. Chamberlain says that at any time in
our career in opposition we have maintained the
doctrine that you may disregard the pledged faith
of England because pledged by your opponents. !
must again repeat the words, that is not true And
So in regard to their Afghan boundary, Mr. Cham
berlan says that we did not approve OF me Alehah
boundary when in opposition. No. we did not APP
prove Of 1t then and were we tied by no engage
rnents we should approve of it now But we