The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-06-12

cIsvslsn6 Arrsgsns England for Her
Refusal 70 Arbstrste.

FefueSt % AFcfrr2te+
In the first Of his two Century
papers On The reuezuelan Boundary
Controversy. ex-PresIdent Cleveland
thus crificizes Englzns failure 20 AZ
bitrzte the case Ia 1854.
Let rs pause here for a moments
examination Of the surprising refusal
Of Great Britain 10 submit this diz-
Guilty 70 arbitration. and the more
surprising reasons presented for its
Justification. The refusal was sur
prising because the controversy had
reached such q stage that arbitration
vas evidently the only means by
which II could be settled consistently
with harmonious relations between
the two countries.
Il was on this ground that yenezu-
Ella proposed arbitration: and she
strongly urged it on the further ground
that inasmuch as the prohibition Of
her constitution prevented the re-
linquishment. By treaty or voluntary
act. Of any part OF the territory which
her people and their government
claimed % be Individually yenezu-
elan. such a REIMBURSEMENT would
present no difficulties II It vas in
obedience to a decree OF a tribunal
20 which the question Of ownership
had been mutually submitted.
In giving her reasons for rejecting
arbitration. Great Britain says in
effect: The plan you urge for the ut
ter and complete elimination OF this
constitutional prohfbition-for is
expurgation and destruction so far
as Il Is related to the pending dis
pute--is Questionable, because we
fear the prohibition thus eliminated,
eXpunged, and destroyed will still be
to an award which, for the express
purpose Of avoiding this constitutions
al restraint. you have invited
The remaining objection interposed
by Great Britain TO the arbitration
requested by Venezuela il based up
on the fear that an award might be
made In favor OF the Venezuelan
claim. in which case "a large and i'm
poFtant territory which has for a long
period been inhabited and occupied
by Her Majestys subjects and treat
ed as a part OF the Colony of British
Guiana would be severed from the
Queens dominionsn
II first occurs to us that a conten-
ton may well be suspected OF weak
ness when its supporters are unwil-
ling TO subject it to the test of inn
partial arbitration. Certain inquiries
are also pertinent in this connection.
Who were the British subjects who
had long occupied the territory that
might through arbitration be severed
from the Queens dominions? How
many of them began this occupancy
during the more than forty years that
the territory had been steadily and
VIGOROUSLY disputed? Did they en-
ter upon this territory with know
ledge OF the dispute and against the
warning Of the government to which
they owed allegiance, or were they
encouraged and invited to such en-
try by agencies of their government
who had fun notice of the uncertain
~ of the British title? In one case,
being themselves in the wrong. they
were entitled TO no consideration; in
the other. the question of loss and
naturalization should rest between
them and their government. which
had implicitly guaranteed them
against disturbance. In any event.
neither case presented a reason why
Great Britain should take or possess
the lands Of Venezuela; nor did either
case furnish an excuse for denying
10 Venezuela a fair and impartial
adjudication of her disputed rights.
BY whom had this territory been
treated as a part of the Colony of
British Guiana? Surely not by Ven
ezuela. On the contrary, she had
persistently claimed ii as her own.
and had treated" it as her own as
far as she could and dared. England
alone had treated il as a part of
British Guiana; her immense power
had enabled her to do this; and her
own DEGREES seemed to promise great
er advantages as against her weak
adversary than arbitration could pos
sibiy assure.