New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-04-27
Lord Salisbury
SOME OF CONVERSE WITH HIM IN 1905 rocu
ING TIE VENEZUELA DISPUTE
Copyright. 1913. by C. W. smallev,

''"iV pubic.
! lie asked me if / knew anything
doout the proceedings on our side which
Ied up TO the dispatch of July. 1885. by
"hlch the Venezuela business was re-
/ opened. said No Then he went on:
! Nor do !. nor did any Of us under
stand what led your President so sud-
oenly to present himself as champion of
/ Venezuela. The statements in the July
note v'~re not convincing. We did not
lhink the Monroe Doctrine covered or
/ touched the case. But his motive does
/ rot matter: or matters only so far as il
Colored and embittered the first note
and the steps he took later But be-
tween the first note and Mr.. Cleve-
lands December Message to Congress
things had grown much worse. Can
you tell me why?"
| said the delay in answering had. as
he knew, angered the President; and
one thing led on TO another.
Yes" answered Lord Salisbury;
the first note led to the second. and
TO the demand for categorical reply
in time to be embodied i'm his regular
Message to Congress the first week in
/ December The date was fixed by
which we were expected to reply. We
thought that irregular and unprece-
dented: it is not the way i'm which one
Great Power addresses another. But
we did not mean TO take offence if none
! F.,,.
we could"
He added drily, and with an amused
! irOnical look in his eyes:
But they die not seem to like our
answer when they got if. Still, mere
matter of delay was too trivial to ac-
count for the 5elligerent tone of the
Message of December Il; and for
menace which from any other Power
might well have led to war. How do
you account for that?"
| Rightly or wrongly. / told Lord Sails
bury the story, current in Washington
at the time, Of the condensed abstract
Of his note cabled by Mr.. Bayard, TO
whom it had been handed in London;
10 the President. then duck shooting in
North Carolina: Of his midnight steam
! boat journey To Washington: and the
writing Of the Message on the way, |
/ thought it right to omit, and did omit.
one or two details which, if accurate.
might have explained still more clearly
the heated tone at the end Of the Mes
sage. and the gage of battle flung in
the face of England.
you said nothing Of all that in your
dispatches to The Times.
1T was not known till later, nor did
! | want TO make matters worse"
We'll, ] can understand that the
sharp points in a note may seem
sharper when sentences are cut away
! from their contex4 There were retOrts
I which Mr.. Olney had invited. But II
| this Washington belief is well founded
Mr.. Olney can have had no part in
drafting the Presidents message. I
suppose as Secretary Of state he must
J have approved of it. But we always
/ found it difficult TO understand the
state of mind which led the President
/ to announce that he was going to draw
/ a new boundary line between a British
/ Colony and a foreign State; neither Of
which had asked him 10 do IT; and h
/ threaten US with war If we did not ac-
cept his delimitation. We did not ut
| the time, nor do we now, think a policy
so provocative could have been well
considered: nor did We wish TO make.
nor did we make, a provocative reply.
We of course knew that the Congress
and the American people generally sup
ported the President. But, as you are
aware, there came not long after
rather sudden change in the tone of the
dispatches that reached us FROM Wash
( ington. What caused the changer"
| answered that question fully, bur.
for the reason above given, / cannot
repeat what | said. The nature of it
may be inferred from what I have
written in other letters. What took
place i'm consequence of the change
Lord Salisbury already knew. OF
course | did not conceal from him my
belief that it was Mr.. Olney's influence
which brought about the change. and
Mr.. Olney who did what he could TO
relieve the strain and peril Of the stu
alton as it stood during December.
Then said to Lord Salisbury that
Mr.. Olney's efforts toward concilia-
tory solution during January and part
Of February were not thought TO have
been met in quite the same spirit.
Various suggestions and even proposals
had been made from Washington: fol-
loving upon the change of tone which
lie had noticed, and about which he had
inst asked. They were conciliatory and
something more. They were sincere at
tennis TO find a basis Of agreement.
And no one in Washington who knew
of this could understand why, one and
all. they were either rejected outright
, or so modified az to make agreement
impossible. Lord Salisbury's reply to
this was in his well known diplomatic
manner: far-seeing, much rejecting;
long experience softening his natural
impetuosity Of temper.
yes" he said, the new spirit made
itself felt at once | never doubted that
vour Government had become DESTROYS
IN find a way out which both of us