The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-01-28
ENGLAND's VARIED CLAIMS.
a British Admission of Her Fault In
Refusing Arbitration.
London Truth.

This, as l take it. is the existing article
or faith: No European power can acquire
addltional territory on the American con-
tinent. And this is how it Is made apple
caDle 10 the particular issue: We claim
that certain lands between the Orinoco and
the Essequibo rivers form part of our
coloSy Of Guiana. The Venezuelans assert
that they are included in their republic. If
the latter are right, 1t is evident that, in
taking these lands, we widen the borders of
our colony, and thus acquire additional ter
rftory on the American continent. The
contention Of the United States is. not that
our title is bad. but that. until some indie
pendent arbitrator has pronounced that it
is good it is impossible to say whether
the lands belong to our colony or to Ven
ezuela. The United States therefore sug-
gest arbitration. To this Venezuela assents
and we dissent. This being so, the United
States submit the question Of title to a
commission, in order that the minds of the
Americans may be made up as TO the
commission finds that ali within the schom-
burgk delimitation belongs to us, cadit
uuaestio, so far the United States are
our willingness to accept arbitration in re-
spect to our title to anything beyond that
line.
We are primarily in fault. because we re-
fuse to agree to a general arbitration in
vested with full powers to decide what be-
longs to and what TO Venezuela The
Schomburgk line was drawn by that Ger
man naturalist in a rough-and-ready fash
ion. 1t was never accepted either by us or
by the Venezuelans as a definite frontier
between our respective territories: The idea
on both sides seems to have been that
each party should keep on its own side
Of the line until the real frontier had been
agreed to. The Venezuelans have always
claimed up to the Essequibo and they have
never varied in this claim. We, on the
other hand, as has been pointed out by
Mr. Atherley Jones in an able letter adj
claims in a way that makes II clear that
we have no very exact notion what really
the frontier ought to be.
third frontier. This differed from the Ven
ezuelan, and both differed from the Schom-
burgk lire. In 1881 Lord Granville pro-
Rosebery suggested a fifth. Up to 1885, in
reply to the proposals Of Venezuela for ar
bitration, we declined iton the ground that
we thought that the mater could be better
settled by direct negotiation. In that year
Lord Granville agreed to arbitrate on the
entire question without any reservations,
feet had not Lord Granville, before the
treaty ernbodying our agreement TO arbi-
trste had been perfected been succeeded at
the Foreign Office by Lord Salisbury, who at
once wrote to the Venezuelan government
that "Her Majesty's government are unable
TO concur in the assent given by their pre-
decessors in Office to the general arbitra-
ton article proposed by Venezuela" thus
setting at naught that continuity" in orr
foreign policy about which the Tories are
always clamoring. Why was this fatal
change Of front made? In that year gold
in paying quantities, as was supposed. had
been found to exist in portions OF the dis
puted territory on our side of the Schom-
burgk line. So soon as ii was thought that
evidence showed that paying gold existed in
Matabele land, we slew the king of that
country and most of his subjects, and laid
hold of his territories. Is il. then. TO he
supposed that if we claimed land containin q
gold in South America we would refer .lr
title to arbitration, and thus incur the
chance Of being deprived of possible FL
Dorado? No. we backed out of the arbitra-
ton to which we had assented, and sat
tight" 1t is the old story of the auri sacra
flames.