The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-07-18

which. "a Lord SALISBURY Justly intimates
would be of decided advantage as tcnu,ns
to indicate the lines on which a sSn.nv
for general arbitration can be Judicious'S
drawn"
| MIsTOOK HIS MEANING.
| Under date of May is. Lord Salisbury re-
piled to Secretary Olney's Statement
through Sir Julian Pauncefote. beginning
by an expression OF regret that in some es-
| sential particulars the opinions of the two
| governments do not as yet seem to be sum
GENTLY i'm accord TO enable them to come 10
definite agreement upon the whole oi
| this important subject" He says that sec
rotary Olney mistook his meaning III as
Stunning that he excluded the Nenezueiah
| boundary dispute. He wished to state ms
views upon the question OF general arpi.i"-
In relation to which the questions 40 no'
/ cover the same field. But, says Loru o ai
| bury. II well aware that any setus
general principles. be applicable TO disputes.
| not only between Great Britain anu tne
United States, but between either OF slsln
| and any other government ana tnereloi,s;;
with certain adaptations of detail. IL would
apply to a dispute between treat bI le Si
and Venezuela. In this interview ! am si IA,
| to observe that / am at one with Mr.. VI
ney. because 1 hold that in discussing tns
| safeguards by which a general system OF
arbitration should be sanctioned, IL Il iii
| portant to bear in mind that any system
| adopted between our two nations oosn'
to be such as can In prinGiple De r sp,
| piled If necessary to their relations Win
other civilized countries.
Lord Salisbury notes the encouraging fact
that the two governments ,,n 15y are OF Arti
| Gle and the policy il is designed 10 sane
| ton. Under the circumstances IL appears
| TO him to be matter for regret that the
| two governments should now neglect the
| opportunity of embodying their common
view so far as it is ascertained IN se i.ao
taf ion,
| in the slightest degree. the chance or com.
ing to an agreement on the more Glfncuit
| portion of the subject concerning TERRITORIAL
claims. With respect to the mode OF deaf
| ing with territorial claims the views Oh the
| two governments are still, he says, apart;
| Her Majestys government Is not prepd,rsu
| for a complete surrender of their freedom
of action until further experience has been
acquired The first result or compuisory
| improbaby be an enormous multiplication
| of their number. Says Lord SALISBURY:
! Whatever the benefits of arbitration may
be in preventing war from coming out or
territorial disputes. they may Wen De out
weighed if the system should tena TO 1t zen
| ton. blighting the prosperity or the Dorder
| country exposed TO it. and leaving It's IN
| habitants TO lie under the enduring threat
either of forcible change or allegiance OF
Lord Salisbury further argues that inter-
| national law is in most rudimentary con-
| dition respecting territorial rights to be
| settled by arbitration, and he holds that II
4 would be wiser until experience Is Sdlneu
| for nations to retain in their own hands
| some control over the ultimate results OF
| any claim that might be advanced against
| their territorial rights. As measure OF
protection he suggets that no award In
question of territorial rights should stano
| if within three months after its delivery
| either party shall protest against It's va
| lidity.
In concluding this note Lord Salisbury
| expresses apprehension that il Secretary
Olney'S plan were adopted nation whose
territory was claimed would avoid all RISK
| of adverse arbitration by refusing 10 ac-
| cept it on the ground that it involved their
| honor and integrity. AS for his own plan
| he feels that if the procedure upon expe-
| rence were found to work with tolerable
fairness the option of rejecting the award
| would less and less used, and might
finally be renounced.
AS TO VENEZUELA.
| At this point there is injected some cor
respondence between Secretary Olney and
| Mr. Bayard. relative TO the procurement
| from the British government of evidence
for the use of the Venezuelan boundary
| commission which was cheerfully promised,
| and when the arbitration matter is again
resumed il is through the note from Sir
| Julian to Secretary Olney, dated June 3.
| submitting in behalf of his government pro-
posals for the settlement of the Venezuelan
boundary question in the form of memo
randum from Lord Salisbury submitted to
| zuea' Lord Salisbury submits this in
| view of the possibility that shall not
| see our way to surmount the difficulties
| which still separate the views of the two
| governments regard to the larger and
| more general question. He says that from
| the first his objection has been to sub
| hitting to foreign arbiter the rights of
| British colonsts who had settled in a ter
ritory they had every ground to believe
| British. He was willing that unsettled ter
| rtory should be subjected to arbitration
| even though some portion of ii should be
| found to fall within the SchOmburgk line.
Therefore he proposed a commission of
| two British and two Americans to ascer-
| tain the facts affecting the rights of the
United Colonies and of Spain. respectively,
| at the date of the acquisition of Guiana by
| Great Britain A majority report should
| bind both governments and upon the
| port Great Britain and Venezuela should
| endeavor to arrange boundary line. Fail
| ing in agreement the controversy and re-
| port should be submitted to tribunal OF
| three one named by Great Britain. one by
| Venezuela and the third by the two al
| ready chosen. This tribunal. it it proposed,
| shall fix the line binding upon both coun-
| tries. provided that il shall not have power
| to transfer to- either Venezuela or Great
| Britain any territory bona fide occupied
| by the subjects of the other country Jan.
| tory the tribunal may submit recommends
| tons TO satisfy the equitable rights of the
DECLINED BY OLNEY.
| On June IL last, Secretary Olney regret
fully declined this proposition as not calcu-
| lated to terminate speedily the boundary
dispute or give due recognition to the just
| rights of the parties. He points out that
| the first commission would probably be
tied; that it was not authorized to ascer-
tain the bona fide character of settlements
made and that tho result would probably
| be further negotiations, and, not impos-
| sibly, another commission. The gravest
| objection made by the Secretary, however,
| is that, although the arbitratral tribunal
may find certain territory to belong TO
| Venezuela and may even find that there
| are no equities which should prevent her
! having ii whether she gets ii or not is to
depend upon the good pleasure of Great
| Britain. Secretary Olney argues that 10
meet the case Lord Salisburys plan must
/ be amended by adding more mem
berS TO the commission, that il can
| reach IL result and not become abortive:
| that the commission should have power TO
| ascertain the facts pertaining to the occu-
patton of disputed territory by British SUBJ
Jects. and that the proviso for the exception
of territory occupied by British subjects
should be stricken out replaced by a
proviso giving to their occupation such
weight as equity and International law
quire.
| On the same date Secretary Olney noti-
| fled Sir Julian that our government would
| q al liberty a include the VpQezIlqlap