The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-03-16
CAUSED BY ENGLAND
VENEZUELAN QUESTION MIGHT
HAVE BEEN SETTLED LONG AGO.
John Bulls Greed Prevented-CoIum.
bus Saw the boundary Line When
He America.

A valuable addition to the literature of
the subject Of the Venezuelan boundary con-
troversy was made public here to-day
through the issue of IAN official history of
discussion between Venezuela and Great
Britain on the Guiana boundaries" This is
part OF the case prepared by the Venezuela
legation for presentation to the United
States cor ission which is at present deal
Ing with ne vexed boundary dispute.
As its caption indicates. this volume is
strictly historical, and in no place does it
exhibit a line Of argumen outside of the
diplomatic notes exchanged in the past.
Chronologically, the volume covers notes and
| correspondence as. far back as 1872. and the
| history is brought down to include the cele-
brated Olney note of last July, the two re-
sponses of Lord Salisbury, the message of
| President Cleveland to Congress on the sub
ject Of Venezuela and the joint resolution
passed by Congress authorizing the appoint
ment of the American commission to define
the true boundary line.
The volume makes a most complete history
of the entire case, from q Venezuelan stand
| point, and, taken in connection with the Brit
ish blue book on the same subject, just is
sued, may be regarded as making up and
setting out all of the substantial facts upon
which our commission will be obliged to rely
in arriving at a conclusion as to the bound
airy line. One feature of the past CORE
spondence, which, if not new, has not been
brought to the attention of the public in de-
tail recently. is the fact that In 1894 an ear
nest effort was made by the Pope, at the in
stance Of the President of Venezuela, to COM
pose the differences between Venezuela and
Great Britain. The details of the failure of
by word of mouth of the Papal legate, are
not set out in the correspondence, but it is
evident from the book that the refusal of
the British government to entertain such
overtureS was firm and final.
The first article in the voiume is devoted
to the celebrated Schomburgk line. Quot
shown that in that year Lord Palmerston
had recorded himself as proposing that this
line be regarded as conditional simply to be
the boundary. Touching this boundary an
extract is given from the instructions is
sued to the minister to London of the an
Client State of Colombia in 1922, whereby he
Is told to insist upon the Venezuelan title
to lands west Of the Essequibo river and
to de e the removad OF british sqnatsers:
addressed a note to the Venezuelan For
eign Office, complaining of the dangers to
navigation owing to the absence of a bed-
con at the mouth OF the Orinoco. and re-
questing the Venezuelan authorities to
erect one at Point Barima. which at that
time had mot a single mark TO denote it."
SENTRY ON THE LINE.
III lcfL LII. COTtlquc COHpldlneQ u Lcfu
Aberdeen Of the location Of a British sentry
box on the Schomburgk line. and this
brought forth a disclaimer from Lord Aber-
deem, although he admitted that the surveyor
had left boundary posts behind him. Next
DR.. Fortique requested the removal of these
boundary posts, and that Immediately. and
that afterward negotiations be instituted for
a definite settlement of the boundary ques-
ton. Lord Aberdeen replied that much un-
necessary inconvenience would result from
the removal of these posts fixed by Mr..
Schomburgk. as they will afford the only
tangible means by which her Majesty's gov
eminent can be prepared to discuss the
question of the boundaries with the govern
ment Of Venezuela. These posts We're erected
for that purpose, and not, as the Venezuelan
government appears to apprehend, as indi-
cations of dominion and empire on the part
of Great Britain"
However. as DIR. Fortiuue advanced
further arguments to show why the posts
should be removed this was directed by
Lord Aberdeen in 1872, with the reservation
that Great Britain did not thereby aban-
don any portion of her rights to the terri
tory formerly held by the Dutch in Guiana
This obstacle having been removed, for the
first time negotiations were opened formal
~ for an adjustment of the boundary ques-
ton In q note from Dr, Fortique 10 morq
thorough historical analysis of the case,
showing that the lands which are now the
subject of controversy were the very same
that Columbus saw when he first discovered
the American continent, and that it had
been fully explored by the Spanish mission
aries and traders and warriors.
SIR WALTER RALEIGH.
The exaggerated reports of the enormous,
natural wealth of the country led to hostile
expeditions on the part of the enemies of
Spain, and special reference is made to
one led by Sir Walter Raleigh, in which the
city of Santo Tomas was destroyed for
the second time, so that not a trace re-
manned. These facts are set out to show
that the Spanish were in actual possession
of the Orinoco and of all contiguous ter
ritory; that they occupied the rivers Bar
ina, Morocco and Pomaro, and that their
territory extended to the Essequ!bo, all be-
ing taken possession Of ., IN ,5 the name OF
Therefore, in concluding his note, Dr.
Fortique proposed the line of demarcation
Of the Esseauibo and running almost
straight inland. In reply Lord Aberdeen en-
deavored to controvert DR.. Fortique's state,
in lieu the Aberdeen line" beginning at
the mouth of the river Guiana; -
The negotiations thus fairly Instituted
appear to have drifted along without acer.
bity or ill-feeling on either. side. and without
special feature up to the eighties. when Earl
Granville and Mr.. Rojas, representing Great
Britain and Venezuela, respectively, took up
the matter and advanced so far that the
Earl proposed the Granville line. beginning
OH the COAST twenty -luhc inifSS coot "a OAAt
Barima. The exchange of notes was pro-
ceeding with fair prospects OF reaching. a
complete agreement, and had gone so far
that the British government had consented
to accept a draft of a treaty providing for
the submission to arbitration OF any and all
questions that might arise between the two
countries, and there was q change in the
British government, and Lord Salisbury,
coming again in power, Immediately set
aside what had been done by his prede-
cessor.
His statement at that time. as quoted in
this volume, is, Her Majesty's government
are unable to concur in the assent given by
their predecessors in office to the general
and they are unable to agree to the inclusion
i'm ii of matter other than those arising out
of alleged violation Of the particular treaty
(Which was generally a treaty or commerce)
To engage to refer to arbitration all disputes
and controversies whatsoever would be with
out precedent in the treaties made by Great
Britain. Questions might arise such as those
involving the title of the British crown TO
territory or other sovereign rights which her
Majesty's government could not pledge them
selves beforehand to refer to arbitration"
This language has a particular significance
at this time TO the advocates OF a general
States and Great Britain. The adverse
change in the nature of the negotiations thus
brought about led, as is told in detail, TO
the severance of diplomatic relations be-
tween Venezuela and Great Britain in 1887.
The remainder of the history of the case,
although occupying much space in the VOL
ume, does not exhibit any feature of novelty
and treats of acts now well known.