The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-02-18

state when such interference sav0red oI
menace. out he denied that this character
attached 10 the course taken by the l Jnlted
States. He said that IL was admitted IN
1871 that the Orinoco should constitute tne
boundary. Since that time, the speaker salas'
England had seven times changed the me
marking the limit OF her claim In face OF
these facts how could il be contendeu py
Great Britain that the Schomburgk line Was
outside the pale OF arbitration? Having eH-
pressed dissatisfaction at Lord Granville
treatment OF the question In 1881, Mr. AtnsI-
ley-Jones protested against the assertion
that the action of the United states govern
men was only an election dodge. We ought
not to judge the action OF the government
the speaker continued. by President Siese.
lands and Secretary Olney's dispatcn, pus
by the friendly representations received
subsequently.
Mr.. A. j. Balfour. First Lord Of the
Treasury and government leader then arose
to reply. and said he desired TO appeal 10
the house that in his opinion continuation
OF the debate would make an honorable "a
rangement matter of greater dffflculty lie
trusted that the house would not take a
premature opportunity OF discussing the pol
icy which had been pursued or which ought
to be pursued
John Dillon, anti-Parnellite, thought that
the American people ought 10 know tnat
intense feeling existed in the House OF
Commons against any attempt 10 bring on
a war on this question. The conduct OF the
American government, he said, had been
most patient and fair. IL was only after
Great Britain, followed by an insulting dis
patch from Lord Salisbury, that the PTesi-
dent had sent his dispatch 1t ought 10 be
understood in America that Lord SALISBURY
dispatch did not represent the feelings or
England Ireland
VERNON HARCOURTS SPEECH.
Sir William Vernon Harcourt, the Liberal
leader in the House of Commons, said that
Mr.. Atherley-Jones's amendment had been
moved in the interest of arbitration, but ii
was couched in a form which would censure
the government, and if a division were
taken on it, there would be great majority
against it, and il would go forth to America
and 10 the world that the House of Con-
mons had pronounced against arbitration.
He believed that a great majority in the
House of Commons and elsewhere were in
favor of arbitration or a proper basis. and
the main object should be how best TO give
expression TO this feeling. He deplored the
use of exasperating language. Nothing could
be more injurious and untrue, he said than
to say that the Presidents message was an
election dodge. The United States had been
pressing the question for settlement for ten
years in the most conciliatory manner. We
should all endeavor, on both sides, TO re-
move the sources of irritation and secure
speedy settlement. He was strongly inn
pressed, he continued, with the evils and
dangers of delay in coming TO some agree
ment. He would be glad to know from the
government the cause for the delay in pre-
senting the British case. Ii was desirable
that the public on both sides of the Atlantic
should be informed on this in order TO con-
cilate the differences between US. Many
differences had already been removed In
stead of resentng we should now welcome
the cooperation OF the United States So
far the question of arbitration went, all
were agreed. That IL was an fmpossibility
in the present circumstances to lay down a
fixed boundary was substantially agreed. He
also agreed with Secretary Olney that the
arbitration should embrace the validity of
the asserted prescriptive titles by ocupation.
Sir William Vernon Harcourt concluded
as follows: II believe that the real points
of difference between the two governments
are insignificant. But nothing is so danger
Gus to leave disputes of this kind to the
ignorant prejudices of the people, who do
not understand the question. l venture to
suggest to Mr.. Atherley-Jones that, after
the statement the government has made. IL
would be useless TO pursue his motion 10 a
division, which would entirely misrepresent
the feeling of the house, besides doing in
finite injury in America. l see no manner
of settling this question except to encourage
support of the government i'm a course
which, If followed, will most speedily and
successfully lead TO good understanding
between England and the United States.'
Mr.. Atherley-Jones then withdrew his
amendment Mr. John Dillon objected to
the withdrawal. and an alteration with the
Speaker ensued. but the latter refused to
uphold the objection.