The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-11-11
THE CORRESPONDENCE.
Text of Two Notes That Led to the
Arbitration Agreement.

Arbitration Agreement.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1.-THE two notes
on arbitration passing between Secretary
Olney and Lord Salisbury, which narrowed
down to an agreement, the only important
issue remaining to be decided-namely.
that of the disposition of British vested
rights through settlement = bear date of
July last and are as follows the first be-
ing from Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian
Pauncefote, under date of July 8:
"Sir-I have to acknowledge your Excel
lencys dispatch No. 200, of June 15 inclos-
ing a note from Mr.. Olney, In which he
explains the reasons that induce the gov
ernment of the United States to withhold
its assent from the proposals with respect
to the Venezuelan frontier contained in my
dispatch No. 130 of May 22. The argu-
ments by which Mr.. Olney supports this
view will receive the careful consideration
of her Majesty's government 1 am not
now writing TO you for the purpose of dis
cussing them. My object IN addressing
your ExceHency is to point out that In u
matter Of some Importance Mr.. Olney-ow-
ing doubtless to the inadequacy of my own
explanation-has misapprehended the pur-
port of the proposal which / had the honor
TO make to him. He states that 1T appears
to be a fundamental condition that the
boundary line decided to be the true one
by the arbitrators shall not operate upon
territory bona fide occupied by a British
subject-shall be detected in every such
case SO as to make such territory part of
British Guiana. This was not the intention
of MY proposals, and the language of my
dispatch of MAY % does not, think, fairly
bear this construction. proposed that the
tribunal should not have power 10 include
such districts as the territory of Venezu-
ela, but did not propose that they should
necessarily be assumed without further
proof TO be part OF British Guiana l only
stipulated that the ownership of them was
not to be decided by the tribunal which, in
cur judgment, was inadequate Tor this pu-
pose, though 1t was adequate for the as
signment of the unsettled districts. The
settled districts shown 10 be in dispute py
the inquiries of the commission Were 10 be
disposed of by subsequent negotiation.
1.-The claim of Venezuela Is so far-reach-
ing that it brings into question interests
and rights which cannot properly be dis
posed of by any unrestricted arbitration 1t
extends as far as the Essequibo; 1t covers
two-thirds of the colony of British Guiana;
il impeacheS titles which have Deen un-
questioned for many generations. These
districts must be treated separately, and
until further inquiry has thrown more light
on the matter 1t is only by reserving the
settled districts generally that this can be
done; - ,,.4ostvs Government
il that where the matter in issue Is OF
great Importance and involves rights which
belong to a considerable population and
are deeply cherished by them, special pre-
cautions against any miscarriage OF JUS
tice are required, of which have indicated
the general character in this correspond
ence, but which are not required where a
title to unoccupied territory is alone in
issue. 1t is for this reason that her Males
tvs government proposed to eA-
on sSde of hsfs Se arSra asS trSana rSm noah
it could deal adequately with the
disputed claims to territory that is not oc-
cupied. But L did not intend by that stipu-
lation TO ask the government of the United
States to preiudge any questions which had
been raised. or might be raised; with re-
spect 20 the ownership of settled districts
This part Of the subject. confessedly the
most difficult part, would have been re-
seryed for seDarate & examfnatiGn m nina pis
ton to Mr.. Olney when you have an oppor-
tunity. and if he desires It,. give him a
another occasion the observations which,
after consideration, may have to make in
reply to the general argument Of +, his bis, p9te:
SECRETARY OLNEY'S REPLY.
Mr. Olney replied to Sir Julian Paunce-
fote on July Is as follows:
Your Excellency-I have the honor to
acknowledge the receipt from you OF a
copy of Lord SalisburyS dispatch to you
of the Sd 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 arbitral tribunal
should include in British Guiana any terri
tory bona fide occupied by a British SUBJ
ject Jan. /. 1887. But as such territory
must fall upon one side or the other of any
complete boundary line, and was certainly
zuela, all the present explanation would
seem to show that Lord Salisburys pro-
plete boundary line, but a part or parts OF
such line, namely, such part or parts as
might divide uninhabted or unsettled ter
ritory Such q conclusion requires q some
what heroic construction of a paper which
in terms proposes the following basis of
settlement of the Venezuelan boundary
dispute by which the two governments are
TO endeavor to agree to a boundary line
upon the basis of a certain report and by
which, in absence of such an agreement.
an arbitral is to fix the boundary line upon
the basis of such report Nothing in this
language intimates that anything less than
a complete boundary line is to be the out
come Of the plan suggested. The discussion
is however. hardly worth pursuing III
Lord Salisbury did not make his meaning
clear in the dispatch of May % he cer-
tainly is entitled TO make IL clear now
There is another part of the dispatch
which seems 10 me OF more Importance and
upon which wish to base an Inquiry The
claim of Venezuela, IL Is said Is so far
reaching that Ii brings into question inter-
ests and rights which cannot properly be
disposed of by an unrestricted arbitration
1t extends as far the Essequibo: Ii COW
ers two-thirds of the colony of British
Guiana; ii impeaches titles which have
been ~unquestioned for many generations.
That Venezuela claims territory extending
TO the Essequibo. or covering two-thrds OF
the colony of British Guiana, cannot be re-
garded being OF itself an insupera BILE
obstacle to unrestricted arbitration But
| the objection that the Venezuelan claim
impeaches titles which have been unQues-