The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-06-16

counsefs, next Great Britain, with posi-
bly, two counsel, then Venezuela, and next
Great Britain. The final speech was to
be made by Venezuela.
Sir Richard then opened the British case
and spoke until lis .. m, when the COM
mission adjourned for luncheon.
Sir Richard occupied the remainder OF
the day in an explanation, with the aid
of the map on the wall, of the geograph
zeal difficulties of the dispute, and con-
Guided the opening stage of his speech a
little before o'clock, when the tribunal
adjourned, Professor De Martens saying
he hoped to be able 10 hid the next meet
ing on the coming Wednesday.
The British attorney general, Sir Rich
ard Webster, in opening his speech, men
toned that he had the privilege, years
ago, 10 appear in the same room as
junior counsel in the Boring sea case he
was standing at the very desk wnicn
served at that time. 1t was a significant
fact that Venezuela was represented oy
distinguished men of the American re-
public, while America was represented on
the bench by two judges Of the very
highest position. 1t was great honor
for himself and his colleagues 10 address
such tribunal. The speaker then PAID
a tribute to Prof. Martans, whose repu-
tation was international, and said: Il
shall probably have much to say with
which my friends disagree, but l am sure
they will extend to US the courtesy Of
forbearance, which we desire 70 extend to
them, and which is customary between
counsel in these cases.
Continuing, Sir Richard said he only
intended to touch today upon the general
topics underlying the whole discussion
and proceeded to give a brief geograph-
ical and historical review Of the whOle
question, going back to the time of CO.
lumbus. In the course of his remarks he
said he regarded the treaty Of Munster as
a most important matter for the tribunal
as Great Britain claims Spain was not
entitled to claim the whole of the west
ern world IN view of the fact that sho
was established in the position of the
Dutch. He presumed American counsel
took an entirely different view Of both
the Munster and Utrecht treaties, and
thought the arguments advanced by
American counsel were not characterized
by that mreadth which might be expect
ed from such eminent counsel.
The representative of Great Britain then
took up the terms of arbitration and laid
great stress on the British contention
that the treaty is contract between
Venezuela and Grea Britain and not be-
tween the Spaniards and the Dutch. The
tribunal, he contended had to decide the
boundary between Venezuela and British
Guiana at the present time and not be-
tween the Spaniards and Dutch in 1914.
Counsel then said that in order to clear
up any misunderstanding, he announced
that Great Britain recognized venezuela
as the successor of Spain, and he submit
ted that the boundary, as it might have
been settled in 1914. was not the same as
ought to be defined today.
Respecting the ffty-five years clause,
Great Britain submitting that it ought to
come back from the date of the conclu-
sion of the treaty Of arbitration Coun-
sci was averse TO holding that fifty years
ought to constitute a title, whatever
might be the paramount title of the other
power, as this would cut both ways.
Where such case was proved. the mat
ter could be settled in one Of three ways
by DETECTING the boundary line with
territorial compensation elsewhere, with
out territorial equivalent, or by the pay
ment Of compensation. adding that the
tribunal had absolute discretion in the
matter.
Sir Richard Webster spoke in clear
voice and the arbitra tors and counsel fol-
lowed his speech closely, making notes
and occasionally asking him to clear up a
doubtful point.