The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1896-11-11
0LNEY DICTATED TERMS
QUESTIONS TO BE PASSED ON BY
YENEZUEL1N ARBIrERS.

the Parties in Advance at Sixty Years.
Washington, Nov. 1O.-Two letters
which were exchanged between the
United States and Great Britain re-
sarding Venezuela since the presenta-
tion of Mr.. Olney's counter proposition
of June IL were given to the press at
the state department this afternoon and
help materially to cellar up the situa-
ton.
In a dispatch of May 22 1896, Lord
Salisbury had proposed an evenly div
ided commission to report upon the
territory in dispute outside the So
called settled districts and Secretary
Olney had suggested a provision for
commission of unequal numbers. The
next dispatch was from Lord Salisbury
to Sir Julian Paunecfote. 1t was dated
July 3. The dispatch begins by saying
that Lord Salisbury will not at present
discuss the reasons that induce the
United States government to withhold
assent from the proposals contained in
hts dispatch of May 22 Lord Salisbury
then says:
My object in addressing your excel
lency is to point out that in matter
of some Importance Mr.. Olney-owing,
doubtless to the inadequacy of my own
explanation-ha misapprehended the
purpose of the proposal which 1 had
the honor to make to him. He states
that it appears to be fundamental
condition that the boundary line, de-
cided to be the true one by the arbi-
traitors shall not operate upon terri
tory bona fide occupied by a British
subject-shall be DETECTED in every such
case so as to make such territory part
of British Guiana.
This was not the intention of my
proposals, and the language of my dis
patch does not / think, fairly bear
this construction. i proposed that the
tribunal should not have power to in
clude such districts as the territory of
Venezuela, but I did not propose that
they should necessarily be assumed
without further proof to be part ~of
British Guiana. I only stipulated that
the ownership of them was not to be
decided by the tribunal, which, in our
pose, though it was adequate for the
assignment Of the unsettled districts
The settled districts shown to be in dis
pute by the inquiries of the commits
sion were to be disposed of by subse-
quent negotiation. The claim of Vene-
zuela is so far-reaching that it brings
into question interests and rights which
cannot properly be disposed of by an
unrestricted arbitration.
1T extends as far as the Essequibo
1t covers tWo-thirds of the colony of
British Guiana; it impeaches titles
which have been unquestioned for
many generations. These districts
must be treated separately, and until
further inquiry has thrown more light
upon the matter it is only by reserving
the settled districts generally that
this can be done. The view of her
majesty's government is that where
the matter in issue is of Importance
and involves rights which belong to a
considerable opulation and are deep
ly cherished by them, special precau-
tions against any miscarriage of JUS
tice are required, but which are not re-
quired where little unoccuped terri
tory is alone in question.
''It is for this reason that her ma
jesty's government proposed to except
these districts from the jurisdiction of
the arbitral commission, though it
could deal adequately with the disput-
ed claims of territory not occupied
But they did not intend by that stipu-
lation to ask the government to pre-
judge aay questions which had been
raised or might be raised with respect
to the ownership of settled districts.
This part of the subject, confessedly
the most difficult part, would have been
reserved for separate examination"
A copy ofthe above dispatch was CIV
en- to Secretary Olney, who, on July 13,
sent a reply to Lord Pauncefote. In
this reply Secretary Olney says:
"All the present explanation would
seem to show is that Lord Salisburys
proposals of May % contemplated not a
complete boundary line, but a part Or
parts of such line, namely, such part
or parts as might divide Lninhabited or
unsettled territory. Such a conclusion
requires a somewhat heroic construc-
ton of paper which in terms proposes
the following basis of settlement of
the Venezuelan boundary dispute. by
which the governments are to endeavor
! to agree to a boundary line upon the
/ basis of certain report and by which,
+ in absence of such an agreement an ar
bitral tribunal is to fix the boundary
L line upon the basis of such report
+ Nothing in this language intimates
/ that anything less than a complete
/ boundary line is to be the outcome of
the plan suggested. The discussion,
however. is hardly worth pursuing. If
Lord Salisbury did not make his mean
ing clear in the dispatch of May % he
certainly is entitled to make it clear
now There is another part Of the dis
patch which seems to- me of more i'm
portance and upon which I wish to
| base an inquiry. The claim of Venez-
uela is so far-reaching that it brings
| into question, it is claimed, interests
| and rights which cannot properly be
| disposed of by an unrestricted arbitra-
| ton 1t extends as far as the Essequi-
bo; it covers two-thirds of the colony
| of British Guiana: it impeaches titles
which have been unquestioned for
many generations.
THAT Venezuela claims territory ex-
tending to the Essequibo. or covering
two thirds of the colony of British Gui-
ana, cannot be regarded as being of it