People's Pilot, Volume 5, Number 25, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 19 December 1895 — LORD SALISBURY’S POSITION. [ARTICLE]

LORD SALISBURY’S POSITION.

British Side of the Dispute Embodied in a Diplomatic Note. Washington, Dec. 18. —The British side of the dispute is embodied in two notes from Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote. Lord Salisbury goes broadly into the Monroe doctrine. Extracts read as follows: “The disputed frontier of Venezuela has nothing to do with any of the questions dealt with by President Monroe. It is not a question of the colonization by a European power of any portion of America. It is not a question of imposition upon the communities of South America of any system of government devised in Europe. It is simply the determination of the frontier of a British possession which belonged to the throne of England long before the Republic of Venezuela came into existence. But, even if the interests of Venezuela were so far linked to those of the United States as to give to the latter a locus standi in this controversy, their government apparently have not formed, and certainly do not express any opinion upon the actual merits of the dispute.”

Of the relation which the Monroe doctrine bears to international law, Lord Salisbury says: “I have argued on the theory that the Monroe doctrine in itself is sound. I must not, however, be understood'as expressing an acceptance of it on the part of her majesty’s government. It must always be mentioned with respect, on account of the distinguished statesman to whom it is due and the great nation who have generally adopted it. But international law is founded on the general consent of nations, and no statesman, however eminent, and no nation, however powerful, are competent to insert into the code of international law a novel principle which was never recognized before, and which has not since been accepted by the government of any other country.” With the expression of his hope and desire for a speedy and peaceable settlement of the dispute, the British premier concludes: “This controversy has undoubtedly been made more difficult by the inconsiderate action of the Venezuelan government in breaking off relations with her majesty’s government, and its settlement has been correspondingly delayed; but her majesty’s government have not surrendered the hope that it will be adjusted by a reasonable agreement at an early date.” In another note-Loiffi Salisbury challenges Secretary Olney’s statement that the dispute dates back to 1814, and asserts that it did not begin until 1840. He asserts that the recent difficulty would never have arisen if Venezuela had been content to claim' only those territories which could be proved or even reasonably asserted to have been quietly in the possession of a captaincy general of Venezuela. He attacks the Spanish title to the lands as vague and illfounded, and contends that to the validity of the Dutch title, under which Great Britain now claims, there exists the most authentic declarations. Lord Salisbury says: “The fundamental principle underlying the Venezuelan argument is that, inasmuch as Spain was originally entitled of right to the whole American continent, any territory on that continent which she cannot be shown to have acknowledged in specific and positive terms to have passed to another power can only have been acquired by wrongful usurpation, and, if situated to the north of the Amazon and west of the Atlantic, must necessarily belong to Venezuela as her self-constituted inheritor in those regions. It may reasonably be asked whether? Mr. Olney would consent to refer to the arbitration of another power pretensions raised by the Government of Mexico, raised on such a foundation, to large tracts of territory which had long been comprised in the federation.” Salisbury says that no steps have been taken by the British authorities to exercise jurisdiction beyond the Schomburg line, nor to interfere with the proceedings of the Venezuelans in

• the territory outside, although pending a settlement Great Britain cannot | recognize these holdings as valid or conferring title. In conclusion he says: “Although the negotiations in 1890, 1891 and 1893 did not lead to any result, Her Majesty’s Government have not abandoned the hope that they may be resumed with better success and that when the internal policies of Venezuela are settled on a more durable basis than has lately appeared to be the case, Her Majesty’s Government may be enabled to adopt a more moderate and conciliatory course in regard to this question than that of their predecessors. Her Majesty’s Government are sincere in their desire to be in friendly relations with Venezuela and certainly have no design to seize territory that properly belongs to her or forcibly to extend sovereignty over any portion of her population, but cannot consent to entertain or to submit to arbitration of another power or of foreign jurists, however eminent, claims based on the extravagant pretensions of Spanish officials in the last century, and involving the transfer of large numbers of British subjects who have for many years enjoyed the settled rule of a British colony, to a nation of different race and language, whose political system is subject to frequent disturbance, and whose institutions as yet too often afford very inadequate protection to life and property. No issue of this description has ever been involved in the questions which Great Britain and the ynited Otates have consented to submit to arbitration and Her Majesty’s Government are convinced that in similar circumstances the Government of the United States would be equally firm in declining to entertain proposals of such a nature.” .