The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-07-23
THE VENEZUELAN QUESTION
CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN UN-
Gle SAM AND J. BULL MADE
PUBLIC.
IN |MM|TAT|0N or ARBITRATION.
Salisbury Would Have an Arbitration
Treaty BY Which Decision Would
Not Be Binding-The Venezue-
Ian Question Not Yet Settled.

Washington, July 1.-THE correspond
ence which has passed between the gov
ernments of the United States and Great
Britain respecting the establishment of
a general system of arbitration for the
settlement of any disputes which might
arise between the two countries and also
for the settlement by arbitration of the
dispute over the Venezuelan boundary
has been made public in the shape of an
even dozen letters which have been eX-
| changed between Secretary Olney, Lord
Salisbury, Sir Julian Pauncefote and
Ambassador Bayard. The correspond
ence is of great interest as making
sensible advance toward the adoption by
| the two English-speaking nations of the
principle of arbitration as the means of
settling disputes between themselves, but
the persons who have looked forward
with hope and expectancy to the speedy
| conclusion of treaties embodying the ar
bitration principle for the settlement of
either or both of the two great issues
between the two nations are doomed to
disappointment, for the last note from
Secretary Olney to the British ambas-
| sador here, dated within the month past
points out the most vital nature in the
| case, not only of the Venezuelan ques-
| tiOn specifically, but of the general arbi-
tration proposition, as all were still the
Of xt,ith
pectancy of an early adjustment Nota-
bic features of the correspondence are
the fact that whereas Mr.. Bayard, by
instructing Secretary Oney as to pro-
posed negotiations at Washington re-
specting the Venezuelan boundary dis
pute, Lord Salisbury broadcned it into n
general arbitration scheme. following a
| lead set by the late Secretary Gresham
in the spring of 1895; that Secretary Oh
| Eey later insisted upon disassocating the
two subjects, evidently fearing an en-
| tangling alliance otherwise. Then as to
the general arbitration, the issues which
still prevent an agreement are the indis-
position of the British government to
include territorial disputes, save with
the addition of provisions that in the es-
timation of Secretary Oney will render
the attempt at arbitration nugatOry, be-
cause there are no means of making the
| findings of the arbitrators binding upon
the parties or of removing them from
the possibility of indefinite appeals.
AS to the Venezuelan matter specific
ally, the difficulty that can not be over
come is the refusal of the British gov
| ernment to submit to the action of arbi-
tration the territory upon which British
subjects have actually settled.
limitation arbitration" is what Secrc-
tary Olney designates Lord Salisbury's
project, while the British premier crit
| icses Secretary Olney's plan as calcula-
ted to result in evils worse than war.
The correspondence proper begins with
note dated February q last from Mr.
Bayard to the Marquis of Salisbury in
which he says that Gin order to reach
u well defined agreement for the arbitra-
ton of the boundary between British
Guiana and Venezuela which seems to
he almost unanimously desired in both
the United States and Great Britain"
his instructions continue to Indicate an
| urgent desire to have the question re-
moved ms soon as practicable from the
atmosphere of the possible controversy.
Therefore he proposed to enter upon
negotiations at Washington to effect this
purpose He also asked for a clear def
milton of the Settlements" by individuals
in the territory in dispute which Great
Britain desired should be excluded from
arbitration.
Within four days of the receipt of this
note Lord Salisbury made reply readily
concurring in the suggestion to begin
negotiations and noting the desire of the
British government to bring the differ
ences between themselves and Venezuela
to an equitable settlement. He stated
that the determination of facts is a suit
able matter to be considered by a prop
erly constituted tribunal. and while it
may be more difficult to arrive at an
agreement as to the law which should
govern the possibility of being compelled
to argue that question later on should
not deter the governments from setting
in motion that part of the procedure on
which they have already agreed. The
day following this, March ) last, Lord
Salisbury addressed a letter to Sir Ju.
lian Pauncefote in which he referred
to the exchange of communications in
the preceding spring between the am
the establishment Of system of arbi-
tration for the adjustments of disputes
between the two governments, "the fur
ther consideration of which at that time
was prevented by circumstances to
which it is unnecessary to refer"
Lord Salisbury added: "But it has
again been brought into prominence by
the controversy which has arisen upon
the Venezuelan boundary. Without
touching upon the matters raised by that
dispute, it appears to me that the occa-
sion is favorable for renewing the gen
cral discussion upon subject i'll when