The sun., 1896-02-28

are called upon to interfere. They have said,
finally, by tho Monroe doctrine. that It Is
their fixed policy that any invasion Of the
territorial or political rights Of American
commonwealths by European powers, would
be matter OF special interest to the United
States. Such being the Monroe doctrine,
Sir WILLIAM HARcoURT averred for his
part, that he could not understand why the
feelings Of any British subject should be
ruffled by IL. 1t Is, nevertheless, certain
that tho feelings OF many British subjects,
who have sought hospitality and cash on
this side OF the Atlantic, were not only
ruflled but outraged by Mr.. CLEvELAND's
firm assertion of the Monroe doctrine.
Sir WILLIAM HARCoURT next examined
the only other practical question. whether,
namely, there has been an invasion OF the
rights Of an American republic In the case
Of Venezuela and in respect Of a boundary.
Hero again he rebuked the uninformed and
unintellgent persons who have beer al
lowed to vent their folly in London news
papers The United States, he observes,
have made no pronouncement upon the
question at all. They have simply appointed
Commission to inform their judgment on
the subject II arbitration had taken place,
as they suggested, that Commission would
not have been necessary, because the arbi-
traitor would have decided the question. Sir
WILLIAM repelled the notion current among
some people in England, and also among
some reneeades and Uitlanders in this coun-
try that President CLEvELAND's appoint
ment Of Boundary Commission was an Of
fence to Great Britain. He denied also, that
Englishmen, or, at all events, the great
majority Of Englishmen, had any desire to
assert any claim to any territory to which
they are not clearly entitled. The question
is: What 10 the territory of British
Guiana, That this is a very doubtful
question seemed to him demonstrated by
the fact that diplomacy has had it in hand
for half century without being able to
settle it. In Sir WILLIAMS opinion, it is
not creditable to British diplomatists that
the boundary question should have been al
lowed to tester until it had broken out In
an open sore and bred bad blood between
two great nations. He declared it to be the
first duty of the British Government to take
measures to heal that sore. There was, he
insisted, only one question, namely, what
was the Dutch title in 1914? Not for
moment did Sir WILLIAM recognize the pre-
tension that British subjects could have ac-
quired title by prescription since that date
There were, he added. just two methods Of
determining what the Dutch title was: One
was by an amicable agreement between
Great Britain and Venezuela, without refer
ence to archival research. Ifit should appear
upon inquiry that the differences of opinion
were not capable Of adjustment in that
way. what possible objection could there be
to referring those differences to the arbitra-
tion OF a third powerf II there are any
questions within the domain of arbitration,
would members of the House Of Commons
exclude a question Of this kindi He pro-
nounced it superfuous to argue that point
Lord SALISBURY himself in his note to Mr..
OLNEY had accepted arbitration in princi-
pie, but had assumed to limit the applica-
tion Of the principle to the territory west OF
the Schomburgk line. On that attempted
limitation Sir WILLIAMS comment was,
that 1t is not for one party in dispute to
define what is the dispute 1t is quite evil
dent that the two parties will have different
opinions upon the subject. III you choose"
he said, Ito lay down a definite line which
is to exclude the extreme claim Of one party,
do you think 1t reasonable that on the other
side Of the line your extreme claim should
be left open. 30 that you may gain
what you can from the arbitration,
and they can gain nothingt" Sir
WILLIAM declared. lastly, that one thing, at
all events, ought not to stand in the way OF
a settlement, and that is, mere diplomatic
punctilio about past transactions. Here,
undoubtedly, the reference was to Lord
SALIsBuRY's refusal to carry out the agree
ment made by his predecessor, Lord GRAN
WILLIE, on May 25, 1885, to submit the
whole boundary controversy to arbitration.
The implication was that because Lord
SALISBURY had once made mistake, was
no reason he should persist in it. Sir WILL
LIAM, however, thought and said that the
matter was far too grave for party recrimi-
nation. What all Englishmen ought to
Join in doing, was to obliterate the contro.
versies of the past. which had proved SO I'M
fruitful, and to make known to the world
their sincere desire that justice should be
done, and to adopt the best method Of
speedily attaining justice.
II this speech of Sir WILLIAM HARCoURr's
had been made in the United States Senate,
1t would have provoked the sneers of our
Doughfaces and Copperheads. But gen.
uine Americans and upright Englishmen
will gladly acknowledge that he is a true
friend of both countries.