Little Falls weekly transcript. (Little Falls, Morrison Co., Minn.) 1894-19??, 1896-02-14

treaties made by Great Britain. Questions
might arise, such as those involving tho
title Of the British crown to territory or
other sovereign rights which her majesty's
government could not pledge themselves
beforehand to refer to arbitration"
Therefore Lord Salisbury deliberately n.
pudiated the Granville treaty, and all sub
SeQuent efforts to revive It were unavail-
ing. i
i But notwithstanding this harsh action
the Liberal ministry, which soon took the
place of Salisbury's govefnmcnti showed .
disposition to recognize the injustice Of
British pretension to sovereignty at the
mouth OF the Orinoco. Lord Rosebery, on
July 30. 1886, wrote In spirit of conoilia-
ton, proposing a boundary line starting
somewhere to the east Of the Orinoco
mouth, merely remarking that her majesty
attached special Importance to the posses
sion of the river Guaima with the proviso,
however, that the river Orinoco should be
''entirely FREQ to commerce navigation.
The foregoing detailed review Of the bis.
torical aspects of England's claim appears
to show that Lord Salisbury's present in
sistence on the Sohomburgk line as the
boundary between British Guiana aud
Venezuela Is merely the development OF
an arbitrary course determined OH within
the past ten years, In contempt of the
traditions and also the formal record made
in the 70 years from 1914 to 1885. ., NJ
In justification Of England's present att
titude it is now urged that the territorial
limits have always been in debate; that
she has really claimed all the time do
minion as far west on the coast as Point
Barima; that the various A berdeen, Gran
Vile and Rosebery compromise PROPOSE
tions were only tentative and couciliatory
and never surrendered Englands real
claim to joint Ownership of the OrinOoo
mouth, which claim she has ever been
prepared to assert and establish, and that,
ton for ten years of all the country east Of
asked to submit the proprietorship Of that
country to arbitration now.
I Such is Great Britain's Defense Vene-
zuela's sole reply is that this contention,
while very convenient for the interests of
England; utterly ignores her own national
rights which are founded on historical
truths whose great weight nobody in his
senses can doubt.
Ex-Minister scruggS Views.
William L. Scruggs, for many years
United States minister to Brazil, in late
magazine article on th6 subject, says:
! "The real Issue involved In the present
phase of the controversy between England
and Venezuela IL very simple Briefly
stated, 1t Is about this: Whether, under
pretsxts afforded BY the incidents Of q
boundary dispute which she has persist
ontly refused to settle upon any just or
reasonable basis, Great Britain shall be
permitted to dismember an American 70
public, menace the safety Of others ada
cent, and thus TO indefinitely extend her
colonial system on this continent, In open
/ Violation Of public law and in total disro-
gard of the principles Of tho Monroe doc
txino. Z"
\ "This language may seem . little
strong, coming - 1t does from an Impair
tial source, but It viii be found to be
fully justified by the facts and ciroum-
stances Of the oase- II 10 IN axiom Of in
ternational ethics, sanctioned BY general
usage, that all boundary disputes arising
from imperfect surveys, or from adverse
constructions: Of treaty provisions, or
which turn exclusively upon asoertainable
historical facts, or which involve questions
of prescriptive right, are, in the last resort,
properly referable to a joint commission
or to outside friendly arbitration. The
present case falls clearly within these pro-
visions and should constitute no excep-
kiOn