New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-11-11
sECRETARY OLNEY'S ANSWER.
Secretary Olneys reply to this letter follows:
Department OF State,


Department Of State.
. Washington July IL. 1895.
receipt from YOU of t eopT on G d
patch to you of the Sd inst. Its object Is to ex-
ma d ina AID HIS LOrdsh in his previous dspach %
by the proposed arbtrai tribunal should include
by s"Sct Esq., BUT %s c
territory must fall upon side the other of
n any STmp snt % n line and sSJan mot
oIa o n snoW rs 5ha
not Complete boundary ne bus part or parts
Of snch Line namely such part or Parts as s might
conclusion requires somewhat heroic construction
or paper which In terms proposes the following
dispute" by which the two Governments are to en-
deavor 10 agree ito boundary line" upon the
basis or certain report ana by which, r IN absence nee
fix the boundary line upon the basis OF such re-
port" Nothing In this language intlmates that
anything less than complete boundary line Is TO
be the outcome of the plan suggested. The discus
sion howeyer Is hardly worth pursuing S II Lord ord
dispatch of May % he certainly Is entitled to make
There is another part of the dispatch which
seems TO me of more Importance. and upon which
wish to base an inquiry. THE claim OF Venez-
into question interests and rights which cannot
be of by an II
two-thirds OF the colony OF British Guiana; II i'm
many ss rha "sS Claims terri
tory extending to the Essequibo or covering two
thirds OF the colony or British Guiana. cannot DC
regarded being OF itself an insuperabc obstacle
to unrestricted arbitration. But the objection That
the Venezuelan claim "impeaches titles which have
been unquestoncd for many generations" is UNI
doubtedly of the most wcghty character. The In
quiry desire to put. therefore. Is this:
Can 1t be assumed that Her Majestys Govern
mcnt would submit to unrestricted arbitration the
whole OF the territory In dispute provided IL be a
rule CT the arbitration. embodied In the arbitral
agreement that territory which has been In the ex-
elusive. notorious and actual use ana occupation or
either party for two generations. or say for
sixty years. shall be held by the arbitrator to he
the territory OF such party? In other words. will
Her Majestys Government assent 10 unrestricted
arbitration OF all the territory In controversy with
the period for the acquisition OF title by prescrip-
ton fixed by agreement OF the parties In advance
at sixty years?
] inclose copy OF the dispatch for Lord Sails
bury's use. I should be glad to have its substance
transmitted by cable. that II may be published.
with the other correspondence. on the 18th inst.
have etc. RICHARD OLNEY.
The concluding suggestion OF Secretary Olney
for sixty years az the period for acquisition OF
title to property led to a counter-proposal from
Lord Salisbury TO reduce the time to twenty
years which was the term common In the
United States. or TO twenty-one years. which
was the common law In England. Venezuela.
however would not consent TO this. nor did
Secretary Oney entertain the suggestion FOR
such a reduction. Considerable discussion final
as the period. Fifty years would fully satisfy
Venezuela. and would practically make the ar
bitraton unrestricted. as nearly all the British
aggrcssiOns have taken place since that time.
SchomburCk's line having been drawn wholly
within that period.