The herald., 1896-11-11

patch. 1 Will reserve for another occa-
sion the observations which. after con-
sideration. l may have to make in reply
to the general argument of his note.
MR.. OLNEY'S REPLY.
Department of State. Washington,
July 10, 1s96-Your Excellency: l have
the honor of acknowledging the receipt
from You of CODY of Lord Salisbury's
dispatch to you of the third inst. Its
object is to explain that his lordship
in his previous dispatch of May %, did
not intend that the boundary line fixed
by the proposed arbitration tribunal
should include in British Guiana any
territory bona fide occupied by Brit
ish subject January l. 1887. But as such
territory must fall upon one side or the
other of any complete boundary line,
and was certainly not in any event to be
assigned to Venezuela, all the present
explanation would seem to show was
that Lord Salisbury's proposals of May
% contemplated not complete line, but
a part or parts of such line, namely,
such part or parts as might divide unin-
habited or unsettled. territory. Such
conclusion requires a somewhat heroic
construction of a paper which in terms
proposes THE following basis of settle
ment of the Venezuelan boundary dis
pute' by which the two governments are
to endeavor to agree ito boundary
line," upon the basis of a certain re-
port and by which. in absence of such an
agreement, an arbtral tribunal is 'to
fix the boundary line upon the basis of
such report"
Nothing in this language intimates
that anything less than a complete boun-
dairy line is to be the outcome of the plan
suggested.
The discussion is, however, hardly
worth pursuing If Lord Salisbury did
not make his meaning clear in the dis
patch of May o. he certainly is entitled
to make it clear now.
There is another part of the dispatch
which seems to me of more Importance
and upon which l desire to base an in
CURRY. 1.-The claim of Venezuela" it is
said. sis so far reaching that it brings
into question interests and rights which
cannot properly be disposed of by an
unrestricted arbitration. 1t extends as
far as the Essequibo,it covers twothirds
peaches titles which have been unques-
toned for many generations"
That Venezuela claims territory ex-
tending to the Essequibo or covering
two-thirds of the colony of British
Guiana cannot be regarded as being of
itself an nsuperable obstacle to unre-
stricted arbitration. But the objection
that the Venezuelan claim impeaches
titles which have been unquestioned for
many generations is undoubtedly of the
most weighty character. The inquiry
1 desire to put therefore, is this: Can it
be assumed that her majesty's govern
ment would submit to restricted arbitra-
ton the whole of the territory in dis
pute, provided it be a rule of the arbitra-
ton, embodied in the arbitral agreement
that territory which has been in exclu-
sive, notorious and actual use for the
occupatio of either party for even two
generations, or say for fifty years, shall
be held by the arbitrator to be the ter
ritory of such party? In other words,
will her majesty's government assent 20
unrestricted arbitration of all the ter
ritory in controversy with the period
for the acquisition of title by prescrip-
| ton fixed by agreement of the parties
in advance at fifty years?
| ] enclose copy of the dispatch for Lord
Salisbury's use. 1 should be glad to have
| it's substance transmitted by cable that
it may be published with the other cor
respondence on the 18th instant