The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1896-02-19
Dermomt @atebman.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1895.
Venezuela In the British Parliament,

est to Americans. Lord Salisbury
bows to moral pressure in the Vene-
zuelan matter. The queens speech,
with the assurances the British premier
gives, point to the amicable settlement
Of the boundary dispute. The queen
makes the following pacific reference
to the subject
The government of the United States
OF America have expressed wish to
cooperate in the termination of the
differences which have existed for
many years between my government
and the republic of Venezuela upon the
question of the boundary between that
country and the colony of British Gui-
ana. have expressed my sympathy
with the desire to come to an equitable
arrangement, and trust that further
negotiations will lead to satisfac tory
settlement.
Sir William Harcourt, leader of the op-
position, said that it was in the highest
degree desirable that the misunder-
standing between Great Britain and the
United States should be removed in
both countries at the earliest possible
moment. Continuing he said:
think the speech from the throne
holds out the hope that the question is
ready for immediate settlement. No
criticism of such conclusion shall fall
from my lips. Every member must
feel deep responsibility in speaking on
the subject, and take care that no word
shall embarrass the government in
seeking settlement. All the mem.
bers ought to endeavor to aid in any.
thing tending to smooth the ruf1led
feelings of England and America.
(Cries of Hearl Hearl") Among
the leading causes of irritation was the
notion that arose in America that there
was disposition on the part of Great
Britain 10 question the Monroe doc
trine, for which Americans have an of.
fectlonate and passionate attachment.
mat notion is now disclaimed and dis
PEELED. The Monroe doctrine is not
doctrine OF international law, but a
principle OF national policy akin to
what in the last century was called the
balance of power, on which Great Brit
ain had interposed in Belgium, Greece
and many other places. The United
States, following the wise teachings of
Washington, have declared that they
would not interfere in European af.
fairs, but it is their fixed policy to OBJ
pose the invasion of the territorial and
political rights of the American States.
That is the Monroe doctrine. can
not understand why England's feelings
should be ruff1ed by that.
rpiOipa IN boor that H.
States wish TO cooperate to settle the
Venezuela dispute. There has been a
great deal OF newspaper talk that the
irritating intervention of the United
States ought to be resented The gov
eminent docs not resent or repel this
intervention; on the contrary, they an
nounce that they are willing to CO.
operate. 1t has been said that the
United States Commission is offensive
to Great Britain. That is not the view
OF the government, for Mr.. Goschen at
Bristol declared that he did not think
there was cause for complaint. That
was a complete acceptance of the Com
mission. (Cries of "Rearl Hear!'O
1t cannot be denied that the owner
ship of portion of the disputed terri
tory is doubtful. 1t is the business of
diplomacy to settle the matter. 1t is
not creditable that the question should
be allowed to tester until it shall break
into dangerous sore, breeding bad
blood between the two great nations.
1t is the first duty of the government to
adopt measure without delay TO heal
the trouble. (Cheers.) The country,
without distinction of party, demands
the earliest solution of the question.
e. Hearl Hearty There are two meth
ODDS OF settlement. One by an amicable
convention setting aside archive re-
search. If that cannot be attained.
what objection can there be to refer
ence 10 the arbitration of third power?
(Cheers.)
The United States and Great Britain.
to their honor, profess to be great ad-
vocates OF arbitration throughout the
world. There are questions beyond
the reach OF arbitration. This is not
one OF them. According to Lord Sails
bury's dispatch of November, it is a
question of the limitation of arbitra-
ton. You ought not to be too strict
and arbitrary. 1t is not for one par
to dispute to define what is in dispute.
Ii you chose to lay down a definite line
excluding The extreme claims OF one
party, do you think it reasonable that
the other side should be left open, 50
you may gain by arbitration while they
may gain nothingP
Believing that both governments are
sincerely anxious to cooperate, it ought
to be the object of every man on both
sides Oft Atlantic to do what he can
10 bring about settlement. e. Hearl
Hearty Diplomatic punctilios over past
transactions ought not to stand in the
way. The question is far too grave for
party considerations. We must obliter-
ate past controversies and apply our
minds solely and singly to the question
as it now stands, make known to the
world that sincere justice shall be done.
and adopt the best means to see it done.
In the debate in the House of Lords,
Lord Roseberry, late prime minister,
al ta;n H. IL