Evening journal., 1896-11-06
CONTEMPORARY OPINION.
THE VENEZUELAN QUESTION

Sir Edward Clarke, solicitor-general
under the Liberal government has
aroused a good deal of bad feeling by
his speech to his constituents at York
on the 18th. Referring to the report
which will be made by the Venezuelan
commission he said: "That report
would be against this country eng
land), not because il was a hostile COM
mission, but because he believed no
honest and impartial commission could
decide in favor of the claims of this
country upon the evidence" And he
urged a prompt settlement of the mat
ter. In the discussion that naturally
followed it was alleged by Lord Sails
bury's supporters that Sir Edward
Clarke, in portions of the speech con-
tanning this remarkable avowal,
showed that he was not familiar with
"the evidence" We think that the al
legation is not without foundation. for
certain portions of the evidence which
he declared that he had not seen dis
cussed and on which he placed con-
siderable emphasis, undoubtedly had
been discussed both in the English
papers and in this country. But what
is significant about the speech is that
a member of the present Parliament
and a former sOlicitor-general should
make such an extreme statement at all,
and should base upon it a demand for
an immediate settlement of the Ques-
tion involved. That shows a very diff
ferent condition of mind from the one
that prevailed only a few months since
in England.
In connection with this incident in
/ England there is to be noted. the re-
mark of Professor Burr, the geographic
/ expert who has been making investiga-
tions in England and Holland, to aid
/ the commission in its labors. When
asked whether he thought the question
would shortly be settled he replied: 81
cannot say; l fervently hope so. The
evidence is so vague that it must be
I interpreted ! have no right to antici-
pate the commission" This reveals In
reality the character of the whole
/ question II is gravely to be doubted
whether there is evidence on either
side, whether geographic or historic
that is not so vague that it must be
interpreted" II is not only possible
but probable that the American com
mission may find itself unable def
\ nitely to describe a boundary that In
their judgment sharply divides the pos.
sessions of Venezuela from those OF
Great Britain. If that should prove tC
be the fact, the commission will, OF
course, declare It.
4 What, then, viii be the course to pur.
sue? Clearly it would be unreasonable
for either party to insist upon forcibly
maintaining a claim that a commission
SO impartial and competent as thai
named by the president can neither
wholly approve nor wholly reject. Boil
parties, on such n decision by the com
mission, ought to see the necessity o
accepting a compromise, to be reache,
either by> negotiation between them
selves or by the friendly offices of thu
b United States, or by some agency Il
which both should agree If this shoul'
be the outcome it must be noted that j
is in effect that sought by the action o
our government, which simply aske,
Z that a matter of such obvious doub
p and difficulty should not be decided b.
one party alone-that it should be set
E tied not arbitrarily, but by reasonabl
arbitration.-New York Times.