The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1896-07-20
VENEZUELAN AFFAIR.
London Papers Comment on the
Matter.
NOT UNAVOIDABLE TO AMERICAN
POSITION ON THE WHOLE.

This Country Has Reason To Be Satisfied
With Mr.. Oiney's Championship of Our
| observation-disclosures of Miners Coneilia-
| tion Board.
| London, July 18.-The Standard dis
ousses the Venezuelan boundary matte
temporarily. 1t admits that it would be
no small advantage to be able to deal
with the American statesmen rather than
with the shifty politi clans presiding over
the policy of Venezuela. 1t considers
Lord Salisbury's policy Of inserting
adequate safeguards against misoar-
rage of Justice more practical than Mr..
Olney's view that Great Britain might
trust the United States not to raise
frivolous claims, but Great Britain could
not tolerate, the condition of things that
would arise if some southern republic,
| in backing with the Washington gov
eminent, should become involved, should
raise a fantastic demand for slice of
British territory.
The Chronicle says: "We feel bound
to say that Mr.. Olney produces very
strong, if not unanswerable, argument
Ii E6ply W hUfu SALISBURY lc1I5 luS
difficulty of submitting a great national
interest OF foreign umpire is real one,
but is not insuperable. We feel sure
that the reply TO Lord Salisbury's desire
to elliott the national feeling in the mat
ter will be an overwhelming mandate to
90 ahead. So far as we may venture to
judge, the Americans have every reason
to be satisfied with Mr.. Olney's cham
pioning of their interests. We promise
Lord GQ1iCburu tho nj nd hn
siastfc support of everybody whose views
we represent
The Telegraph complains against
tediously prolonging the petty dispute,
and urges the diplomats to bestir them
selves. 1t recalls the Alabama case and
says that Engllshmen have no great
cause to be epamored of the principle of
to try their luck again for the sake of
peace and the removal of the wearisome
incubusyo of Venezuela.
The Times says: GIVE are willing to
admit that In controversies with the
United States we have MOTTO apprehend
a systematic presentation OF speculative
claims, as indicated by Lord Salisbury
as practical source of danger, but the
repu blics of Central and South America
are not above such tactics. Caution. and
oircumspeotion are, therefore, eminen thy
required. Public opinion in the United
States can hardy refuse to admit the
force Of Lord Salisbury's reasons for not
trusting system of unrestricted arbi-
tretion.'
The Globe says that the documents are
really disappointing. The paper says
that 1t has no wish for an arbitration
treaty, and expresses the opinion that
Lord Salisbury ought not have made any
reference in his remarks yesterday to
the cases of Belgium and Poland, as it
seems to imply a recognition of the Mon
roe doctrine.
opinion that the national sentiment of
Great Britain Is certainly in favor of a
permanent commission Of arbitration.
Prime Minister Salisbury's statement
in the House of Lords yesterday, when
he laid upon the tabls of the House the
paper relating to the Anglo Venezuelan
boundary dispute, and his further state
ment In respect to the negotiations pend
ing between the British and American
governments anent the esta blishment of
scheme of general arbitration of quss-
lions which may arise between Great
Britain and the United States, afforded
an absorbing topic of conversation in
the Hobbies of Parliament
The consensus of opinion is that the
prime minister's speech foFeshadowed
a settlement Of all tine points of uiftersn-
ces between the two countries.
Lord Salisbury, in making che state
ments, spoke slower than usual, and his
language was exceedingly cautious.
1t was the oantiousness, perhaps,
which prevented him from speaking with
his wonted lucidity, but there is scarcely
any doubt entertained here but that the
differences between the two governments
are in a fair way to On amioable settle
ment and mutually honorable adjust
ment.
When it became known in the HOUSE
of Commons that the papers in the boun-
dairy dispute had been laid upon the table
of the House of Lords, a number of the
mem bers OF the former body FASTENED TO
obtain copies of the correspondence but
they found that the papers had been pre-
sented in dummy form and were not
yet ready for distribution.
The cable despatch to the United Press
on July 10, announcing the break up of
the Miners Cancellation board, gave the
prelude to a gigantic struggle betwsen
the coal owners and their work men. The
Cancellation board, launched under Lord
Rosebery's auspices. godfathered and
patronized by Lord James. with other
philanthropic politicians, was to revo-
lutionize the relation between the men
and their masters. There were TO be no
more strikes, and wages and hours were
to be amicably regulated. Since coal be-
gan to drop in price the masters have
dropped wages concurrent with the fall
in prices. The men s delegates demand
ed that the board should oonoede mimi
mum statutory wage for II months. This
was refused. The coal owners at present
prefer that their action remain an open
question. In some great mining districts,
mon working four or five days per week
earn only IL shillings. Their starvation
is conclusive reply to the masters open
question. So the Miners Federation.
the Derbyshire, the Lancashire, and the
Durham associations are organizing
their forces for a big strike.
During the month that has elapsed
since the Irish land bill passed its second
reading q violent underground conflict
has been waged over it's possible fortunes
in committee. The looked for oompro-
mise between the landlord interests and
the Nationalist has not yet eYentuated.
Lord Lansdowne and Lord Asnbourne,