The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-11-12

The Venezuelan arbitration commission
will consist of five arbitrator. two tc
he named by the United States, two by
Great Britain, the four to select the
fifth. Venezuela will not be directly
represented by the commission. The
British settlements in the disputed terri
tory from arbitration is fixed ut fifty
years. according to additional correspon'
dencc on the subject which has just been
discovered. In other words. the British
government has agreed to unrestricted
arbitration of all the territory in dis
pute. with the period for the acquisition
of title by prescription fixed by agree
ment of the parties i'll advance or hfty
years.
Lord Salisbury's acceptance of this
common law doctrine of prescription as
applicable to an international dispute is
said TO be in line with the views laid
down by international writer's. who have
differed only as to the length of occu-
pancy essential to establish title. Most
of our. states have adopted from ten -
twenty years. The original English
rule was that the occupancy should be
SO long that the memory of man runneth
not to the contrary No international
writer has placed the period below
twenty years, so that if Ambassador
years will constitute the test of British
rights il indicates an indispostion to
yield the fullest extent.
Among diplomats it is felt that the
efforts of the Venezuelan commission
have not been in vain. 1t is regarded
as the moral force which helped toward
the present result. Moreover. the COM
mission has accumulated Il mass of evil
dence bearing directly on the facts of
British occupancy, now the test of settle
ment. The fullness of this information
leads to some general comment as to
the probable choice of Justice Brewer
or Others of the commission as arbitra-
tors: but this is purely speculative.
Mr. Frederick X. Coudert. member
of the commission, said today that it
would be much better for the boundary to
be determined by arbitration than by Il
decision of the commission.
Mr. Coudert, when asked concerning
the subject of the statutes of limitations
referred to in Lord Salisbury's address,
said that the statement was not suf-
ficienty definite to enable one to say
what length of time would be fixed as
giving ample time. He was of the
opinion that circumstances of individual
cases would be taken into consideration.
He also expressed the opinion that moral
as well as legal claims would be taken
into consideration. When asked if any
information has been received before
hand concerning the announcement that
would be made in the Guild hall speech,
Mr.. COudert said that he had no prior
information that Lord Salisbury was to
make the announcement of the near APP
preaching settlement of the dispute.
Two notes passing between Secretary
Olney and Lord Salisbury, which mar
rOwed down to an agreement on the i'm
portant issue remaining to be settled,
namely, the disposition of British rights
are as follows:
Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian Paunce-
foute (No. I'D:
Foreign Office, July 8, 1S0G-Sir-I
have to acknowledge your eXcellency's
dispatch number 200, of 10Th of June,
inclosing note from Mr.. Ohcy, in
which he explains the reasons that in
duces the government of the United
States to withhold their assent from the
proposals with respect to the Venezuelan
frontier contained in my dispatch 130 of
the 22nd. The arguments by which Mr..
Olney supports this view will receive the
careful consideration of her majesty's
government. | am now writing to you
for the purpose of discussing them. My
object in addressing your eXcellency is
to point out a matter of great Importance.
Mr.. Olney, owing doubtless to the mad
equacy of my own explanation, has mis-
the purpose of the proposal
which | had the honor to make to him.
He states that it appears to be funda-
mental condition that the boundary de-
cided to be the true one by arbitrators
should not operate upon territory bona
fde occupied by British subject-shall
be DETECTED in every case so as to make
such territory part of British Guiana"
This was not the intention of my pro-
pOsals, and the language of my dispatch
of 22nd of May does not. l think, fairly
bear this construction. | proposed that
1.-THE tribunal should not have power to
include such districts as territory of Ven
but l did not propose that they
should necessarily be assumed without
further proof to be part of British
Guiana. l only stipulated that the
ownership of them was not to be decided
by the tribunal, which, in our judgment,
was inadequate for this purpose, though
it was adequate for the assignment of
the unsettled districts. Settled districts
were to be disposed of by subsequent ne
gotiations. The claim of Venezuela is
so far-reached that it brings into ques-
ton rights which can not properly be dis
posed of by an unrestricted arbitration.
IL ekJenuS as ldT as TIE IL CON-
ers twO-thirds of the colony of British
Guiana; it impeaches titles which have
been unquestiOned for many generations.
These districts must be treated separate
ly, and until further inquiry has thrown
more light upon the matter it is only by
the districts generally that this
can be done.
The view of her majestys government is
that where the matter at issue is Of
great Importance special precautions
against any miscarriage of justice are
required, Of which l have indicated the
character in this correspondence,
but which are not required where n title
to unoccupied territory is alone at issue.
1t is for this reason that her majesty's
government proposes to except these dis
tricts from the arbitration tribunal.
though it could deal adequately with the
disputed claims to territory that is not
occupied.
But they did not intend by that stipula-