The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-07-23

the lines upon which Il scheme for gen
eral arbitration can be judiciously
drawn"
Under date of May Is. Lord Sails
bury replied TO Secretary Olncy :
statement through Sir Julian Pauncc.
fote beginning 10y an expression of re-
greet that Tin some essential particulars
the opinions Of the two governments do
not as yet seem to be in such accord To
enable them to come to an understand
ing upon this important subject
He says that Secretary Olncy miStOOk
in assuming that he excluded the Ncnc-
zuelan boundary dispute. He wished to
state his views upon points in relation
TO which the two governments do not
cover the same field.
But" says Lord Salisbury. Il was
well aware that any settlement which we
might make he applicable to disputes. not
only between Geat Britain and the
United States, but between either of
them and any other government. and
therefore, with certain adaptation Of lie
tail, it would apply to n dispute between
Great Britain and Venezuela.
With respect 10 the mode Of dealing
with territorial claims the views of the
two governments are still, he says, apart,
her majcsty's government is not pre-
pared for Il complete surrender of their
freedom Of action until further cXpc-
riencc has been acquired. The first re-
mlt of compulsory arbitration of terri
iorial claims would not mproIably be
III enormous multiplication of their num-
Der.
Says Lord Salisbury: "Whatcycr the
benefits of arbitration may be in prevent
ing war from arising out of territorial
disputes they may well be- outwcighcd
if the system should tend to generate Il
multiplicity of international litigation
blighting the prosperity of ;hc uordCr
country exposed to il and leaving its in
habitants to lie under the enduring
threat either of forciblc change Of al
lcgiancc or of exile"
In concluding this note Lord Salisbury
expresses I'M apprehension that if Sccre-
tary Olncy's plan were adopted II nation
whose territory was claimed would avoid
all risk of an adverse arbitration by re-
fusing to accept it on the ground that it
involved their honor and integrity.
As for his own plan. he feels that if
the procedure upon which experience was
found to work with fairness, the option
of rejecting the award would be less and
and less used and might finally be re-
nOunced.
At this point there is injected some
correspondence between Secretary Olncy
and Mr.. Bayard relative to the procure
ment from the British government of
evidence for the use of the Venezuelan
boundary commission, which was prom
iscd, and when the arbitration matter
is again resumed it is through a note
from Sir Julian to Secretary Olney. dated
June 3, submitting in behalf of his gov
eminent proposals for the settlement of
the Venezuelan boundary question. in
the form of n memorandum from Lord
submitted to the United States
as 'thc friend of Venezuela"
Lord Salisbury submits this in view
of the possibility that ''we shall not see
our way to surmount the difficulties which
still separate the views of the two gov
ernments in regard to the larger and
more general question"
He says that from the first his objcc-
ton has been to submit to foreign arbi-
traitors the rights of British coonists
who had settled in II territory they had
every ground to believe British. He was
willing that the unsettled territory should
he subjected to arbitration, even though
some portion of it should he found to
fall within the Schomburgk line. There
fore he proposed Il commission of two
British and two Americans to ascertain
the facts affecting the rights of the unit
cd colonies of Spain respectively at the
date of the acquisition of Guiana by
Great Britain. 4 majority report should
bind both governments. and upon the |
report Great Britain and Venezuela should |
endeavOr to arrange Il boundary line. |
Failing in agreeing. the controversy and |
report should he submitted to Il tribunal |
of three, one named by Great Britain. |
one by Venezuela, and the third by the |
two already chosen. This tribunal, it is |
shall fix line binding upon
both countries, provided that it shall not |
have power to transfer to either Nenc- |
lucla or Great Britain any territory bona |
iide occupied by the subjects of either |
country on January |, 1897. although in |
respect of such territory the tribunal |
may submit recommendations to satisfy |
the equitable rights of the parties.
On June II last Secretary Olncy re- |
declined this proposition as not |
calculated to terminate speedily the |
dispute or give due recognition |
points out that the first commission would |
probably he tied; that it was not author |
zcd to ascertain the bona tide character |
IF settlements made and that the result |
would probably he further negotiations |
md not impossibly another commission. |
The gravcst objections made by the sec |
'etary however. is that although the ar |
bitration tribunal may find certain ter |
ritory to belong to Venezuela, and may |
even find that there are no equities which |
would prevent her having it, whether she |
gets ii or not, is to depend upon the pleas |
IRE of Great Britain
Secretary Olney argues that TO meet the |
case Lord Salisbury's plan must be |
amended by adding one or more members |
10 the commission, so that it can reach a !
result and not become abortive: that the |
should have power to ascer. |
tain the facts pertaining to the occupation |
IF disputed territory by British subjects, |
md that the provision for the exception |
Of territory occupied by British subjects |
should be stricken out or replaced by |
proviso giving to their occupation such |
weight as equity and international law |
requires.
On the same date Secretary Oney noti- |
led Sir Julian Pauncefote that our gov |
'rnment would not he at liberty TO in |
dude the Venezuelan boundary ease with |
ng scope of general arbitration treaty, |
although it would welcome settlement |
lf that controversy by Il special treaty.
In the last letter of the series, dated |
June -, Secretary Olney dcvOtcS himself |
70 answering Lord Salishury's statements
the general arbitration propO-
Sitions, beginning with the statement that
our government can not refrain from hop
ing that persistent effort in the line of
pending negotiations will have results
which, if not all that the enthusias site adj
vocates of international arbitration antici-
pate. would be decided advance upon
anything heretofore achieved in that di-