1,11 5KAK Y 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Deceived 
 ^Accessions No~^/3 fi O . 
 
 ,180 
 CA/.ss No. 
 
 " 
 
STREET'S HAND BOOK 
 
 of the 
 
 MONROE DOCTRINE 
 
 4 
 
 ij r 6 TANNE.KY, 
 
 ' / 
 
 is 
 
 -\ 
 
 i i ij M hi f ii 
 
 ^,. - ' N I ' ,. / ' -4 | .1 
 
 \Jn '"' Jfr^flf^f* fH^ ^r--c ! _---"~l ' 
 
 iOjiui I *^S?:'^\v/ ^y}' 
 
 ^fefo^V '^* i/ 
 
 h- 
 
 "} j ^ ---^ 
 
 [FROM THK BOCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS.] 
 AND THE 
 
 Venezuelan Question 
 
 PRICE TEN CENTS. 
 
HAND BOOK 
 
 OR THK 
 
 VENEZUELAN QUESTION 
 
 AND THB 
 
 MONROE DOCTRINE 
 
 ARTHUR I. STREKT 
 
 AUTHOR OK "FINANCIAL CHRONICLE PANIC OK 1893." 
 
 . : . 
 
 Containing a Full History of the Monroe Doctrine, President Cleve- 
 land's Message, the Bear ftaid on American Securities, and 
 the Complete Correspondence between Secretary 
 Olney and Lord Salisbury. 
 
 DENVER : 
 
 THE TIMES PUBLISHING Co. 
 1895- 
 
' 
 
 The Venezuelan Commission. 
 
 DAVID J. BREWER. 
 
 (Justice, U. S. Supreme Court.) 
 
 RICHARD H. ALVEY. ANDREW D. WHITE. 
 
 (Justice Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.) (Ex- Minister to Russia.) 
 
 FREDERICK R. &DUDERT. DANIEL C. GILMAN. 
 
 (Lawyer, New York.) (President Johns Hopkins University.) 
 
0? 
 
 THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 Monroe's Message to the Congress of the United 
 
 States, 1823. 
 
 In his message to the Congress of the United States in 1823, President 
 Monroe used the following vigorous language with reference to the critical 
 international situation described >ti length on the following page. Great 
 Britain's ready acquiescence in the sentiment expressed contributed materi- 
 ally to the effect of the message and results were accomplished without any 
 formal action on the part of Congress. This portion of the message has be- 
 come known as the Monroe Doctrine. 
 
 "In the wars of the European powers, 
 in matters relating to themselves, we 
 have never taken any part, nor does it 
 comport with our policy to do so. / It is 
 only when our rights are invaded or seri- 
 ously menaced that we resent injuries or 
 make preparations for our defence. AVith 
 the movements in this hemisphere we are 
 of necessity more immediately connected, 
 and by causes which must be obvious to 
 all enlightened and impartial observers..- 
 
 } , The political system of the allied powers 
 is essentially different in this respect from 
 that of America. This difference pro- 
 ceeds from that which exists in their re- 
 spective governments. And to the de- 
 fence of our own, which has -been 
 achieved by the loss of so much blood 
 and treasure and matured by the wisdom k 
 of our most enlightened citizens, and 
 under which we have enjoyed unex- 
 ampled'felicity, this whole nation is de- 
 voted.' We owe it. therefore, to candor 
 and to the amicable relations existing be- 
 iw'-on the United States and those pow- 
 ers to declare that we should consider 
 -any attempt on their part to extend their 
 system to any portion of this hemisphere 
 r>s dangerous to our peace and safety^ 
 ffljWlth the existing colonies of dependen- 
 cies of any European power we have not 
 interfered and shall not interfere/ I'.iit 
 
 ' . with the governments who have declared 
 their independence and maintained it, 
 
 and whose independence we have, on 
 great consideration and on just prin- 
 ciples, acknowledged, we could not view 
 any interposition for the purpose of op- 
 pressing them, or controlling in any other 
 manner their destiny, by any European 
 power, in any other light than as the 
 manifestation -of an unfriendly disposi- 
 tion toward the United States. . . . Our 
 policy in regard to Europe, which was 
 adopted at an early stage of the wars 
 which have so long agitated that quarter 
 of the globe, nevertheless remains the 
 same, which is not to interfere in the in- 
 ternal concerns of any of its powers; to 
 consider the government de facto as the 
 legitimate government for us; to culti- 
 vate friendly relations with it, and to 
 preserve those relations by a frank, firm, 
 and manly policy, meeting in all in- 
 stances the just claims of every power,- 
 submitting to injuries from none. But in 
 regard to these continents, circumstances 
 are eminently and conspicuously differ- 
 ent. It is impossible that the allied pow- 
 ers should extend their political system 
 to any portion of either continent 
 without endangering our peace and hap- 
 piness; nor can anyone believe that our 
 Southern brethren, if left to themselves, 
 would adopt it of their own accord. It is 
 equally impossible, therefore, that we 
 should behold such interposition in any 
 form with indifference." 
 
THE VENEZUELAN QUESTION 
 
 HISTORY OF THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 The Monroe doctrine is historically of 
 British origin, and is an outgrowth of 
 what seemed an exigency in European 
 politics which touched British interests 
 closely. That exigency grew out of an 
 alliance for mutual protection against 
 domestic revolutions between Prussia, 
 Austria, France and Russia. These pow- 
 ers had met in congress in 1820 and again 
 iii 1822, and had agreed to support each 
 other in suppressing armed revolts in 
 each other's territory. Under this agree- 
 ment a French force was sent into Spain 
 to put down a revolution against Ferdin- 
 and VII. At first Great Britain con- 
 sented to this agreement of the powers, 
 although not a party to it, but after Lord 
 George Canning succeeded Castlereagh 
 as prime minister he saw reason to fear . 
 that British interests might be menaced 
 by the alliance, and assumed an indiffer- 
 ent attitude toward it, which afterward 
 developed into an unfriendly one. 
 
 About 1810 the American colonies of 
 Spain began to revolt and declare them- 
 selves free and independent, and by the 
 time of Canning's accession to power 
 there were several Spanish-American re- 
 publics whose independence had been 
 formally recognized by the United States 
 and practically by Great Britain. Great 
 Britain had built up a considerable trade 
 with these republics, a trade which was 
 impossible while they were Spanish col- 
 onies, and therefore any indication of a 
 purpose on the part of Spain to attempt 
 to re-conquer these former colonies was 
 regarded as a definite menace to British 
 interasts. In 1823 Canning thought he 
 saw evidences that Spain intended to 
 claim the support of the parties to the 
 agreement of the year before in an at- 
 tempt n ivs lore its j ower in/Central and 
 South America on the ground that the 
 revolts of these colonies had been a di- 
 rect repudiation of the principle of the 
 legitimacy and permanency of the reign- 
 ing dynasties, which the allied powers 
 had bour.d themselves to maintain by 
 armed interference in behalf of the 
 i lireatened monarch. 
 
 CM lining called the attention of our 
 minister to Great Britain, Richard Rush. 
 in his suspicions, and asked if the United 
 Slates could be induced to join in a pro- 
 test against this apparent purpose of the 
 
 allied powers, in an attempt to thwart 
 it. Rush laid the situation, with Can- 
 ning's suggestion, before John Quiiicy 
 Adams, then secretary of state, and 
 Adams referred the matter to the presi- 
 dent and his cabinet, Adams himself be- 
 ing inclined to make light of the whole 
 matter. Monroe and Calhouu and other 
 members of the cabinet were, says Ad- 
 ams, "very much in fear that the holy 
 alliance would restore all South America 
 to Spain," and Ae outcome of that tear 
 was the inessage^etting forth the Monroe 
 doctrine. The message was recognized in 
 Europe as an important utterance and 
 Spain tried to call a conference of the 
 allied powers in 1824 to consider the regu- 
 lation of Spanish-American interests, but 
 the refusal of Great Britain to join caused 
 the abandonment of the project. The 
 message prevented the carrying out of 
 any purpose of interference in Spain's 
 behalf in America, and led to the early 
 and formal recognition of the independ- 
 ence of all the Spanish-American re- 
 publics by England. 
 
 The first appearance of the Monroe doe- 
 trine in our politics was almost imme- 
 diately after its promulgation, its bearing 
 on the part this country should take in 
 the Panama congress of Central and 
 South American states in 182G being 
 much discussed. The United States was 
 invited to send delegates to this congress 
 and did so, and the controversy over the 
 wisdom of this action lasted for some 
 years and was an unusually warm one. 
 but resulted in practically nothing. Later. 
 when the Clayton-Bulwer treaty relating 
 to the Nicaragua canal was negotiated, 
 in 1850, this doctrine was again to the 
 fore and was exploited in congress and 
 the newspapers, very much in the style 
 with which recent utterances have made 
 us familiar, but the well remembered 
 instance of the French occupation of 
 Mexico is the only case in which this 
 doctrine has been officially and positively 
 asserted by our government. Napoleon 
 III. thought he saw in our distress in 
 18t>2 an opportunity to establish a mon- 
 archy in Mexico, and. with the sanc- 
 tion of the pope, and the approval 
 of Austria he sent a military expedition 
 to set up a limited hereditary monarchy, 
 with Maximilian of Austria as its first 
 
AND THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 emperor. < Mir government protested sev- 
 eral times, in spite of the indifference of 
 Seward, but without apparent effect, but 
 the end of the war, with the union re- 
 stored and the whole country :i roused, 
 pin ;i different face on the matter. When 
 Sheridan was sent toward the .Mexican 
 border in .March. ixr,7. there was nothing 
 
 left for Louis Napoleon but to withdraw. 
 which he did. leaving Maximilian to liis 
 
 fate. 
 
 Intil the present exigency in Vene/.nel;i 
 there has been no other contingency re- 
 quiring any positive assertion of this doc- 
 t rine. Springfield Republican. 
 
 PRESIDENT 
 
 CLEVELAND'S MESSAGE. 
 
 1895- 
 
 On December Hh, 1895, President G rover Cleveland transmitted to the 
 Congress of the United States the following message with reference to a 
 boundary dispute of long standing between Great Britain arid Venezuela. 
 The United {States had asked that England consent to a demand made by 
 Venezuela that the matter be submitted to arbitration. After some years of 
 negotiation, Lord Salisbury, at the head of the English government, finally 
 refused to accede to the request. President Cleveland's message fully re- 
 presents the position of the United States. Its emphatic and extraordinary 
 nature created marked excitement throughout the United States and 
 Europe. 
 
 To Congress In my annual message 
 addressed to the Congress on the third 
 iliird instant. I called attention to the 
 pending boundary controversy between 
 (Jrcat Britain and the republic of Ven- 
 e/nela. and recited the substance of a 
 representation made by this government, 
 to her Kritannie majesty's government, 
 suggest ing reasons why such disputes 
 should be submitted to arbitration for 
 settlement, and inquiring whether it 
 would be so submitted. 
 
 The answer of the British government, 
 which was then awaited, has since been 
 received, and together with the dispatch 
 to which it is a reply is hereto appended. 
 Such reply is embodied in two communi- 
 cations addressed by the British prime 
 minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote, the 
 British ambassador at this capital. It 
 will be seen that one of these conimuni- 
 ca lions is devoted exclusively to observa- 
 tions upon the Monroe doctrine, and 
 claims that in the present instance a new 
 and strange extension and development 
 ..I this doctrine is insisted on by the 
 Tinted Stales, that the reasons .justifying 
 an appeal to tli<> doctrine enunciated 
 by Tresident Monroe are generally inap- 
 plicable "to the state oTthings in which 
 we live at the present day," and especially 
 
 inapplicable to a controversy involving 
 the boundary line bet wren (ii-eat Britain 
 and Venezuela. 
 
 Without attempting extended argu- 
 ments in reply to these positions it may 
 not* be amiss to suggest that the doctrine 
 upon which we stand is strong and sound, 
 because its enforcement is important to 
 our peace and safety as a nation and is 
 essential to the integrity of our free in- 
 stitutions and the tranquil maintenance 
 of our distinctive form of government. It 
 was intended to apply to every stage of 
 our national life, and cannot become ob- 
 solete while our republic endures. If the 
 balance of power is justly a cause for 
 jealous anxiety among the governments 
 of the old world, and a subject for our 
 absolute non-interference, none the less 
 is an observance of the Monroe doctrine 
 of vital concern to oiu* people and their 
 government. 
 
 Assuming, therefore, that we may prop- 
 erly insist upon the doctrine without re- 
 gard to "the state of things in which we 
 live," or any changed conditions here or 
 elsewhere, it is not apparent why its ap- 
 plication n ay not he invoked in the pres- 
 ent controversy. If a Kuropean power. 
 by an extension of its boundaries, lakes 
 possession of the territory of one of our 
 
 
THE VENEZUELAN QUESTION 
 
 neighboring republics against its will and 
 in derogation of its rights, it is difficult 
 to see why, to that extent, such European 
 power does not thereby attempt to ex- 
 tend its system of government to that 
 portion of this continent w r hich is thus 
 taken. This is the precise action which 
 President Monroe declared to be "danger- 
 ous to our peace and safety," and it can 
 make no difference Avhether the Euro- 
 pean system is extended by an advance 
 of frontier or otherwise. 
 
 It is also suggested in the British reply 
 that we should not seek to apply the 
 Monroe doctrine to the pending dispute, 
 because it does not embody any principle 
 of international law which "is founded on 
 the general consent of nations," and "that 
 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 governments 
 of any other country." 
 
 Practically the principle for which we 
 contend has peculiar, if not exclusive re- 
 lation to the United States. It may not 
 have been admitted in so many words to 
 the code of international law, but since 
 in international councils every nation is 
 entitled to the rights belonging to it, if 
 the enforcement of the Monroe doctrine 
 is something we may justly claim, it has 
 its place in the code of international law 
 as certainly and as securely as if it were 
 specifically mentioned, and when . the 
 United States is a suitor before the high 
 tribunal that administers international 
 law, the question to be determined is 
 whether or not we present claims which 
 the justice of that code of law find to be 
 right and valid. 
 
 The Monroe doctrine finds its recogni- 
 tion in those principles of international 
 law which are based upon the theory 
 that every nation shall have its rights 
 protected 'and its just claims enforced. 
 
 Of course, this government is entirely 
 confident that under the sanction of this 
 doctrine we have clear rights and un- 
 doubted claims. Nor is this ignored in the 
 British reply. The prime minister, while 
 not admitting that the Monroe doctrine 
 is applicable to present conditions, states: 
 "In declaring that the United States 
 would resist any such enterprise if it 
 was contemplated," President Monroe 
 adopted a policy which received the en- 
 tire sympathy of the English government 
 of that date. He further declares: 
 "Though the language of President Mon- 
 
 roe is directed to the attainment of ob- 
 jects which most Englishmen would 
 agree to be salutary, it is impossible to 
 admit that they have been inscribed by 
 any adeqtate authority in the code of in- 
 ternational law." 
 
 Again he says: "They (her majesty's 
 government) fully concur with the view 
 which President Monroe apparently en- 
 tertained, that any disturbance of the ex- 
 isting territorial distribution in that hemi- 
 sphere by any fresh acquisitions on the 
 part of any European state would be a 
 highly inexpedient change." 
 
 In the belief that the doctrine for which 
 we contend was clear and definite, that it 
 was founded upon substantial considera- 
 tions and involved our safety and wel- 
 fare, that it was %illy applicable to our 
 present conditions and to the state of the 
 world's progress, and that it was directly 
 related to the pending controversy and 
 without any conviction as to the iinal 
 merits of the dispute, but anxious to learn 
 in a satisfactory and conclusive manner 
 whether Great Britain sought, under a 
 claim of boundary, to extend her posses- 
 sions on this continent without right, or 
 whether she merely sought posessiou of 
 territory facility included within her lines 
 of ownership, this government proposed 
 to the government of Great Britain a re- 
 sort to arbitration as the proper moans 
 of settling the question to the end that 
 a vexatious boundary dispute between 
 two contestants might be determined and 
 our exact standing and relation in re- 
 spect to the controveisy might be made 
 clear. 
 
 It will be seen from the correspondence 
 herewith submitted that this proposition 
 has been declined by the British govern- 
 ment upon the grounds which, under the 
 circumstances seem to rne 10 be far from 
 satisfactory. It is deeply disappointing 
 that such an appeal, actuated by the most 
 friendly feelings towards both nations di- 
 rectly concerned, addressed to the sense 
 of justice and to the magnanimity of one 
 of the great powers of the world a ml 
 touching its relations to one compara- 
 tively weak and small, should have pro- 
 duced no better results. 
 
 The course to be pursued by this gov- 
 ernment in view of the present coudi- 
 dition does not appear to admit of serious 
 doubt. Having labored faithfully for 
 many years to induce Great Britain to 
 submit this dispute to impartial arbi- 
 tration, and having been now finally ap- 
 prised of her refusal to do so, nothing re- 
 mains but to accept the situation. i<> 
 recognize its plain requirements and deal 
 
AND THE MONROE DOCTRINE. 
 
 with it accordingly. Great Britain's pres- 
 ent proposition has never thus far been 
 regarded as admissible by Venezuela, 
 though any adjustment of the boundary 
 which that country may deem for her ad- 
 vantage and may enter into of her own 
 free will cannot, of course, be objected 
 to by the United States. Assuming, how- 
 ever, that the attitude of Venezuela will 
 remain unchanged, the dispute has 
 reached such a stage as to make it now 
 incumbert upon the United States to take 
 measures to determine with sufficient cer- 
 tainty for its justification what is the 
 true divisional line between the republic 
 of Venezuela and British Guiana. The 
 inquiry to that end should, of course, 
 be conducted carefully and judicially and 
 due weight should be given to all avail- 
 able evidence, records and facts in sup- 
 port of the claims of both parties. 
 
 In order that such an examination 
 should be prosecuted in a thorough and 
 satisfactory manner, I suggest that the 
 congress make an adequate appropriation 
 for the expenses of a commission to be 
 appointed by the executive, who shall 
 make the necessary investigation and re- 
 port upon the matter with the least pos- 
 sible delay. When such report is made 
 
 and accepted it will, in my opinion, be 
 the duty of the United States to resist 
 by every means in its power as a willful 
 aggression upon its rights and interests, 
 the appropriation by Great Britain of 
 any lands or the exercise of govern- 
 mental jurisdiction over any territory 
 which, after investigation, we have deter- 
 mined of right belongs to Venezuela. 
 
 In making these recommendations I am 
 fully alive to the responsibility incurred 
 and keenly realize all the consequences 
 that may follow. 
 
 I am, nevertheless, firm in my convic- 
 tion that while it is a grievous thing to 
 contemplate the two great English speak- 
 ing peoples of the world as being other- 
 wise than friendly competitors in the on- 
 ward march of civilization and strenuous 
 and worthy rivals in all the arts of peace, 
 there is no calamity which a great nation 
 can invite which equals that which fol- 
 lows a supine submission to wrong and 
 injustice and the consequent loss of na- 
 tional self-respect and honor, beneath 
 w r hich is shielded and defended a people's 
 safety and greatness. 
 
 (Signed) GROVER CLEVELAND. 
 
 Executive Mansion, Dec. 17, 1895. 
 
AMERICANS AROUSED. 
 
 Kignt Days of Excitement Tfrrougliotit tlie 
 
 United States. 
 
 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1895. 
 
 President Cleveland transmits his Venezuelan message to congress. It is received 
 with applause in both Senate and House without regard to party lines. The American 
 press, with the exception of the Neic York World and Post and the Baltimore Sun, ap- 
 prove it. The English press is almost unanimous in resentment, attributing the mesage 
 to political motives. 
 
 The Executive committee of the council of the Erish National Alliance of America 
 passes resolutions offering 100,000 Irish soldiers in event of war with England arising from 
 the President's message. 
 
 The Confederate Veterans Camp, of New York, offers a company of Confederate vet- 
 erans in case of war. 
 
 Bears on the New York Stock Exchange begin an attack on all classes of stocks. 
 
 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18th, 1895. 
 
 The House of Representatives passes a bill giving the President authority to appoint 
 a commission to investigate the Venezuelan boundary according to the recommendations 
 of his message, and appropriating $100,000 for the expenses of the commission. 
 
 Bills are offered in both houses of Congress appropriating $100,000,000, to be raised by 
 popular loan, to strengthen the national defenses. 
 
 Messages received at the White House from all portions of the country and from all 
 political parties congratulating the President on his mespage. 
 
 The hostile tone of the British press seems to arouse the war spirit throughout the 
 United States. 
 
 Lord Salisbury manifests anxiety when the text of the President's message is trans- 
 mitted to him. 
 
 Many continentinal papers of Europe take a stand against the Monroe Doctrine. 
 
 Ambassador Bayard delivers a speech at a dinner in London of the Actors Fund Ben- 
 efit in which he speaks of the American and English peoples as " children of brain and 
 heart, born of common ancestry, who could not be divided." 
 
 The President's message is read before Company C,, of the Indiana National Guard, 
 at Anderson, Indiana., and before the entire high school at Buffalo, New York. 
 
 Directors of the American Humane Education Society and Massachusetts Society for 
 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals pass resolutions calling on the " God of Battles" to pre- 
 vent war. 
 
 The Virginia House of Delegates unanimously adopts a resolution upholding the Pres- 
 dent. 
 
 An Alabama citizen offers to raise and equip a regiment for war. 
 
 Judge Grosscup, at Peoria, Ills., praises the message from the bench. 
 
 Union veterans of New York endorse the President and offer support if it be needed. 
 
EIGHT DAYS OF EXCITEMENT. 7 
 
 The First Infantry, National Guard of Missouri, writes the President that it is ready 
 for service. 
 
 The Freeman's Journal of Ireland thinks Lord Salisbury will have to recede from his 
 position. 
 
 Canadian papers say, "They may make us suffer but they cannot make us yield." 
 
 (Jovernor Altgeld, of Illinois, criticises the message disapprovingly. 
 
 Venezuela generally rejoices, Caracas is en fete. The women boycott English man- 
 ufacturers. 
 
 The Manchester (England) Stock Exchange goes into a panic. Operators on all 
 European bourses are alarmed. The opinion is expressed that the message will render 
 the placing of more United States bonds in London impossible. 
 
 A theatrical audience in Denver applauds an anti-English sentiment in the play of 
 Marmion, where England is spoken of as "the most traitorous and treacherous of nations." 
 
 As the day progresses a general scare deyelops in financial circles. London begins 
 unloading American securities, selling 2p,000 to 30,000 shares in the morning market. 
 
 American bears on the New York Exchange take advantage of the situation and crowd 
 " Industrials" for sale. Sugar refining, in which few or no shares are held abroad, closes 
 one per cent. off. The market closes with all stocks 'lower. The foreign selling of the 
 morning was in Louisville and Nashville, St. Paul, Southern Railway, and M. K. & T. 
 Selling influences exchange and rates for sterling advance to $4.88^ and $4.90, presaging 
 gold exports. 
 
 THURSDAY, DECEMBER 19, 1895. 
 
 r ihe Senate unanimously agrees to commit the House bill on the Venezuela Com- 
 mission to the Committee on Foreign Relations, discussing the message with dignity and 
 deliberation and without exception endorsing the President's definition of the Monroe 
 Doctrine. "It is too big a question for party purposes and party gain, "says Senator Teller. 
 "Our politics stop at the water's edge," says Senator Lodge. 
 
 The British press thinks it discovers in the deliberation of the Senate a change in 
 the tone of the American public. However, the Westminster Gazette expresses the opin- 
 ion that Lord Salisbury played into President Cleveland's hands by attacking the Mon- 
 roe Doctrine unnecessarily. Many papers like the Pall Mall Gazette treat the whole 
 matter as a joke and "wonder when will come the relieving laugh, for with that 
 Anglo-Saxon peal we shall, for the first time, hear the true voice of America." 
 
 At the annual dinner of the British Public Schools and Universities Association in 
 New York, Rev. Jocelyn Johnstone says, "The man who threatens war is a traitor to hu_ 
 manity itself." 
 
 The Berlin Kreuz Zeitung says, "England must remember that the time has gone by 
 when the growl of the lion sufficed to secure advantages where it had no rights." The 
 Voxxische Zeitung counsels 'European support of England "lest Yankeedom should come 
 to believe it has but to command the old continent to obey." 
 - The Virginia Senate upholds the President by divided vote. 
 
 The Hibernian Rifles of Wilkesbarre, Pa., tencfer their services to the President in the 
 event of war. 
 
 Hale, of Mainp, introduces a bill into the Senate for the construction of six battle 
 ships and twenty-five .torpedo boats. 
 
 Leading bankers and brokers in London hold a meeting to consider the financial as- 
 pect of the Venezuelan matter, and to discuss international credits. They decide to post- 
 pone action to ascertain the later and "cooler" American sentiment. Nevertheless the 
 market opens with heavy sales, aid closes with more offerings than buyers, and with money 
 more favorable to lenders than borrowers. International stocks suffer heavily, St.' Paul 
 
8 EIGHT DAYS OF EXCITEMENT. 
 
 showing the greatest decline, its stock being held largely abroad. Heavy declines are 
 noted in comparatively inactive stocks, such as Consolidated Gas, Jersey Central and 
 others, indicating that a large percentage of the sales arise from the short interests. An- 
 nouncement that gold shipments on Saturday will aggregate 84,000,000 causes a flurry in 
 call loans. It begins to be apparent that capital generally is anxious over the situation. 
 
 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1895. 
 
 The day opens with Wall street in a scare, and London hammering American securities. 
 
 The Senate passes the House bill for the Venezuelan commission, voting down all 
 amendments Senator Lodge declares that London's calling in of loans is not honorable 
 and will not frighten the American people. 
 
 American securities jump two and four points between sales in London. Threats are 
 circulated of return of securities from everywhere, frightening New York and starting the 
 calling of money loans. A consequent shifting of obligations is reflected in the rise of 
 money rates which jump up to 6, 12, 15, 25 and 50 per cent in rapid succession, some loans 
 being made at 80 per cent. Three small firms on Wall Street fail. The feeling of anxiety 
 becomes intensified. Rumors are circulated that the clearing house has called a meeting 
 to consider issuing loan certificates. The only reassuring sign is that there is no special 
 demand for money, the apprehension seeming to come from small lenders. The decline in 
 stock becomes serious. St. Paul falls off ten points; Sugar Refining, Chicago Gas, Rock 
 Island, Louisville & Nashville, Missouri Pacific, Southern Ry. preferred, and U. S. Leather 
 fluctuates violently from five to eight points down. At times stocks can hardly be sold. 
 
 Senator Sherman's speech on the Venezuelan Commission bill, counseling delibera- 
 tion, and the unexpected announcement that only 13,100,000 of gold is to be shipped on 
 Saturday strengthens the market in the afternoon, but the strain on the street has been 
 so great that five more firms fail. Sentiment in some quarters begins to turn against the 
 President. Stocks seem to be forced up and down for effect. 
 
 President Cleveland transmits to Congress the following message urging financial leg- 
 plation. It is preceded by an excited Cabinet meeting which adjourns long enough to 
 allow the President to write the message. 
 
 FINANCIAL MESSAGE. 
 
 To the Congress: In my last message, the evils of our present financial system were 
 plainly pointed out, and the causes and means of the depletion of government gold were 
 explained. It was therein stated that after all the efforts that had been made by the ex- 
 ecutive branch of the government to protect our gold reserve by the issuance of bonds, 
 amounting to more than $162,000,000, such reserve then amounted to but little more than 
 679,000,000 that about $16,000,000 had been withdrawn from such reserve, during the month 
 next previous to the date of that message and quite large withdrawals for shipment in 
 the immediate future were predicted. 
 
 The contingency then feared has reached us, and the withdrawal of gold since the 
 communication referred to and others that appear inevitable, threatening such a deple- 
 tion in our government gold reserve as brings u face to face with the necessity of further 
 action for its protection. This condition is intensified by the prevailence in certain 
 quarters of sudden and unusual apprehension and timidity in business circles. 
 
 We are in the midst of another season of perplexity, caused by our dangerous and 
 fatuous financial operations. These may be expected to recur with certainty as long as 
 there is no amendment in our financial system. If in this particular instance our pre- 
 dicament is at all influenced by a recent insistence upon the position we should occupy in 
 our relation to certain questions concerning our foreign policy, this furnishes a signal and 
 impressive warning that even the patriotic sentiment of our people is not an adequate 
 substitute for a sound financial policy. 
 
EIGHT DAYS OF EXCITEMENT. ( .) 
 
 Of course there can be no doubt in any thoughtful mind as to the complete solvency 
 of our nation, nor can there be any just apprehension that the American people will be sat- 
 isfied with less than an honest payment of our public obligations in the recognized money 
 of the world. We should not overlook the fact, however, that aroused fear is unreasoning 
 and must be taken into account in all efforts to avert public loss and sacrifice of our 
 people's interests. 
 
 The real and sensible cure for our recurring troubles can only be effected by a com- 
 plete change in our financial scheme. Pending that the executive branch of the govern- 
 ment will not relax its efforts nor abandon its determination to use every means within 
 its reach to maintain before the world American credit, nor will there be any hesitation in 
 exhibiting its confidence in the resources of our country and the constant patriotism of 
 our people. 
 
 In view, however, of the peculiar situation now confronting us, I have ventured to 
 herein express the earnest hope that the Congress, in default of inauguration of a better 
 system of finance, will not take a recess from its labors before it has, by legislative enact- 
 ment or declaration, done something, not only to remind those apprehensive among our 
 people that the resources of this government and a scrupulous regard for honest dealing^ 
 affords sure guarantee of unquestioned safety and soundness, but to reassure the world 
 that, with these factors and the patriotism of our citizens, the ability and determination 
 of our nation to meet in any circumstances every obligation it incurs, do not admit of 
 question. 
 
 I ask, at the hands of the Congress, such prompt aid as it alone has the power to give, 
 to prevent, in a time of fear and apprehension, any sacrifice of the peoples' interests and 
 the public funds or the impairment of our public credit in an effort by the executive 
 action to relieve the dangers of the present contingency. 
 
 GROVER CLEVELAND, 
 Executive Mansion, December 20, 1895. 
 
 After the above message was read the Senate adjourned till Saturday. 
 
 The Novoe Vremja, of St. Petersburg, Russia, predicts, in event of war between the 
 United States and England "an hour of bitter retribution for a past upon which English- 
 men pride themselves, forgetting that successes gained by guile and force are never 
 enduring." 
 
 A meeting of influential citizens in Panama calls a demonstration for the 23d "intend- 
 ed to be demonstrative of the gratitude of South America" for President Cleveland's 
 message. 
 
 Wheat and cotton break \% cents and 15 points respectively; then comes heavy buy- 
 in which England takes a hand. 
 
 Denver mining stocks drops five to fifteen points. Chicago and Philadelphia stock 
 exchanges respond to the general slump. Also Montreal Exchange. 
 
 S^me Boston bankers petition for a meeting of the exchange to appoint a commission 
 to go to Washington in protest against the political situation. 
 
 President Austin Scott of Rutgers College calls President Cleveland the " king of 
 Jingoes," and says the country is " drunk with passion." 
 
 SATURDAY, DECEMBER 21, 1895. 
 
 London bears continue the raid on American securities, circulating wild rumors and 
 attacking " indiscriminately and unsparingly." The entire American financial and com- 
 mercial system is spoken of as rotten. The real leaders of the financial world, says the 
 New York Sun, evidently decided to try the administering of a sharp touch of disaster 
 as an object lesson against war. 
 
 Queen Victoria shows her anxiety by renewed consultations with various ministers of 
 state. 
 
10 EIGHT DAYS OF EXCITEMENT. 
 
 The jocose reception of President Cleveland's message in England begins to give way 
 to more serious consideration and less positive opposition from the press. 
 
 The House of Respresentatives responds to the President's call for financial aid and 
 tables the holiday recess resolution; the Ways and Means Committee begins framing a bill 
 to meet the treasury deficiency. 
 
 Evidences develop on the New York Stock Exchange of investment buying on a large 
 scale. Banks agree to stand by sound members of the exchange. Bears in London, to- 
 ward the close of the market, begin to buy in; their demand advances prices two or three 
 points. Foreign arbitrage houses in New York continue buying from the time the market 
 opens. Evidences are palpable in Throgmorton Street, London, that the panic is artifi- 
 cial. In New York the largest dealing is in Industrials which have no foreign holders. 
 The efforts to depress stocks show signs of exhaustion about 2 o'clock. The news that 
 Congress will take immediate action on the relief of the treasury aids the settling tenden- 
 cy of the market. 
 
 The Paris Temps prints a despatch from Rome saying the Emperor of Italy offers to 
 arbitrate between Great Britain and the United States. 
 
 San Francisco bankers and capitalists do not respond to the panic. 
 
 General Cabell of the Trans-Mississippi Department of the Confederate Veterans 
 telegraphs to Secretary Lament an offer of 50,000 men in case of war. 
 
 President Cleveland signs the Venezuelan Commission Bill. 
 
 Government organs in Germany attack President Cleveland's attitude. Others, op- 
 posing the message, rejoice at its rebuke of the "world-wide arrogance of England." 
 
 The Westminster Gazette hopes England will make it clear that she is not attacking 
 the Monroe Doctrine or seeking to raise that issue. 
 
 Vice-President Stevenson lays before the Senate the following resolution from both 
 houses of the Brazilian congress : 
 
 "The Federal Senate of the United States of Brazil sends its greeting to the Senate of 
 the United States of America upon the worthy message of President Cleveland, who so 
 strenuously guards the dignity, the sovereignty, and the freedom of the American nations." 
 
 A London trade organization known as the Baltic cheers " Yankee Doodle." 
 
 Women at the Pilgrim Mothers' banquet, in New York, speak for peace. 
 
 The London Peace Society arranges for Sunday sermons in over one hundred pulpits 
 urging peace at all times. 
 
 SUNDAY, DECEMBER 22, 1895. 
 
 London ministers preach peace in many pulpits at the invitation of the Peace Society. 
 
 Many American pulpits oppose war and hasty proceedings in the Venezuelan matter. 
 
 Brokers in New York become much concerned over failure to receive their customary 
 cable advices from London. 
 
 The largest assemblage of bankers, brokers and capitalists since the Baring failure in 
 1890 is held in the Windsor Hotel, New York. A number of leading bank presidents hold 
 an informal meeting in the evening. 
 
 St. Louis decides to organize a local naval company. 
 
 A Russian priest in Samokin says American Russians would take arms against Eng- 
 land in the event of war. 
 
 Gold is reported to be coming in great quantities into the sub-treasury at Cincinnati. 
 
 President Harper of Chicago University sustains President Cleveland in vigorous 
 language. 
 
 Ministers at Cleveland, Ohio, sustain the President. 
 
 MONDAY, DECEMBER 23, 1895. 
 
 Orders from the continent for purchases of American securities surprise the London 
 market. London does not buy on its own account. An American banker in London ad- 
 
EIGHT DAYS OF EXCITEMENT. 11 
 
 vises Engligh people not to believe the financial excitement has repressed the American 
 war spirit, for the American people, he says, woi^d rather fight than not if it comes to a 
 question of making a test case of upholding the Monroe Doctrine. The London stock 
 market fluctuates all day, but at the close of the Exchange there is an utter absence of 
 excitement. In Manchester there is a decided upward movement of stocks, American 
 railroad securities averaging 3 per cent, higher than on Saturday. Liverpool and Glas- 
 gow Exchanges also become steady. 
 
 The New York Clearing House announces its readiness to issue loan certificates. 
 Stocks immediately advance. London hears of the action before Wall street does and bids 
 above the closing prices of Saturday. By noon the prices of stocks in New York gain 3 to 
 5 paints. Philadelphia responds to the general improvement. Grain and cotton go up, 
 English buyers contributing to the movement. The New York Clearing house action 
 brings private bankers into the loan market. Call money closes at 5 per cent. 
 
 Actual purchases of stocks become a feature of the day in New York, and the float- 
 ing supply of stocks materially diminishes. Many sales aggregate less than a hundred 
 shares. 
 
 Comparatively little business responds to a high sterling exchange rate of $4.90%. 
 
 The Chicago Board of Trade sends a telegram to speaker Reed congratulating the 
 House of Representatives on ks "prompt and patriotic action" to relieve the treasury. 
 
 A "peace meeting" called in Cooper Union, New York, breaks up in confusion. 
 
 English papers express the opinion that America "has righted itself from unwisdom 
 to wisdom in a night." They are disposed to think England will extend all possible coui" 
 tesies to the Venezuelan Commission. 
 
 Representative Dalzell introduces a joint resolution into the House providing $1,500, 
 000 for a reserve supply of projectiles for the navy. 
 
 Tammany Hall, New York, passes a resolution in support of President Cleveland's 
 Venezuelan message. 
 
 A resolution against the Venezuelan message is hissed in the Chicago Labor Congress. 
 
 In the New Englanders' dinner in New York every reference to the Monroe Doctrine is 
 cheered. 
 
 The Memphis Cotton Exchange advises farmers against planting cotton, in view of 
 the remote possibility of war. 
 
 The Chicago Iroquois club passes strong resolutions in support of President Cleveland. 
 
 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 24, 1895. 
 
 Venezuela prepares for a grand demonstration on Christmas in honor of the United 
 States. Panama gives a magnificent demonstration on the 23d in appreciation of Cleve- 
 land's Venezuelan message. The Mexican press speaks unanimously in support of the 
 Monroe Doctrine. 
 
 The Senate unanimously passes a bill presented by Senator Hill of New York repeal- 
 ing the Confederate Disability Act. 
 
 Senator Allen of Nebraska introduces a bill providing for the establishment of a Pan- 
 American union. 
 
 New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago report improving conditions on the ex- 
 changes. Money rates are holding low. High sterling exchange is not promoting exports 
 of gold. 
 
 London and Paris are strengthening in Americans on the stock exchanges. 
 
 FRIDAY, DECEMBER 27, 1895. 
 
 Mining stocks are again in full activity on the Denver Mining Exchange. 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE. 
 
 The Claims of Great Britain and ttie Conces 
 cessions of Venezuela. 
 
 The boundary dispute between Great 
 Britain and Venezuela is one of long 
 standing, and dates back to the cession 
 of Guiana to Great Britain by Holland 
 in 1814. Years of fruitless negotiations 
 \\<>re followed in 1887 by the rupture of 
 diplomatic relations between the two 
 countries. 
 
 Venezuela was discovered by Christo- 
 pher Columbus July 31, 1498, on his third 
 voyage to America, and the first landing 
 of Spaniards was made in 1510. The 
 country continued under Spanish rule 
 until 1810, when the people rose to throw 
 
 off the foreign yoke under the leader- 
 ship of Simon Bolivar, the Washington 
 of South America. It was in Caracas 
 that the movement for South American 
 freedom originated. Although independ- 
 ence was assured by the victory of 
 and the Spanish army withdrew in 
 it was not until the peace of Madrid in 
 1847, that Spain formally acknowledged 
 the independence of the republic <>!' 
 Venezuela. 
 
 After the war of independence, or in 
 1822, Venezuela succeeded to the rights 
 of Spain in territory west of the Esse- 
 
 BOUNDARY CLAIMED 
 BY ENGLAND. 
 
 BOUNDARY CL/\IMO 
 BY VNEZUELA. 
 
 THE CONTESTteD'. TERRITORY 
 
Tilt: BOUNDARY DISPUTE. 
 
 quibo river, and has always persistently 
 d;i lined it. Great Britain, of course, 
 must base her claims, primarily, at leasi. 
 on those of Holland before her. 
 
 The province of Guiana, forming a 
 part of the captaincy-general of Caracas 
 and pertaining to Spain, was originally 
 bounded on the east by the Atlantic 
 ocean and on the south by the Amazon 
 river. During the long war waged by 
 the Dutch to liberate themselves from' 
 Spanish dominion, they occupied and suc- 
 cessfully held Essequibo, Demerara and 
 Surinam within this province of Guiana. 
 which places, by the treaty of Minister, in 
 H>4X, were continued to the government 
 of the Netherlands. The Dutch, in viola- 
 la t ion of the terms of this treaty, made 
 incursions into Spanish Guiana, but were 
 invariably opposed by the Spanish forces. 
 That they never considered themselves 
 the legitimate owners of any of the terri- 
 tory west of the Essequibo river is ap- 
 parent from the fact that, in the cession 
 of these places to Great Britain, made 
 in 1814, they simply transferred their 
 colonies of Essequibo, Demerara and 
 Berbice, without designating any fixed 
 boundary lines. 
 
 ENGLAND'S EARLY ASSERTIONS. 
 
 The earliest assertions of Great 
 Britain to dominion beyond the Esse- 
 quibo were vague and hesitating. They 
 were based on representations that the 
 Dutch settlements had spread into that 
 region and that treaties had been exe- 
 cuted with the Indians entitling the Eng- 
 lish to lands of comprehensive extent. 
 To these arguments it -was replied that 
 the original title was vested in Spain by 
 virtue of discovery, and sovereignty: 
 that it had never been alienated or relin- 
 quished in any manner, and that it 
 1 assed directly to Venezuela. 
 
 Thus the case stood until Sir Robert 
 Schombnrg drew his "arbitrary line" of 
 demarkation in 1841. He set up posts to 
 indicate British dominion at Point Bar- 
 ima, Aniacuroand other localities. There- 
 upon the Venezuelan government made 
 a vigorous protest and Lord Aberdeen 
 promptly ordered the posts removed. 
 Aberdeen was so far from urging extra- 
 ordinary claims that in 1844 he spon- 
 taneously proposed to Dr. Fortiqiie. 
 Venezuelan plenipotentiary in London. 
 a boundary line known as the "Aber- 
 deen boundary line." 
 
 This Aberdeen proposition of 1S44 
 was the first specific definition of Eng- 
 land's patented rights, the foundation 
 
 for it in international law being the alle- 
 gation of Dutch settlement and Indian 
 treaties. 
 
 LOOKING TO ARBITRATION. 
 
 Nothing further was done until the 
 celebrated status quo of 1850 was estab- 
 lished, whereby Great Britain agreed 
 not to occupy or encroach upon the terri- 
 tory in dispute in consideration of a simi- 
 lar agreement on the part of Venezuela. 
 From 1850 to 188G the course of diplo- 
 matic affairs was very shifty. In 1881 
 Lord Grauville, after rejecting compro- 
 mise proposals, proposed a new line, 
 known as the "Granville IjiifiJ' In a note 
 accompanying this he said this left the 
 complete dominion of the' mouth of the 
 Orinoco to Venezuela, which was re- 
 garded as equivalent to a formal dis- 
 avowal by England of any design upon 
 the Boca Grande or great mouth of the 
 riveuJ In 1883 (Lord Granville still be- 
 ing at the head of the foreign office^ 
 overtures were made to Venezuela for 
 amicable arrangement of the boundary 
 difficulty among others. General Guz- 
 man Blanco w r as thereupon dispatched 
 to London by the republic as envoy extra- 
 ordinary, with full powers to deal de- 
 finitely with all these issues. For the 
 first time Venezuela was represented 
 sented at the court of St. James by a 
 diplomat of the highest order of ability. 
 Guzman Blanco, instead of dallying with 
 vexing and impracticable plans of boun- 
 dary compromise, concentrated all his 
 efforts to give the controversy a new 
 direction in favor of arbitration. In this 
 endeavor he arrived at the very verge 
 of brilliant success. .Tune 18, 1875, Earl 
 Granville assented to the draft of a 
 treaty between England and Venezuela 
 which embraced an article providing that 
 any differences not adjustable by the 
 usual means of friendly negotiation 
 should be submitted "to the arbitration 
 of a third power, or of several powers in 
 amity with both countries, without re- 
 sorting to war," and that the result of 
 such arbitration should be binding upon 
 both governments. 
 
 This great diplomatic stroke of Guz- 
 man Blanco, absolutely bringing England 
 to bay on the boundary question, was. 
 however, immediately made of no avail 
 by the overturn of the Gladstone minis- 
 try- Lord Salisbury, who took ottice a 
 few days later, promptly rescinded the 
 arbitration clause of the purposed treaty. 
 Since that time Kngland lias persistently 
 declined every proposal to arbitrate the 
 
14 
 
 THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE. 
 
 matter, and is said to have enlarged her 
 territorial claims and to have system- 
 atically prosecuted forcible aggrandize- 
 ments. 
 
 UNDER ROSEBERY. 
 
 When Rosebery's government came 
 in, however, less extravagant claims were 
 made. As "especial importance" was 
 attached "to the possession of the River 
 Guiana by British Guiana," it will be 
 seen that as late as 1886 the British 
 were content to let the line exclude from 
 their territory every part of the Orinoco 
 mouth. 
 
 After 1886 England cast aside all pre- 
 tense of recognition of Venezuela's 
 sovereignty over the Boca Grande. Lord 
 Salisbury, replying in 1890 to United 
 States Minister Lincoln, indicated by im- 
 plication that his government was un- 
 alterably resolved to share equally with 
 Venezuela the control of that important 
 region. Meantime the absorption of the 
 interior has progressed without restraint, 
 the manifest aim being to assert undis- 
 puted mastery over the extraordinarily 
 rich gold districts of Yuruari. These dis- 
 tricts lie very far away from the Schom- 
 burgk line, and considerably outside the 
 Aberdeen line, wherefore England broad- 
 ens out her claims to neutralize such in- 
 convenient circumstances. 
 
 IMPORTANCE OP THE ORINOCO. 
 
 Extremely weighty consideration of 
 empire and trade are wrapped up in 
 England's resolve not to hazard by the 
 chance of arbitration the valuable terri- 
 tory which she can, of course, hold in- 
 definitely against a feeble state like 
 Venezuela. While neither claiming nor 
 admitting any rigid boundary line be- 
 tween Venezuela and her colony of 
 British Guiana, there is one fixed point 
 at which she purposes to originate a/line, 
 and from which she will not deviate. 
 The point is on the coast, right at the 
 center of the littoral of the Boca Grande, 
 or grand mouth of the Orinoco river, 
 where the small River Amacuro flows 
 into the sea. Any boundary line pro- 
 jected southward from that point would 
 include within British possessions the 
 Barima arm (Brazo Barima) of the Ori- 
 noco and the whole island of Barima. 
 Thus the essential feature of England's 
 territorial contention is her claim to full 
 equality with Venezuela in ownership 
 and authority at the main mouth of the 
 Orinoco. 
 
 The importance of this position for 
 'England is enormous, and even incalcul- 
 
 able. It would give her the finest strate- 
 gic situation on the continent of South 
 America, with absolute control of the Ori- 
 noco and its numerous branches, con- 
 necting with the Amazon through the 
 navigable streams of Cass*quiari a net- 
 work of rivers draining about half the 
 continent. 
 
 YURUARIAN INCIDENT. 
 
 Great Britain lays considerable stress 
 on the "Yuruarian incident." British 
 officers stationed in the Yuruarian dis- 
 trict, which is beyond the Schomburgk 
 line, were arrested by Venezuelans, but 
 later released. For this arrest Great 
 Britain makes demand of $60,000 "smart 
 money." Lord Salisbury contends this is 
 simply reparation for insult, but if the 
 Venezuelans were in their own territory 
 when they made the arrests they could 
 hardly be held for damages. So the Mon- 
 roe doctrine appears to be involved in 
 the demand for damages for the Yuruar- 
 ian incident. 
 
 Since Great Britain, following the ne- 
 gotiations of 1886, proceeded to occupy 
 a portion of Venezuelan Guiana, which 
 was the occasion of Venezuela dissolv- 
 ing diplomatic relations with Great Brit- 
 ain, the southern republic has been per- 
 sistent in seeking the good offices of the 
 United States. She has also steadily pro- 
 tested against the occupation by Great 
 Britain. 
 
 Venezuela does not attach the least 
 weight to the circumstance that the 
 English have long enjoyed de facto pos- 
 session, of part of the disputed territory 
 by actual occupation; she holds that this 
 occupation is mere usurpation and in- 
 vasion. Lord Salisbury, on the other 
 hand, recently made the claim that this 
 occupation gave Great Britain actual 
 right, and that what might be subject 
 for arbitration now would not be after 
 a longer period of occupation. 
 
 OTHER BOUNDARIES. 
 Other boundaries of Venezuela have 
 been settled recently by amicable meth- 
 ods. Since 1891 the frontier quest ion 
 towards Colombia has been settled by 
 Spain, to which the matter had been re- 
 ferred. The boundary lines seem to have 
 been subject to great dispute. Before 
 the proclamation of independence the 
 province of Caracas had already been 
 officially called Venezuela, the meaning 
 of which, as now clearly understood, 
 corresponds to the whole space inclosed 
 by the frontiers of Colombia, Brazil and 
 British Guiana. Aided by numerous 
 
THE BOUNDARY DISPUTE. 
 
 15 
 
 documents preserved in the national 
 archives, however, the Spanish arbitra- 
 tors were able in this dispute to pro- 
 nounce an official verdict substantially in 
 favor of Colombia. Toward Brazil the 
 Venezuelan frontier was determined by 
 treaty in 1859. 
 
 Elisee Reclus, the scientist, in his 
 work on the earth and its inhabitants, 
 in discussing the boundaries to the east, 
 says the English have extended their 
 acquisitions as far as the mouth of the 
 Orinoco. "Thanks to this position at the 
 entrance of the Orinoco," he continues, 
 "Great Britain may hope some day to 
 acquire the political and commercial 
 supremacy in the whole of the delta 
 region, facing which is the important 
 military trading station of Trinidad. 
 Since the days of Sir Walter Kaleigh 
 England has several times attempted to 
 penetrate into the interior of the contin- 
 ent through this gateway. In the 
 
 archives of the Indies there exists a 
 Spanish map, dated 1591, on which tig- 
 ures a large island in the middle of Tin- 
 delta with the legend, "Here are the Eng- 
 lish." In ISMS the British government 
 occupied various points of the delta, 
 where its farthest station, standing on a 
 height between the Orinoco branches 
 and the Guarafiche river, commanded 
 both the entrance of the navigable chan- 
 nel and the Serpent's Mouth. This strate- 
 gic point was spoken of as a future 'Gib- 
 raltar,' and although it has since been 
 abandonded the Venezuelans want also 
 to recover Barima island and all the 
 coast lands as far as Maruca, near Nas- 
 sau. They are also anxious to secure 
 their gold fields on the Cuyini river from 
 any risk of annexation. But they can 
 hardly hope for success in a diplomatic 
 struggle with Great Britain. "--Chicago 
 Record. 
 
 THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Secretary Olraey's Letter and Lord Salis- 
 bury's Replies. 
 
 SECRETARY OLNEY'S LETTER. 
 His Instructions to Ambassador Bayard. 
 
 Department of State, 
 Washington, July 20. isr>. 
 His Excellency Thomas F. Bayard, etc., 
 
 etc., etc., London: 
 
 Sir I am directed by the president to 
 communicate to you his views upon a 
 subject to which he has given much 
 anxious thought, and respecting which 
 he has not reached a conclusion with- 
 out a lively sense of its great import- 
 ance, as well as the sense of responsibil- 
 ity involved in any action now to be 
 taken. 
 
 It is not proposed, and for present 
 purposes, is not necessary, to enter into 
 any detailed account of the contro- 
 versy between Great Britain and Vene- 
 zuela respecting the western frontier of 
 the colony of British Guiana. The dis- 
 pute is of ancient date, and began at 
 least as early as the time when Great 
 
 Britain acquired by the treaty with the 
 Netherlands of 1814 the establishments 
 of Demerara, Essequibo and Berbice. 
 From that time to the present the di- 
 viding line between these "establish- 
 ments" (now called British Guiana) and 
 Venezuela has never ceased to be a 
 subject of contention. 
 
 The claims of both parties, it must be 
 conceded, are of a somewhat indefinite 
 nature. On the one hand Venezuela, in 
 every constitution of government since 
 she became an independent state, has 
 declared her territorial limits to be 
 those of the captaincy-general of Vene- 
 zuela in 1810, yet out of "modera- 
 tion and prudence," it is said, she has 
 contented herself with claiming the Es- 
 sequibo line the line of the Essequibo 
 river, that is to be the true boundary 
 between Venezuela and British Guiana. 
 On the other hand, at least an equal de- 
 gree of indefiniteness distinguishes the 
 claim of Great Britain. It does not seem 
 to l>e asserted, for instance, that in 1S14 
 
16 
 
 THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 the "establishments" theii acquired by 
 Great Britain had any clearly defined 
 western limits which can now be iden- 
 tified, and which are either the limits 
 insisted upon to-day or, being the original 
 limits, have been the basis of legitimate 
 territorial extensions. On the contrary, 
 having the actual possession of a district 
 (ailed the Pomarou district, she appar- 
 ently remained indifferent as to the exact 
 ami of the colony until 1840, when she 
 commissioned an engineer, Sir Robert 
 Schombnrgk, to examine and lay down 
 its boundaries. The result was the 
 Schomburgk line, which was fixed by 
 metes and bounds, was delineated on 
 maps and was at first indicated on the 
 face of the country itself by posts, mono- 
 grams and other like symbols. 
 
 If it was expected that Venezuela 
 would acquiesce in this line the expecta- 
 tion was doomed to speedy disapppoiut- 
 ment. Venezuela at once protested, and 
 with such vigor and to such purpose that 
 the line was explained to be only tenta- 
 tive part of a general boundary scheme 
 concerning Brazil and the Netherlands, 
 as well as Venezuela, and the monu- 
 ments of the line set up by Schomburgk 
 were removed by the express order of 
 Lord Aberdeen. 
 
 Under these circumstances it seems 
 impossible to treat the Schomburgk line 
 as being the boundary claimed by Great 
 Britain as a matter of right, or as any- 
 thing but a line originating in considera- 
 tions of convenience and expediency. 
 
 Since 1840 various other boundary 
 lines have from time to time been indi- 
 cated by Great Britain but all as con- 
 venient lines lines to which Venezuela's 
 assent has been desired, . but which in 
 no instance, it is believed, have been de- 
 manded as matter of right. Thus, 
 neither of the parties is to-day stand- 
 ing for the boundary line predicated 
 upon strict legal right, Great Britain 
 having formulated no such claim at all, 
 while Venezuela insists upon the Esse- 
 quibo line only as a liberal concession to 
 her antagonist. 
 
 Several other features of the situa- 
 tion remain to be briefly noticed the 
 continuous growth of the undefined 
 British claim, the fate of the various at- 
 tempts at arbitration of the controversy 
 and the part in the matter heretofore 
 taken by the United States. 
 
 STEADY ENCROACHMENT. 
 As already seen, the exploitation of 
 the Schomburgk line in 1840 was at once 
 followed by the protest of Venezuela 
 
 and by proceedings on the part of Great 
 Britain, which could fairly be inter- 
 preted only as a disavowal of that line. 
 Indeed, in addition to the facts already 
 noticed, Lord Aberdeen himself, in LS44. 
 proposed a line beginning at the River 
 Morocco, a distinct abandonment of the 
 Schomburgk line. Notwithstanding this, 
 however, every change in the British 
 claim since that time has moved the 
 frontier of British Guiana further and 
 further to the westward of the line thus 
 proposed. 
 
 The Granville line of 1881 placed tin- 
 starting point at a distance of twenty- 
 nine miles from the Morocco, in the 
 direction of Punta Barima. The Rose- 
 bery line of 1886 placed it west of the 
 Guaima river, and about that time, if 
 the British authority know r n as the 
 Statesman's Year Book is to be relied 
 upon, the area of British Guiana was 
 suddenly enlarged by some 33,000 square 
 miles, being stated as 76,000 square miles 
 in 1885 and 109,000 square miles in 1887. 
 The Salisbury line of 1890 fixed the starl- 
 ing point of the line in the mouth of the 
 A ma euro, west of the Punta Barima. on 
 the Orinoco. And finally, in 1893, a 
 second Rosebery line carried the bound- 
 ary from a point to the west of the 
 Amacuro as far as the source of the 
 Cumano river and the Sierra of Usu- 
 pamo. 
 
 Nor have the various claims thus 
 enumerated been claims on paper merely. 
 An exercise of jurisdiction corresponding 
 more or less to such claims has accom- 
 panied or followed closely upon each. 
 and has been the more irritating and un- 
 justifiable if, as is alleged, an agreement 
 made in the year 1850 bound both par- 
 ties to refrain from such occupation 
 pending the settlement of the dispute. 
 
 While the British claim has been de- 
 veloping in the manner above described. 
 Venezuela has made earnest and re- 
 peated efforts to have the question of 
 boundary settled. Indeed, allowance be- 
 ing made for the distractions of a war 
 of independence, and for frequent inter- 
 nal revolutions, it may be fairly said 
 that Venezuela has never ceased to 
 strive for. its adjustment. It could, of 
 course, do so only through peaceful 
 methods, any resort to force as against 
 its powerful adversary being out of the 
 question. Accordingly, shortly after the 
 drawing of the Schomburgk line, an 
 effort was made to settle the boundary 
 by treaty, and was apparently progress- 
 ing towards a successful issue when the 
 
THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 17 
 
 negotiations were brought to an end in 
 1844 by the death of tin" Venezuelan 
 plenipotentiary. 
 
 VENEZUELA'S OFFER. 
 
 In 1848 Venezuela entered upon a 
 period of civil commotions, which lasted 
 for more than a quarter of a century, 
 and the negotiations thus interrupted 
 in 1844 were not renewed until 1870. In 
 thai year Venezuela offered to close the 
 dispute by accepting the Morocco line 
 proposed by Lord Aberdeen, but, with- 
 out giving reasons for his refusal, Lord 
 Granville rejected the proposal, and sug- 
 gested a new line comprehending a large 
 tract of territory all pretension to which 
 seemed to have been abandoned by the 
 previous action of Lord Aberdeen. 
 
 Venezuela refused to assent to it, and 
 negotiations dragged along without re- 
 sult until 1882, when Venezuela con- 
 cluded that the only course open to her 
 was arbitration of the controversy. Be- 
 fore she had made any definite proposi- 
 tion, however, Great Britain took the 
 matter in its own hands and sugnobted 
 a treaty, which should determine vari- 
 ous other questions, as well as that of 
 the disputed boundary. The result was 
 that a treaty was practically agreed 
 upon with the .Gladstone government in 
 1886, containing a general arbitration 
 clause, under which the parties might 
 have submitted the boundary dispute to 
 the decision of a third power, or of sev- 
 eral powers, in amity with both. Before 
 the actual signing of the treaty, how- 
 ever, the administration of Mr. Glad- 
 stone was superseded by that of Lord 
 Salisbury, which declined to accede to 
 the arbitration clause of the treaty, not- 
 withstanding the reasonable expectation 
 of Venezuela to the contrary, based upon 
 the premier's emphatic declaration in the 
 House of Lords, that no serious govern- 
 ment would think of not respecting the 
 engagements of its predecessor. 
 
 RELATIONS SUSPENDED. 
 
 Since then Venezuela on the one side 
 lias been offering and calling for arbi- 
 tration, while Great Britain on the other 
 lias responded by insisting upon the 
 conditions that any arbitration should 
 relate only to such of the disputed terri- 
 tory as lies west of a line designated by 
 herself. As this condition seemed in- 
 admissible to Venezuela, and as, while 
 the negotiations were pending, new ap- 
 propriations of what is claimed to be 
 Venezuela territory continued to be 
 made, Venezuela in 1887 suspended 
 
 diplomatic relations with Great Britain, 
 protesting "before her British majesty's 
 government, before all civilized nations. 
 and before the world in general, against 
 the acts of spoliation committed to her 
 detriment by the government of Great 
 Britain, which she at no time and on no 
 account will recognize as capable of al- 
 tering in the least the rights which she 
 has inherited from Spain, and respect- 
 ing which she will ever be willing to 
 'submit to the decision of a third power." 
 Diplomatic relations hare not since 
 been restored, though what is claimed 
 to be new and flagrant British aggres- 
 sions forced Venezuela to resume nego- 
 tiations on the boundary question in 
 1890, through its minister in I'aris and a 
 special envoy on that subject, and in 
 1898, through a confidential agent, Seuor 
 Michelena. These negotiations, however, 
 met with the fate of other like previous 
 negotiations, Great Britain refusing to 
 arbitrate as to territory west of an arbi- 
 trary line drawn by herself. 
 
 SENOR MICHELENA'S MISSION. 
 
 All attempts in that direction were 
 definitely terminated in October. lst>:;. 
 when Senor Michelena filed with the for- 
 eign office the following declaration: "I 
 perform a most strict duty in raising 
 again in the name of the government of 
 Venezuela a most solemn protest against 
 the proceedings of the colony of British 
 Guiana, constituting encroachments upon 
 the territory of the republic and against 
 the declaration contained in your excel- 
 lency's communication that her Britan- 
 nic majesty's government considers that 
 part of the territory as pertaining to 
 British Guiana and admits no claim to 
 it on the part of Venezuela. In support 
 of this protest I reproduce all the argu- 
 ments presented to your excellency in 
 my note of the 29th of last September, 
 and those which have been exhibited by 
 the government of Venezuela on the 
 various occasions they have raised the 
 same protest. I lay on her Britannic 
 majesty's government the entire re- 
 sponsibility of the incidents that may 
 arise in the future from the necessity 
 to which Venezuela has been driven to 
 oppose by all possible means the dispos- 
 session of a part of her territory, for by 
 disregarding her just representation to 
 put an end to this violent state of affairs 
 through the decision of arbiters, her 
 majesty's government ignores her rights 
 and imposes upon her the painful though 
 peremptory duty of providing for her 
 own legitimate defense." 
 
18 
 
 THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 WE COULD NOT IGNORE IT. 
 
 To the territorial controversy be- 
 tween Great Britain and the republic of 
 Venezuela, thus briefly outlined, the 
 United States has not been and, indeed, 
 in view of its traditional policy, could 
 not be indifferent. The note to the Brit- 
 ish foreign office, by which Venezuela 
 opened negotiations in 1870, was at once 
 communicated to this government. In 
 .la nuary, 1881, a letter of the Venezuelan 
 minister at Washington, respecting cer- 
 tain alleged demonstrations at the 
 mouth of the Orinoco, was thus answered 
 by Mr. Evarts, then secretary of state: 
 
 In the February following Mr. Evarts 
 wrote again on the same subject as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 In reply I have to inform you that in view 
 of the deep interest which the government of 
 the United States takes in all transactions 
 tending to attempted encoachment of for- 
 eign powers upon the territory of any of the 
 republics of this continent, this govern- 
 ment could not look with indifference to 
 the forcible acquisition of such territory by 
 England if the mission of the vessels now 
 at the mouth of the Orinoco should be 
 found to be for that end. This government 
 awaits, therefore, with natural concern the 
 more particular statement promised by the 
 government of Venezuela, which it hopes 
 will not long be delayed. 
 
 Referring to your note of December 21 last 
 touching the operations of certain British 
 war vessels in and near the mouth of the 
 Orinoco river, and to my reply thereto of 
 the 31st ultimo, as well as to the recent oc- 
 casions in which the subject has been men- 
 tioned in our conferences concerning the 
 business of your mission, I take it to be 
 fitting now, at the closing incumbency of 
 the office I hold, to advert to the interest 
 with which the government of the United 
 States cannot fail to regard any such pur- 
 pose with respect to the control of American 
 territory as is stated to be contemplated by 
 the government of Great Britain and to 
 express my regret that the further infor- 
 mation promised in your note with regard 
 to such designs had not reached me in sea- 
 son to receive the attention which, notwith- 
 standing the severe pressure of public busi- 
 ness at the end of an administrative term. 
 I should have taken pleasure in bestowing 
 upon it. I doubt not, however, that your 
 representations in fulfillment of the awaited 
 additional orders of your government will 
 have like earnest and solicitous considera- 
 tion at the hands of my successor. 
 
 SECRETARY EVARTS' EFFORTS. 
 
 In November, 1882, the then state of 
 negotiations with Great Britain, to- 
 gether with a copy of an intended note 
 suggesting recourse to arbitration, was 
 communicated to the secretary of state 
 by the president of Venezuela, with the 
 expression of the hope that the United 
 States would give him its opinion and 
 advice and such support as it deemed 
 possible to offer Venezuela in order that 
 justice should be done her. 
 
 FRELINGHUYSEN'S SUGGESTIONS. 
 Mr. Frelinghuyseu replied in a dis- 
 patch to the United States minister at 
 Caracas as follows: 
 
 This government has already expressed 
 its view that arbitration of such dispute is 
 a convenient resort in the case of failure to 
 come to a mutual understanding, and inti- 
 mated its willingness, if Venezuela should 
 so desire, to propose to Great Britain such 
 a mode of settlement. It is felt that the 
 tender of good offices would not be so profit- 
 able if the United States were to approach 
 Great Britain as the advocate of any pre- 
 judged solution in favor of Venezuela. So 
 far as the United States can counsel and 
 assist Venezuela it believes it best to con- 
 fine its reply to the renewal of the sugges- 
 tion, the more easily made since it appears 
 from the instruction sent by Senor Seijas 
 to the Venezuelan minister in London on the 
 same 15th of July, 1882, that the president 
 of Venezuela proposed to the British gov- 
 ernment the submission of the dispute to 
 arbitration by a third power. 
 
 You will take an early occasion to pre- 
 sent the foregoing considerations to Senor 
 Seijas, saying to him that, while trusting 
 that the direct proposal for arbitration al- 
 ready made to Great Britain may bear good 
 fruit (if, indeed, it has not already done so 
 by its acceptance in principle), the govern- 
 ment of the United States will cheerfully 
 lend any needful aid to press upon Great 
 Britain in a friendly way the proposition 
 so made; and at the same time you will say 
 to Senor Seijas (in personal conference and 
 not with the formality of a written com- 
 munication) that the United States, while 
 advocating strongly the recourse of arbitra- 
 tion for the adjustment of international dis- 
 putes affecting the state of America, does 
 not seek to put itself forward as their ar- 
 biter; that, viewing all such questions im- 
 partially and with no intent or desire to 
 prejudice their merits, the United States 
 will not refuse its arbitration if asked by 
 both parties, and that, regarding all such 
 questions as are essentially and distinctively 
 American, the United States would always 
 prefer to see such contention adjusted 
 through the arbitrament of an American 
 rather than a European power. 
 
 BLANCO'S VISIT TO LONDON. 
 In 1884 General Guzman Blanco, the 
 Venezuelan minister to England, ap- 
 pointed with special reference to pend- 
 ing negotiations for a general treaty will i 
 Great Britain, visited Washington on his 
 way to London, and after several con- 
 ferences with the secretary of state re- 
 specting the objects of his mission, was 
 thus commended to the good offices of 
 Mr. Lowell, our minister at St. James: 
 
 It will necessarily be somewhat within 
 your discretion how far your good offices 
 may be profitably employed with her maj- 
 esty's government to these ends, and at any 
 rate you may take proper occasion to le't 
 Lord Granville know that we are not with- 
 out concern as to whatever may affect the 
 interests of a sister republic of the Ameri- 
 can continent, or its position in the family 
 of nations. If General Guzman should apply 
 to you for advice or assistance in realizing 
 the purposes of his mission, you will show 
 him proper consideration, and, without 
 
THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 committing ihc United States to any deter- 
 minate political solution, you will endeavor- 
 to carry out the views of this instruction. 
 
 The progress of General Guzman's 
 negotiations did not fail to be observed 
 by tli is government, and in December. 
 188(5, with a view to preventing- the rup- 
 ture of diplomatic relations which actu- 
 ally took place in February following 
 the then secretary of state, Mr. Bayard, 
 instructed our minister to Great Britain 
 to tender the arbitration of the United 
 States in the following terms: 
 
 It does not appear that at any time here- 
 tofore the good offices of this government 
 have been actually tendered to avert a rup- 
 ture between Great Britain and Venezuela. 
 As intimated in my No. 58, our inaction in 
 this regard would seem to be due to the re- 
 luctance of Venezuela to have the govern- 
 ment of the United States take any 
 steps having relation to the action or 
 that would in appearance even, prejudice 
 the resort to further arbitration or 
 mediation which Venezuela desired. Never- 
 theless, the records abundantly testify our 
 friendly concern in the adjustment of the 
 dispute; and the intelligence now received 
 warrants me in tendering through you to 
 her majesty's government the good offices 
 of the United States to promote an amic- 
 able settlement of the respective claims of 
 Great Britain and Venezuela in the prem- 
 ise*. As proof of the impartiality with 
 which we view the question, we offer our 
 arbitration, if acceptable, to both countries. 
 We do this with the less hesitancy as the 
 dispute turns upon simple and readily as- 
 certainable historical facts. 
 
 Her majesty's government will readily 
 understand that this attitude of friendly 
 neutrality and entire impartiality touching 
 the merits of the controversy, consisting 
 wholly in a difference of facts between pur 
 friends and neighbors, is entirely consist- 
 ent and compatible with the sense of re- 
 sponsibility that rests upon the United 
 States in relation to the South American 
 republics The doctrines we announced two 
 generations ago, at the instance and with 
 the moral support and approval of the Brit- 
 ish government, have lost none of then- 
 force of importance in the progress of time, 
 and the governments of Great Britain and 
 the United States are equally interested in 
 conserving a status the wisdom of which 
 has been demonstrated by the experience of 
 more than half a century. 
 
 It is proper, therefore, that you should 
 convev to Lord Iddesleigh, in such suffi- 
 ciently guarded terms as your discretion 
 may dictate, the satisfaction that would be 
 felt by the government of the United States 
 in perceiving that its wishes in this regard 
 were permitted to have influence with her 
 . majesty's government. 
 
 ENGLAND STILL REFUSES. 
 
 'Phis offer of mediation was declined 
 by Great Britain, with the statement 
 that a similar offer had already been 
 received from another quarter, and that 
 the queen's government were still not 
 without hope of a settlement by direct 
 diplomatic negotiations. 
 
 In February- 1SSS. having been in- 
 formed, that the governor of British 
 
 Guiana had by formal decree laid claim 
 to the territory traversed by Hie route 
 of a proposed railway from Ciudad Boli- 
 var to Guacipati, Mr. Bayard addressed 
 a note to our minister to England, from 
 which the following extracts are taken: 
 
 The claim now stated to have been put 
 forth by the authorities of British Guiana 
 necessarily gives rise to grave disquietude 
 and creates an apprehension that the terri- 
 torial claim does not follow historical tra- 
 ditions or evidence, but is apparently in- 
 definite. At no time hitherto does it appeal- 
 that the district of which Guacipati is tin- 
 center has been claimed as British terri- 
 tory or that such jurisdiction has ever been 
 asserted over its inhabitants, and if the 
 reported decree of the governor of British 
 Guiana be indeed genuine it is not appar- 
 ent how any line of railway from Ciudad 
 Bolivar to Guacipati could enter or tra- 
 verse that territory within the control of 
 Great Britain. 
 
 It is true that the line claimed by Great 
 Britain as the western boundary of British 
 Guiana is uncertain and vague. It is only 
 necessary to examine the British Colonial 
 Office "List for a few years back to perceive 
 this. In the issue for 1877, for instance, the 
 line runs nearly southwardly from the 
 mouth of the Amacuro to the junction of 
 the Cotinga and Takutu rivers. In the issue 
 of 1887, ten years later, it makes a wide de- 
 tour to the westward, following the Yuru- 
 ari. Guacipati lies considerably to the west- 
 ward of the line officially claimed in 1887, 
 and it may perhaps be instructive to com- 
 pare with it the map which doubtless will 
 be found in the Colonial Office List for the 
 present year. 
 
 It might be well for you to express anew 
 to Lord Salisbury the great gratification it 
 would afford this government to see the 
 Venezuelan disputes amicably and honor- 
 ably settled by arbitration or otherwise, and 
 our readiness to do anything we properly 
 can to assist to that end. In the course of 
 your conversation you may refer to the 
 publication in the London Financier of 
 January 24 (a copy of which you can pro- 
 cure and exhibit to Lord Salisbury), and ex- 
 press apprehension lest the widening of pre- 
 tensions of British Guiana to possess terri- 
 tory over which Venezuela's jurisdiction 
 has never heretofore been disputed, may 
 not diminish the chances for a practical set- 
 tlement. 
 
 If, indeed, it should appear that there is 
 no fixed limit to the British boundary claim, 
 our good disposition to aid in a settlement 
 might not only be defeated, but be obliged 
 to give place to a feeling of grave concern. 
 
 ELAINE ALSO FAILED. 
 
 In 1889 information having been re- 
 ceived that Barima. at the mouth of the 
 Orrinno. had been declared a British 
 port. Mr. Blaine, then secretary of state. 
 authorized Mr. White to confer with 
 Lord Salisbury for the re-establishment 
 of diplomatic relations between Great 
 Britain and Venezuela on the basis of a 
 temporary restoration of the status quo. 
 and on May 1 and May 6. 1890. sent the 
 following telegrams to our minister to 
 England. Mr. Lincoln; 
 
THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 May, 1, 1890. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln is instructed to use his good 
 offices with Lord Salisbury to bring about 
 the resumption of diplomatic intercourse be- 
 tween Great Britain and Venezuela as a 
 preliminary step towards the settlement' of 
 the boundary dispute by arbitration. The 
 joint proposals of Great Britain and the 
 United States towards Portugal, which have 
 just been brought about, would seem to 
 make the present time propitious for sub- 
 mitting this question to the international 
 arbitration. He is requested to propose to 
 Lord Salisbury, with a view to an accom- 
 modation, that an informal conference be 
 had in Washington or in London of repre- 
 sentatives of three powers. In such confer- 
 ence the position of the United States is 
 one solely of impartial friendship towards 
 both litigants. 
 
 May 6, 1890. 
 
 It is, nevertheless, desired that you shall 
 do all you can consistently with our attitude 
 of impartial friendship to induce some ac- 
 cord between the contestants by which the 
 merits of the controversy may be fairly as- 
 certained and the rights of each party justly 
 confirmed. The neutral position of this gov- 
 ernment does not comport with any expres- 
 sion of opinion on the part of this depart- 
 ment as to what these rights are, but it is 
 confident that the shifting feeling on which 
 the British boundary question has rested 
 for several years past is art obstacle to 
 such a correct appreciation of the nature 
 and grounds of her claim as would alone 
 warrant the formation of any opinion. 
 
 VENEZUELA SENDS AN ENVOY. 
 
 In the course of the same year. 1890, 
 Venezuela sent to London a special en- 
 voy to bring about the resumption of 
 diplomatic relations with Great Britain 
 through the good offices of the United 
 States minister. But the mission failed 
 because a condition of such resumption, 
 steadily adhered to by Venezuela, was 
 the reference of the boundary dispute 
 to arbitration. Since the close of .the ne- 
 gotiations initiated by Senor Michelena 
 in 1893, Venezuela has repeatedly brought 
 the controversy to the notice of the 
 United States; has insisted upon its im- 
 portance to the United States as well as 
 to Venezuela; has represented it to have 
 reached an acute stage making the limit 
 action by the United States imperative, 
 and has not ceased to solicit the services 
 and support of the United States in aid 
 of its final adjustment. These appeals 
 have not been received with indifference, 
 and our ambassador to Great Britain 
 has been uniformly instructed to exert 
 all his influence in the direction of the re- 
 est;iblishment of diplomatic relations be- 
 tween Great Britain and Venezuela and 
 in favor of arbitration of the boundary 
 controversy. 
 
 The secretary of state, in a communi- 
 cation to Mr. Bayard, bearing date July 
 13, 1894, used the following language: 
 
 The president is inspired by a desire for a 
 peaceable and honorable settlement of the 
 existing difficulties between an American 
 state and a powerful transatlantic nation, 
 and would be glad to see the re-establish- 
 ment of such diplomatic relations between 
 them as would promote that end. I can dis- 
 cern but two equitable solutions of the pres- 
 ent controversy. One is the arbitral deter- 
 mination of the rights of the disputants as 
 the respective successors to the historical 
 rights of Holland and Spain over the 
 region in question. The other is to create a 
 new boundary line in accordance with the 
 dictates of mutual expediency and consider- 
 ation. The two governments have so far 
 been unable to agree on a conventional 
 line. The consistent and conspicuous advo- 
 cacy by the United States and England of 
 the principle of arbitration, and their re- 
 course thereto in settlement of important 
 questions arising between them, makes such 
 a mode of adjustment especially appropriate 
 in the present instance, and this govern- 
 ment will gladly do what it can to further 
 a determination in that sense. 
 
 Subsequent communications to Mr. 
 Bayard direct him to ascertain whether 
 a minister from Venezuela would be re- 
 ceived by Great Britain. 
 
 CLEVELAND LAST DECEMBER. 
 
 In the annual message to Congress 
 of December 3 last, the president used 
 the following language: 
 
 The boundary of British Guiana still re- 
 mains in dispute between Great Britain and 
 Venezuela. Believing that its early settle- 
 ment, on some just basis alike honorable to 
 both parties, is in the line of our established 
 policy to remove from this hemisphere all 
 causes of difference with powers beyond the 
 sea, I shall renew the efforts heretofore 
 made to bring about a restoration of diplo- 
 matic relations between the disputants and 
 to induce a reference to arbitration, a resort 
 which Great Britain so conspicuously favors 
 in principle and respects in practice, and 
 which is earnestly sought by her weaker 
 adversary. 
 
 And February 22, 1895. a joint reac- 
 tion of Congress declared: 
 
 That the president's suggestion that Great 
 Britain and Venezuela refer their dispute 
 as to boundaries to friendly arbitration be 
 earnestly recommended to the favorable 
 consideration of both parties in interest. 
 
 The important features of the exist- 
 ing situation, as shown by the forego- 
 ing, may be briefly stated. The title to 
 territory of indefinite but confessedly 
 very large extent is in dispute between 
 Great Britain on the one hand and the 
 South American republic of Venezuela 
 on the other. The disparity in the 
 strength of the claimants is such thai- 
 Venezuela can hope to establish her 
 claim only through peaceful methods- 
 through an agreement with her adver- 
 sary, either upon the subject itself or 
 upon an arbitration. The controversy, 
 with varying claims on the part of Great 
 Britain, has existed for more than half 
 a century, during which period many 
 
THE C'ORRESPON HENCE. 
 
 21 
 
 earnest and persistent efforts of Vene- 
 zuela to establish a boundary by agree- 
 ment have proved unsuccessful. The 
 futility of the endeavor to obtain a con- 
 ventional line being recognized, Vene- 
 zuela Tor a quarter of a century has 
 asked and striven for arbitration. Great 
 Britain, however, has always and con- 
 tinuously refused to arbitrate, except 
 upon the condition of a renunciation of 
 a large part of the Venezuelan claim 
 and of a concession to herself of a large 
 share of the territory in controversy. 
 
 By the frequent interposition of its 
 good offices at the instance of Venezuela, 
 by constantly urging and promoting the 
 restoration of diplomatic relations be- 
 tween the two countries by pressing for 
 arbitration of the disputed boundary, 
 by offering to act as arbitrator, by ex- 
 pressing its grave concern whenever 
 new alleged instances of British aggres- 
 sion upon Venezuelan territory have 
 been brought to its notice, the govern- 
 ment of the United States has made it 
 dear to Great Britain and to the world 
 that the controversy is one in which its 
 honor and interests are involved, and 
 the continuance of which it cannot re- 
 gard with indifference. 
 
 AMERICA'S INTEREST. 
 
 The accuracy of the foregoing analy- 
 sis of the existing status cannot, it is 
 believed, be challenged. It shows that 
 status to be such that those charged with 
 the interests of the United States are 
 now forced to determine exactly what 
 those interests are and what course of 
 action they require. It compels them to 
 decide to what extent, if any, the United 
 States may and should intervene in a 
 controversy between and primarily con- 
 cerning only Great Britain and Vene- 
 zuela, and to see how far it is bound to 
 see that the integrity of Venezuelan ter- 
 ritory is not impaired by the pretensions 
 of its powerful antagonist. 
 
 Are any such right and duty de- 
 volved upon the United States? If not, 
 the United States has already done all, 
 if not more than all, that a purely senti- 
 mental interest in the affairs of the two 
 countries justifies, and to push its inter- 
 position farther would be unbecoming 
 and undignified, and might well subject 
 it to the charge of impertinent interfer- 
 ence with affairs with which it has no 
 rightful concern. On the other hand, it' 
 anv such right and duty exist, their due 
 exercise and discharge will not permit 
 of any action that shall not be efficient 
 and that, it' the power of the United 
 
 States is adequate, shall not result in the 
 accomplishment of the end in view. The 
 question thus presented, as matter of 
 principle, and regard being had to the 
 settled national policy, does not seem 
 difficult of solution. Let such momentous 
 practical consequences depend on its 
 determination that it should be carefully 
 considered and that the grounds of the 
 conclusion arrived at should be fully and 
 frankly stated. 
 
 That there are circumstances under 
 which a nation may justly interpose in 
 a controversy to which two or more 
 other nations are the direct and imme- 
 diate parties, is an admitted canon of 
 international law. The doctrine is or- 
 dinarily expressed in terms of the most 
 general character, and is, perhaps, in- 
 capable of more specific statement. It 
 is declared in substance that a nation 
 may avail itself of this right whenever 
 what is done or proposed by any of the 
 parties primarily concerned is a serious 
 and direct menace to its own integrity, 
 tranquility or welfare. The propriety 
 of the rule, when applied in good faith, 
 will not be questioned in any quarter. 
 On the other hand, it is an inevitable 
 though unfortunate consequence of the 
 wide scope of the rule that it has only 
 too often been made a cloak for schemes 
 of wanton spoliation and aggrandize- 
 ment. 
 
 WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL. 
 
 We are concerned at this time, how- 
 ever, not so much with the general rule 
 as with a form of it which is peculiarly 
 and distinctively American. Washing- 
 ton, in the solemn admonitions of his 
 farewell address, explicitly warned his 
 countrymen against entanglements with 
 the politics or the controversies of Euro- 
 pean powers. "Europe," he said, "has a 
 set of primary interests which to us have 
 none or a very remote relation. Hence 
 she must be engaged in frequent contro- 
 versies, the causes of which are essen- 
 tially foreign to our concerns. Hence. 
 therefore, it must be unwise in us to 
 implicate ourselves by artificial ties in 
 the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics 
 or the ordinary combinations and col- 
 lisions of her friendships or enmities. 
 Our detached and distant situation in- 
 vites and enables us to pursue a differ- 
 ent course." 
 
 During the administration of Presi- 
 dent Monroe this doctrine of the fare- 
 well address was first considered in all 
 its aspects and with n view to all its 
 practical consequences. The farewell ad- 
 
22 
 
 THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 dress, while it took America out of the 
 field of European politics, was silent as 
 to the part Europe might be permitted 
 to play in America. Doubtless it was 
 thought the latest addition to the fam- 
 ily of nations should not make haste to 
 prescribe rules for the guidance of older 
 members, and the expediency and pro- 
 priety of serving the powers of Europe 
 with notice of a complete and distinctive 
 American policy, excluding them from 
 interference with American political 
 affairs, might well seem dubious to a 
 generation to whom the French alli- 
 ance, with its manifold advantage to the 
 cause of American independence was 
 fresh in mind. 
 
 TWENTY YEARS LATER. 
 
 Twenty years later, however, the situ- 
 ation had changed. The lately born na- 
 tion had greatly increased in power and 
 resources, had demonstrated its strength 
 on land and sea, as well in the conflicts 
 of arms as in the pursuits of peace, and 
 had begun to realize the commanding po- 
 sition on this continent which the char- 
 acter of its people, their free institutions, 
 and their remoteness from the chief 
 scene of European contentions combined 
 to give it. The Monroe administration, 
 therefore, did not hesitate to accept and 
 apply the logic of the farewell address, 
 by declaring in effect that American uon 
 intervention in European affairs neces- 
 sarily implied and meant European non- 
 intervention in American affairs. Con- 
 ceiving, unquestionably, that complete 
 European non-interference in American 
 concerns w r ould be cheaply purchased by 
 complete American non-interference in 
 European concerns, President Monroe, 
 in the celebrated message of December 
 2, 1823, used the following language: 
 
 In the wars of the European powers in 
 matters relating to themselves we have 
 never taken any part, nor does it comport 
 with our policy to do so. It is only when 
 our rights are invaded or seriously menaced 
 that we resent injuries or make prepara- 
 tions for our defense. With the movements 
 in this hemisphere we are, of necessity, 
 more immediately connected, and by causes 
 which must be obvious to all enlightened 
 and impartial observers. The political sys- 
 tem of the allied powers is essentially dif- 
 ferent in this respect from that of America. 
 This difference proceeds from that which 
 exists in their respective governments; and 
 to the defense of our own, which has been 
 achieved by the loss of so much blood and 
 treasure and matured by the wisdom of 
 our most enlightened citizens, and under 
 which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, 
 this whole nation is devoted. We owe it. 
 therefore, to candor and to the amicable 
 relations existing between the United States 
 and these powers to declare that we should 
 consider any attempt on their part to ex- 
 
 tend their system to any portion of this 
 hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and 
 safety. 
 
 With the existing colonies or dependencies 
 of any European power we have not inter- 
 fered and shall not interfere, but with the 
 governments who have declared their inde- 
 pendence and maintained it, and whose in- 
 dependence we have, on great consideration 
 and on just principles, acknowledged, we 
 could not view any interposition for the pur- 
 pose of oppressing them, or controlling in 
 any other manner their destiny by any 
 European power in any other light than as 
 the manifestation of an unfriendly disposi- 
 tion towards the United States. 
 
 Our policy in regard to Europe, which 
 was adopted at an early stage of the wars 
 which have so long agitated that quarter of 
 the globe, nevertheless remains the same, 
 which is, not to interfere in the internal con- 
 cerns of any of its powers; to consider the 
 government de facto as the legitimate gov- 
 ernment for us; to cultivate friendly rela- 
 tions with it, and to preserve those rela- 
 tions by a frank, firm and manly policy, 
 meeting, in all instances, the just claims 
 of every power, submitting to injuries from 
 none. 
 
 But in regard to these continents circum- 
 stances are eminently and conspicuously dif- 
 ferent. It is impossible that the allied 
 powers should extend their political sys- 
 tem to any portion of either continent with- 
 out endangering our peace and happiness, 
 nor can any one believe that our southern 
 brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt 
 it of their own accord. It is equally impos- 
 sible, therefore, that we should behold such 
 interposition in any form with indifference. 
 
 SERVED NOTICE ON EUROPE. 
 
 The Monroe administration. how- 
 ever, did not content itself with formu- 
 lating a correct rule for the regulation >f 
 the relations between Europe and Amer- 
 ica. It aimed at also securing the prac- 
 tical benefits to result from the applica- 
 tion of the rule. Hence the message jusi 
 quoted declared that the American con- 
 tinents were fully occupied and were 
 not the subjects for future colonization 
 by European powers. To this spirit and 
 this purpose, also, are to be attributed 
 the passages of the same message which 
 treat any infringement of the rule 
 against interference in American affairs 
 on the part of the powers of Europe as an 
 act of unfriendliness to the United 
 States. It was realized that it was futile 
 to lay down such a rule unless its ob- 
 servance could be enforced. It was mani- 
 fest that the United States was the only 
 power in this hemisphere capable of en- 
 forcing it. It was, therefore, courage- 
 ously declared not merely that Europe 
 ought not to interfere in American 
 affairs, but that any European power 
 doing so would be regarded as antagon- 
 izing the interests and inviting the o] (po- 
 sition of the United States. 
 
 That America is in no part open to 
 colonization, though the proposition was 
 
THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 riot universally admitted at the lime of 
 its first enunciation, has long been uni- 
 versally conceded. We are now con- 
 cerned, therefore, only with that other 
 practical application of the Monroe doc- 
 nine, the disregard of which by a Euro- 
 pean power is to be deemed an act of 
 mi friendliness towards the United States. 
 The precise scope and limitations of this 
 rule cannot be too clearly apprehended. 
 It does not establish any general protec- 
 torate by the United States over other 
 American states. It does not relieve anj 
 American state from its obligations as 
 fixed by international law, nor prevent 
 any European power directly interested 
 I' rom enforcing such obligations or from 
 inflicting merited, punishment for the 
 hreach of them. 
 
 It does not contemplate any interfer- 
 ence iii the internal affairs of any Ameri- 
 can state or in the relations between it 
 and other American states. It does not 
 .justify any attempt on our part to 
 change the established form of govern- 
 ment of any American state or to pre- 
 veut the people of such state from alter- 
 ing that form according to their own 
 will and pleasure. The rule in question 
 has but a single purpose and object. It 
 is that no European power or combina- 
 tion of European powers shall forcibly 
 deprive an American state of the right 
 and power of self-government and of 
 shaping for itself its own political for- 
 tunes and destinies. 
 
 ACCEPTED LAW OF THE COUNTRY. 
 
 That the rule thus defined has been 
 the accepted public law of this country 
 ever since its promulgation cannot fairly 
 be denied. Its pronouncement by the 
 Monroe administration at that particu- 
 lar time was unquestionably due to the 
 inspiration of Great Britain, who at once 
 gave it an open and unqualified adhes- 
 ion, which has never been withdrawn. 
 But the rule was decided upon and for- 
 mulated by the Monroe administration 
 as a distinctively American doctrine, of 
 great import to the safety and welfare 
 of the United States, after the most care- 
 ful consideration by a cabinet which 
 numbered among its members John 
 Quincy Adams, Calhonn, Crawford and 
 Wirt, and which, before acting, took both 
 Jefferson and Madison into its coun- 
 sels. Its promulgation was received with 
 acclaim by the entire people of the coun- 
 try, irrespective of party. 
 
 Three years after Webster declared 
 that the doctrine involved the honor of 
 the country. "I look upon it," he said, 
 
 "as part of its treasures of reputation. 
 and for one i intend to guard it." And, 
 he added, "I look on the message of De- 
 cember, 1823, as forming a bright page 
 in our history. I will help neither to 
 erase it nor to tear it out; nor shall it 
 be by any act of mine blurred or blotted. 
 It did honor to the sagacity of the gov- 
 ernment, and 1 will not diminish that, 
 honor." 
 
 Though the rule thus highly eulogized 
 by Webster has never been formally af- 
 firmed by Congress, the House in 18(54 
 declared against the Mexican monarchy 
 sought to be set up by the French as not 
 in accord with the policy of the United 
 States, and in 1889 the Senate expressed 
 its disapproval of the connection of any 
 European power with a canal across the 
 Isthmus of Darien or Central America. 
 It is manifest that if a rule has been 
 openly and uniformly declared and acted 
 upon by the executive branch of the gov- 
 ernment for more than seventy years 
 without express repudiation by Congress 
 it must be conclusively presumed to have 
 its sanction. Yet it is certainly no more 
 than the exact truth to say that every 
 administration since President Monroe's 
 has had occasion, and sometimes more 
 occasions than one, to examine and con- 
 sider the Monroe doctrine, and has in 
 each instance given it emphatic endorse- 
 ment. Presidents have dwelt upon it in 
 messages to Congress, and secretaries of 
 state have time after time made it Hie 
 theme of diplomatic representation. 
 
 PRACTICAL RESULTS. 
 Nor, if the practical results of the rule 
 be sought for, is the record either meagre 
 or obscure. Its first and immediate ef- 
 fect was indeed more momentous and 
 far-reaching. It was the controlling fac- 
 tor in the emancipation of South Amer- 
 ica, and to it the independent states 
 which now divide that region between 
 them are largely indebted for their very 
 existence. Since then the most striking 
 single achievement to be credited to the 
 rule is the evacuation of Mexico by the 
 French upon the termination of the civil 
 war. But we are also indebted to it for 
 the provisions of the Claytou-Bulwer 
 treaty, which both neutralized any inter- 
 oceanic; canal across Central America 
 and expressly excluded Great Britain 
 from occupying or exercising any domin- 
 ion over any part of Central America. It 
 has been used in the case of Cuba, as if 
 justifying the position that, while the 
 sovereignty of Spain will be respected, 
 the island will not be permitted to be- 
 
24 
 
 THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 come the possession of any other Euro- 
 pean po\\er. It has been influential in 
 bringing about the detiuite reliuquish- 
 ineut of any supposed protectorate by 
 Great Britain over the Mosquito coast. 
 
 President Polk, in the case of Yucatan 
 and the proposed voluntary transfer of 
 that country to Great Britain or Spain, 
 relied upon the Monroe doctrine, though 
 perhaps erroneously, when he declared 
 in a special message to congress on the 
 subject that the United States could not 
 consent to any such transfer. Yet, in 
 somewhat the same spirit, Secretary 
 Fish affirmed in 1&70 that President 
 Grant had but followed "the teachings 
 of all our history" in declaring in his 
 annual message of that year that exist- 
 ing dependencies were no longer regarded 
 as subject to transfer from one European 
 power to another, and that when the 
 present relation of colonies ceases they 
 are to become independent powers. 
 
 Another development of the rule, 
 though apparently not necessarily re- 
 quired by either its letter or its spirit, 
 is found in the objection to arbitration 
 of South American controversies by a 
 European power. American questions, it 
 is said, are for American decision, and 
 on that ground the United States went 
 so far as to refuse to mediate in the war 
 between Chili and Peru jointly with 
 Great Britain and France. 
 
 Finally, on the ground, among others, 
 that the authority of the Monroe doc- 
 trine and the prestige of the United 
 Slates as its exponent and sponsor would 
 he seriously impaired, Secretary Bayard 
 strenuously resisted the enforcement of 
 the Pelletir claim against Hayti. 
 
 HOW MR. BAYARD UPHELD IT. 
 
 "The United States," he said, "has pro- 
 claimed herself the protector of this west- 
 ern world, in which she is by far the 
 stronger power, from the intrusion of 
 European sovereignties. She can point 
 with proud satisfaction to the fact that 
 over and over again has she declared 
 effectively that serious indeed would be 
 the consequences if European hostile foot 
 should, without just cause, tread those 
 states in the new world which have 
 emancipated themselves from European 
 control. She has announced that she 
 would cherish, as it becomes her, the ter- 
 ritorial rights of the feeblest of those 
 states, regarding them not merely as in 
 the eye of the law equal to even the 
 greatest of nationalities, but in view of 
 her distinctive policy as entitled to be re- 
 garded by her as the objects of a peculi- 
 
 arly gracious caro. I feel bound to say 
 that if we should sanction by reprisals in 
 Hayti the ruthless invasion of her terri- 
 tory and insult, to her sovereignty which 
 the facts now before us disclose, if we 
 approve by solemn executive action and 
 congressional assent that invasion, it 
 would be difficult for us hereafter to as- 
 sert that in the new world, of whose 
 rights we are the peculiar guardians, 
 these rights have never been invaded by 
 ourselves." 
 
 The foregoing enumeration not only 
 shows the many instances wherein the 
 rule in question has been affirmed and 
 applied, but also demonstrates that the 
 Venezuelan boundary controversy is in 
 any view far within the scope and spirit 
 of the rule as uniformly accepted and 
 acted upon. A doctrine of American pub- 
 lic law thus long and firmly established 
 and supported could not easily be ignored 
 in a proper case for its application, even 
 were the considerations upon which it is 
 founded obscure or questionable. No 
 such objection can be made, however, 
 to the Monroe doctrine understood and de- 
 fined in the manner already stated. It 
 rests, on the contrary, upon facts and 
 principles that are both intelligible and 
 incontrovertible. 
 
 NO INTEREST IN EUROPE. 
 
 That distance and three thousand miles 
 of intervening ocean make any perman- 
 ent political union between a European 
 and an American state unnatural and in- 
 expedient will hardly be denied. But 
 physical and geographical considerations 
 are the least of the objections to such a 
 union. Europe, as Washington observed, 
 has a set of primary interests which are 
 peculiar to herself. America is not inter- 
 ested in them and ought not be vexed 
 or complicated w ? ith them. Each great 
 European power, for instance, to-day 
 maintains enormous armies and fleets in 
 self-defense and for protection against 
 any other European power or powers. 
 What have the states of America to do 
 with that condition of things, or why 
 should they be impoverished by wars or 
 preparations for Avars with whose causes 
 or results they can have no direct con- 
 cern? If all Europe were suddenly to fly 
 to arms over the fate of Turkey, would 
 it not be preposterous that any American 
 state should find itself inextricably in- 
 volved in the miseries and burdens of the 
 contest? If it were it would have to be 
 a partner in the cost and losses of the 
 struggle, but not in any ensuing benefits. 
 
THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 25 
 
 \Vlmt is true of the material is no less 
 true of wlmt may be termed the moral 
 interests involved. Those pertaining to 
 Knropo are peculiar to her, and are en- 
 tirely diverse from those pertaining and 
 peeiiliar to America. Europe as a whole 
 is monarchical, arid, with the single im- 
 l>(>rt;iiit exception of the republic of 
 K ranee, is committed to the monarchical 
 principle. America, on the other hand, 
 is devoted to the exactly opposite prin- 
 eiple -to the idea that every people has 
 an inalienable right of self-government, 
 and in the United States of America has 
 furnished to the world the most con- 
 spieuous and conclusive example and 
 proof of the excellence of free institu- 
 tions, whether from the standpoint of 
 national greatness or of individual hap- 
 piness. 
 
 INCONGRUOUS AND INJURIOUS. 
 
 It cannot be necessary, however,- to 
 enlarge upon this phase of the subject. 
 Whether moral or material interests be 
 considered, it cannot but be universally 
 eon ceded that those of Europe are irre- 
 concilably diverse from those of Amer- 
 ica, and that any European control of the 
 latter is necessarily both incongruous and 
 injurious. 
 
 If, however, for the reasons stated, the 
 forcible intrusion of European powers 
 into American politics is to be depre- 
 cated; if, as it is to be deprecated, it 
 should be resisted and prevented, such 
 resistance and prevention must come 
 from the United States. They would 
 come from it, of course, were it made the 
 point of attack, but if they come at all 
 they must also come from it when any 
 other American state is attacked, since 
 only the .United States has the strength 
 adequate to the exigency. Is it true, then, 
 that the safety and welfare of the United 
 States are so coincident with the mainten- 
 anee of the independence of every Ameri- 
 can state as against every European 
 power as to justify and require the inter- 
 position of the United States whenever 
 tliat independence is endangered? The 
 question can be candidly answered in but 
 one way. 
 
 NATURAL ALLIES. 
 
 The states of America. South as well 
 as North, by geographical proximity, by 
 natural sympathy, by similarity of gov- 
 ernmental constitutions, are friends and 
 allies, commercially and politically, of 
 the United States. To allow the subju- 
 gation of any of them by a European 
 power is. of course, to completely re- 
 verse that situation, and signifies the 
 
 loss of all the advantages incident to 
 their natural relations to us. 
 
 But that is not all. The people of the 
 United States have a vital interest in 
 the cause of popular self-government. 
 They have secured the right for them- 
 selves and their posterity at the cost of 
 infinite blood and treasure. They have 
 realized and exemplified its beneficial 
 operation by a career unexampled in 
 point of national greatness or individual 
 felicity. They believe it to be for the 
 healing of all nations, and that civiliza- 
 tion must either advance or retrograde 
 accordingly as its supremacy is ex- 
 tended or curtailed. 
 
 Imbued with these sentiments, the 
 people of the United States might not 
 impossibly be wrought up to an active 
 propaganda in favor of a cause so highly 
 valued by themselves and for mankind. 
 But the age of the crusader has passed 
 and they are content with such asser- 
 tions and defense of the right of popular 
 self-government as their own security 
 and welfare demand. It is in that view 
 more than in any other that they be- 
 lieve it not to be tolerated that the poli- 
 tical control of an American state shall 
 be forcibly assumed by a European 
 power. The mischiefs apprehended from 
 such a source are none the less real be- 
 cause not immediately imminent in any 
 specific case, and are none the less to be 
 guarded against because the combina- 
 tion of circumstances that will bring 
 them upon us cannot be predicted. 
 
 The civilized states of Christendom 
 deal with each other on substantially the 
 same principles that regulate the con- 
 duct of individuals. The greater its en- 
 lightenment the more surely every state 
 perceives that its permanent interests 
 require it to be governed by the immut- 
 able principles of right and justice. 
 Each, nevertheless, is only too liable to 
 succumb to the temptations offered by 
 seeming special opportunities for its own 
 aggrandizement, and each would rashly 
 imperil its own safety were it not to re- 
 member that for the regard and respect 
 of other states it must be largely depend- 
 ent upon its own strength and power. 
 
 SUPREME ON THIS CONTINENT. 
 
 To-day the United States is practically 
 sovereign on this continent, and its fiat 
 is law upon the subjects to which it con- 
 fines its interposition. Why? It is not 
 because of the pure friendship or good 
 will felt for it. It is not simply by reason 
 of its high character ns n civilized state. 
 nor because wisdom and justice and 
 
26 
 
 THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 equity are the invariable characteristics 
 of the dealings of the United States. It 
 is because, in addition to all other 
 grounds, its infinite resources, combined 
 with its isolated position, render it mas- 
 ter of the situation and practically in- 
 vulnerable as against any or all other 
 powers. All the advantages of this su- 
 periority are at once imperilled if the 
 principle be admitted that European pow- 
 ers may convert American states into 
 colonies or provinces of their own. The 
 principle would be eagerly availed of, 
 and every power doing so would imme- 
 diately acquire a base of military opera- 
 tions agairst us. What one power was 
 permitted to do could not be denied to 
 another, and it is not inconceivable that 
 the struggle now going on for the ac- 
 quisition of Africa might be transferred 
 to South America. If it were, the weaker 
 countries would unquestionably be soon 
 absorbed, while the ultimate result might 
 be the partition of all South America be- 
 tween the various European powers. 
 
 The disastrous consequences to the 
 United States of such a condition of 
 things are obvious. The loss of prestige, 
 of authority, and of weight in the coun- 
 cils of the family of nations would be 
 among the least of these. Our only real 
 rivals in peace as well as enemies in war 
 would be located at our very doors. Thus 
 far in our history we have been spared 
 the burdens and evils of immense stand- 
 ing armies and all the other accessories 
 of hugh warlike establishments, and the 
 exemption has largely contributed to our 
 national greatness and wealth as well as 
 to the happiness of every citizen. But 
 with the powers of Europe permanently 
 encamped on American soil, the ideal 
 conditions we have thus far enjoyed can- 
 not be expected to continue. We, 'too, 
 must be armed to the teeth; we, too. 
 must convert the flower of our male 
 population into soldiers and sailors, and 
 !>y withdrawing them from the various 
 pursuits of peaceful industry, we, too, 
 must practically annihilate a large share 
 of the productive energy of the nation. 
 How a greater calamity than this could 
 overtake us, it is difficult to see. 
 
 FRIENDSHIP NO SECURITY. 
 
 Nor are our just apprehensions to be 
 allayed by the suggestions of the friendli- 
 ness of European powers, of their good 
 will, of their disposition, should they be 
 our neighbors, to dwell with us in peace 
 and harmony. The people of the United 
 States have learned in the school of ex- 
 perience to what extent the retaliations 
 
 of states to each other depend not upon 
 sentiment nor principle, but upon selfish 
 interest. They will not soon forget that, 
 in their hour of distress, all their anxi- 
 eties and burdens were aggravated by 
 the possibility of demonstrations against 
 their national life on the part of powers 
 with whom they had long maintained 
 the most harmonious relations. They 
 have yet in mind that Prance seized upon 
 the apparent opportunity of our civil 
 war to set up a monarchy in the adjoin- 
 ing state of Mexico. They realize that 
 had France and Great Britain held im- 
 portant South American possessions to 
 work from and to benefit, the tempta- 
 tion to destroy the predominance of the 
 great republic in this hemisphere by fur- 
 thering its dismemberment might have 
 been irresistible. From that grave peril 
 they have been saved in the past, and 
 may be saved again in the future, 
 through the operation of the sure but 
 silent force of the doctrine proclaimed 
 by President Monroe. To abandon it. 
 on the other hand, disregarding both 
 the logic of the situation and the facts 
 of our past experience, would be to re- 
 nounce a policy w r hich has proved both 
 an easy defense against foreign aggres- 
 sion and a prolific source of internal 
 progress and prosperity. 
 
 AS APPLIED TO VENEZUELA. 
 
 There is, then, a doctrine of American 
 public law, well founded in principle, 
 and abundantly sanctioned by precedent, 
 which entitles and requires the United 
 States to treat as an injury to itself the 
 the forcible assumption by a European 
 power of political control over an Ameri- 
 can state. The application of the doc- 
 trine to the boundary dispute between 
 Great Britain and Venezuela remains 
 to be made and presents no real diffi- 
 culty. Though the dispute relates to a 
 boundary line, yet, as it is between 
 states, it necessarily imports political 
 control to be lost by one party and gained 
 by the other. The political control at 
 stake, too, is of no mean importance, but 
 concerns a domain of great extent. The 
 British claim, it will be remembered, 
 apparently expanded in two years some 
 33.000 square miles, and, if it also di- 
 rectly involves the command of the 
 mouth of the Orinoco, is of immense con- 
 sequence in connection with the whole 
 river navigation of the interior of South 
 America. 
 
 It has been intimated, indeed, that in 
 respect of these South American posses- 
 sions Great Britain is herself an Amen- 
 
THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 27 
 
 can state, like any other, so that a con- 
 troversy between her and Venezuela is 
 to bo settled between themselves as it' 
 it were between Venezuela and Bra/il. 
 or between Venezuela and Colombia, and 
 does not call for or justify United States 
 intervention. If this view be tenable at 
 nil the logical sequence is plain. Great 
 Britain, as a South American state, is to 
 be entirely differentiated from Great 
 Britain generally, and if the boundary 
 question cannot be settled otherwise 
 than by force, British Guiana with her 
 own independent resources, and not 
 those of the British empire, should be 
 left to settle the matter with Venezuela 
 an arrangement which very possibly 
 Venezuela might not object to. 
 
 NOT AN AMERICAN POWER. 
 
 But the proposition that a European 
 power with an American dependency is 
 for the purposes of the Monroe doctrine 
 to be classed not as a European but as 
 an American state will not admit of seri- 
 ous discussion. If it were to be adopted 
 the Monroe doctrine would be too value- 
 less to be worth asserting. Not only 
 would every European power now hav- 
 ing a South American colony be enabled 
 to extend its possessions on this contin- 
 ent indefinitely, but any other European 
 power might also do the same by first 
 taking pains to procure a fraction of 
 South American soil by voluntary ces- 
 sion. The declaration of the Monroe mes- 
 sage that existing colonies or dependen- 
 cies of a European power would not be 
 interfered with by the United States 
 means colonies or dependencies then ex- 
 isting, with their limits as then exist- 
 ing. So it has been invariably construed, 
 and so it must continue to be construed, 
 unless it is to be deprived of all vital 
 force. Great Britain cannot be deemed 
 a South American state within the pur- 
 view of the Monroe doctrine, nor. if she 
 is appropriating Venezuelan territory, is 
 it material that she does so by advanc- 
 ing the frontier of an old colony instead 
 of by the planting of a new colony. The 
 difference is a matter of form and not of 
 substance, and the doctrine, if pertinent 
 in the one case, must be in the other also. 
 
 It is not admitted, however, and there- 
 fore cannot be assumed, that Great 
 Britain is in fact usurpmff dominion over 
 Venezuelan territory. While Venezuela 
 charges such usurpations, Great Britain 
 denies it. and the United States, until the 
 merits are authoratively ascertained, can 
 take sides with neither. But while this 
 is so, while the United States may not. 
 
 under existing circumstances, at least. 
 take upon itself to say which of the two 
 parties is right and which wrong, it is 
 certainly within its right to demand that 
 the truth shall be ascertained. Being en- 
 titled to resent and resist any sequestra- 
 tion of Venezuelan soil by 'Great Brit- 
 ain, it is necessarily entitled to know 
 whether such sequestration has occurred 
 or is now going on. Otherwise, if the 
 United States is without the right to 
 know and have it determined whether 
 there is or is not British aggression 
 upon Venezuelan territory, its right to 
 protest against or repel, such aggression 
 may be dismissed from consideration. 
 The right to act upon a fact, the ex- 
 istence of which there is no right to 
 have ascertained, is simply illusory. 
 
 PP:ACEFUL ARBITRATION. 
 
 It being clear, therefore, that the 
 United States may legitimately insist 
 upon the merits of the boundary ques- 
 tion being determined, it is equally clear 
 that there is but one feasible mode of de- 
 termining them, viz., peaceful arbitra- 
 tion. The impracticability of any con- 
 ventional adjustment has been often and 
 thoroughly demonstrated. Even more 
 impossible of consideration is an appeal 
 to arms, a mode of settling national pre- 
 tensions unhappily not yet wholly obso- 
 lete. If, however, it were not condemn- 
 able as a relic of barbarism and a crime 
 in itself, so one-sided a contest could not 
 be invited, nor-even accepted by Great 
 Britain without listinct disparagement 
 to her character as a civilized State. 
 
 Great Britain, however, assumes no 
 such attitude. On the contrary, she both 
 admits that there is a controversy and 
 that arbitration should be resorted to for 
 its adjustment. But, while up to this 
 point her attitude leaves nothing to be 
 desired, its practical effect is completely 
 nullified by her Insistence that the sub- 
 mission shall cover but a part of the con- 
 troversythat, as a condition of a rbit rat- 
 ing her right to a part of the disputed 
 territory, the remainder shall be turned 
 over to her. If it were possible to point 
 to a boundary which both parties have 
 ever agreed or assumed to be such, either 
 expressly or tacitly, the demand that ter- 
 ritory conceded by such line to British 
 Guiana should be held not to be in dis- 
 pute might rest upon a reasonable basis. 
 But there is no such line. The territory 
 w r hich Great Britain insists shall be con- 
 ceded to her as a condition of arbitrating 
 her claim to other territory, has never 
 been admitted to belong to her. It has 
 
28 
 
 THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 always and consistently been claimed by 
 Venezuela. Upon what principle, except 
 her feebleness as a nation, is she to be 
 denied the right of having the* claim 
 heard and passed upon by an impartial 
 tribunal? No reason or shadow of reason 
 appears in all the voluminous literature 
 of the subject. "It is to be so because I 
 will it to be so" seems to be the only 
 justification Great Britain offers. 
 
 PLEA OP LONG POSSESSION. 
 
 It is, indeed, intimated that the Brit- 
 ish claim to this particular territory rests 
 upon an occupation which, whether ac- 
 quiesced in or not, has ripened into a 
 perfect title by long continuance. But 
 what prescription affecting territorial 
 rights can be said to exist as between 
 sovereign states? Or, if there is any. 
 what is the legitimate consequence? It 
 is not that all arbitration should be de- 
 nied, but only that the submission should 
 embrace an additional topic, namely, the 
 validity of the asserted prescriptive 
 title, either in point of law or in point 
 of fact. No different result follows from 
 the contention that as a matter of prin- 
 ciple Great Britain cannot be asked to 
 submit and ought not to submit to arbi- 
 tration her political sovereign rights over 
 territory. This contention, as applied to 
 the whole or a vital part of the posses- 
 sions of a sovereign state need not be 
 controverted. To hold otherwise might 
 be equivalent to holding that a sovereign 
 state was bound to arbitrate its very 
 existence. But Great Britain has her- 
 self shown in various instances that the 
 principle has no pertinency when either 
 the interests or the territorial area in- 
 volved are not of controlling magnitude, 
 and her loss of them as the result of an 
 arbitration cannot appreciably affect 
 her honor or her power. Thus, she has 
 arbitrated the extent of her colonial 
 possessions, twice with the United 
 States, twice with Portugal, and once 
 with Germany and perhaps in other in- 
 stances. 
 
 A PRECEDENT. 
 
 The Northwestern water boundary 
 arbitration of 1872, between her and this 
 country, is an example in point and well 
 illustrates both the effect to be given to 
 long-continued used and enjoyment and 
 the fact that a truly great power sacri- 
 fices neither prestige nor dignity by re- 
 considering the most emphatic rejection 
 of a proposition when satisfied of the 
 obvious and intrinsic justice of the case. 
 By the award of the Emperor of Ger- 
 many, the arbitrator in that case, the 
 
 United States acquired San Juan and a 
 number of smaller islands near the coast 
 of Vancouver as a consequence of the de- 
 cision that the term "the channel which 
 separates the continent from Vancouver's 
 island," as used in the treaty of Wash- 
 ington of 184(3, means the Haro channel 
 and not the Rosario channel. Yet a lead- 
 ing contention of Great Britain before 
 the arbitration was that equity required 
 a judgment in her favor because a decis- 
 ion in favor of the United States would 
 deprive British subjects of rights of 
 navigation of which they had had the 
 habitual enjoyment from the time when 
 the Rosario strait was first explored and 
 surveyed in 1798. So, though by virtue 
 of the award the United State acquired 
 San Juan and the other islands of the 
 group to which it belongs, the British 
 foreign secretary had, in 1859, instructed 
 the British minister at Washington as 
 follows: 
 
 Her majesty's government must, there- 
 fore, under any circumstances, maintain the 
 right of the British crown to the island of 
 San Juan. The interests at stake in con- 
 nection with the retention of that island 
 are too important to admit of compromise, 
 and your lordship will consequently bear in 
 mind that, whatever arrangement as to the 
 boundary line is finally arrived at, no settle- 
 ment of the question will be accepted by her 
 majesty's government which does not pro- 
 vide for the island of San Juan being re- 
 served to the British crown. 
 
 BRITAIN'S IPSE DIXIT. 
 
 Thus, as already intimated, the Brit- 
 ish demand that her right to a portion 
 of the disputed territory shall be ack- 
 nowledged before she will consent to an 
 arbitration as to the rest, seems to stand 
 upon nothing but her own ipse dixit. She 
 says to Venezuela, in substance: "You 
 can get none of the debatable land by 
 force, because you are not strong 
 enough; you can get none by treaty, be- 
 cause I will not agree; and you can take 
 your chance of getting a portion by arbi- 
 tration, only if you first agree to aban- 
 don to me such other portion as I may 
 designate." 
 
 It is not perceived how such an at- 
 titude can be defended, nor how it is 
 reconcilable with that love of justice and 
 fair play so eminently characteristic of 
 the English race. It, in effect, deprives 
 Venezuela of her free agency and puts 
 her under virtual duress. Territory ac- 
 quired by reason of it will be as much 
 wrested from her by the strong hand as 
 if occupied by British troops or covered 
 by British fleets. 
 
THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 29 
 
 It seerns, therefore, quite impossible 
 that this position of Great Britain 
 should be assented to by the United 
 States, or that, if such position be ad- 
 hered to with the result of enlarging the 
 bounds of British Guiana, it should not 
 be regarded as amounting, in substance, 
 to an invasion and conquest. of Venezue- 
 lan territory. 
 
 In these circumstances, the duty of 
 the president appears to him unmistak- 
 able and imperative. Great Britain's 
 assertion of title to the disputed terri- 
 tory, combined with her refusal to have 
 that title investigated, being a substan- 
 tial appropriation of the territory to her 
 own use, not to protest and give warning 
 that the transaction will be regarded as 
 injurious to the interests of the people 
 of the United States as well as oppres- 
 sive in itself would be to ignore an es- 
 tablished policy with which the honor 
 and welfare of this country are closely 
 identified. 
 
 While the measures necessary or pro- 
 per for the vindication of that policy 
 are to be determined by another branch 
 of the government, it is clearly for the 
 executive to have nothing undone which 
 may tend to render such determination 
 unnecessary. 
 
 AN ANSWER DEMANDED. 
 
 You are instructed, therefore, to pre- 
 sent the foregoing views to Lord Salis- 
 bury by reading to him this communi- 
 cation (leaving with him a copy should 
 he so desire), and to reinforce them by 
 such pertinent considerations as will 
 doubtless occur to you. They- call for a 
 definite decision upon the point whether 
 Great Britain will consent or will de- 
 cline to submit the Venezuelan boundary 
 question >n its entirety to impartial ar- 
 bitration. It is the earnest hope of the 
 president that the conclusion will be on 
 the side of arbitration, and that Great 
 Britain will add one more to the con- 
 spicuous precedents she has already fur- 
 nished in favor of that wise and just 
 mode of adjusting international disputes. 
 
 If he is to be disappointed in that 
 hope, however a result not to be antici- 
 
 pated and in his judgment calculated to 
 greatly embarrass the future relations 
 between this country and Great Britain 
 it is his wish to be made acquainted 
 with the fact at such early date as will 
 enable him to lay the whole subject be- 
 fore Congress in his next annual message. 
 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 RICHARD OLNEY. 
 HINTS FROM MR. ADEE. 
 
 For Mr. Bayard's instruction Acting 
 Secretary Adee wrote as follows: 
 (No. 806.) 
 
 Department of State, 
 Washington, July 24, 1895. 
 His Excellency, Thomas F. Bayard, Etc., 
 
 Etc., Etc., London: 
 
 Sir In Mr. Olney's instructions No. 804, 
 of the 20th instant, in relation to the 
 Anglo- Venezuelan boundary dispute, you 
 will note a reference to the sudden in- 
 crease of the area claimed for British 
 Guiana, amounting to 33,000 square 
 miles, between 1884 and 1886. This state- 
 ment is made on the authority of the 
 British publication entitled the States- 
 man's Year Book. I add for your bet- 
 ter information that the same statement 
 is found in the British Colonial Office 
 List, a government publication. In the 
 issue for 1885 the following passage oc- 
 curred, on page 24, under the head of 
 British Guiana: 
 
 It is impossible to specify the exact area 
 of the colony, as its precise boundaries be- 
 tween Venezuela and Brazil respectively are 
 unclertermined, but it has been computed to 
 be 76,000 snuare miles. 
 
 In the issue of the same List for 1886 
 the same statement occurs on page 33, 
 with the change of area to "about 109,- 
 000 square miles." 
 
 The official maps in the two volumes 
 mentioned are identical, so that the in- 
 crease of 33,000 square miles claimed for 
 British Guiana is not thereby explained, 
 but later Colonial Office List maps show 
 a varying sweep of the boundary west- 
 ward into what, previously figured as 
 Venezuelan territory, while no change 
 is noted on the Brazilian frontier. I am, 
 sir, your obedient servant. 
 
 ALVKY A. AI>KK. AH ing Secretary. 
 
30 
 
 THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 SALISBURY'SJPIRST NOTE. 
 
 States the Grounds of Great Britain's Re- 
 fusal to Arbitrate. 
 
 Foreign Office, Nov. 26, 1895. 
 
 Sir On the 7th of August I trans- 
 mitted to Lord Gough a copy of the dis- 
 patch from Mr. Olney which Mr. Bayard 
 had left with me that day, and of which 
 he had read portions to me. I informed 
 him at the time that it could not be an- 
 swered until it had been carefully con- 
 sidered by the law officers of the crown. 
 I have, therefore, deferred replying to it 
 till after the recess. 
 
 I will not now deal with those por- 
 tions of it which are concerned exclu- 
 sively with the controversy that has for 
 some time past existed between the re- 
 public of Venezuela and her majesty's 
 government in regard to the boundary 
 which separates their dominions. I take 
 a very different view from Mr. Olney of 
 various matters upon which he touches 
 in that part of the dispatch, but I will 
 defer for the present all observations 
 upon it, as it concerns matters which are 
 not in themselves of first-rate import- 
 ance, and do not directly concern the re- 
 lations between Great Britain and the 
 United States. 
 
 The latter part, however, of the dis- 
 patch, turning from the question of the 
 frontiers of Venezuela, proceeds to deal 
 with the principles of a far wider char- 
 acter, and to advance doctrines of inter- 
 national law which are of considerable 
 interest to all the nations whose domin- 
 ions include any portion of the Western 
 hemisphere. The contention set forth 
 by Mr. Olney in this part of his dispatch 
 are represented by him as being an ap- 
 plication of the political maxims which 
 are well known in American discussion 
 under the name of the Monroe doctrine. 
 
 NOT MONROE'S DOCTRINE. 
 
 As far as I am aware, this doctrine has 
 never been before advanced on behalf 
 of the United States in any written com- 
 munication addressed to the government 
 of another nation, but it has been gener- 
 ally adopted and assumed as true by 
 many eminent writers and politicians in 
 the United States. It is said to have 
 largely influenced the government of that 
 country in the conduct of its foreign 
 affairs, though Mr. Clayton, who was 
 
 secretary of state under President Tay- 
 lor, expressly stated that that adminis- 
 tration had in no way adopted it. But 
 during the period that has elapsed since 
 the message of President Monroe was de- 
 livered, in 1823, the doctrine has under- 
 gone a very notable development, and 
 the aspect which it now presents in the 
 hands of Mr. Olney differs widely from 
 its character when it first issued from 
 the pen of its author. The two proposi- 
 tions which in effect President Monroe 
 laid down were: (1) that America was no 
 longer to be looked upon as a field for 
 European colonization, and (2) that Eu- 
 rope must not attempt to extend its po- 
 litical system to America, or to control 
 the political conditions of any of the 
 American communities who had recently 
 declared their independence. 
 
 The dangers against which President 
 Monroe thought it right to guard were 
 not as imaginary as they would seem at 
 the present day. The formation of the 
 Holy Alliance, the Congresses of Lay- 
 bach and Verona, the invasion of Spain 
 by France for the purpose of forcing 
 upon the Spanish people a form of gov- 
 ernment which seemed likely to disap- 
 pear unless it was sustained by external 
 aid, were incidents fresh in the mind of 
 President Monroe when he penned his 
 celebrated message. The system of 
 which he spoke, and of \vhich he so reso- 
 lutely deprecated the application to the 
 American continent, was the system then 
 adopted by certain powerful states upon 
 the continent of Europe, of combining 
 to prevent by force of arms the adop- 
 tion in other countries of political in- 
 stitutions which they disliked, and to 
 uphold by external pressure those which 
 they approved. 
 
 Various portions of South America had 
 recently declared their independence, 
 and that independence had not been 
 recognized by the governments of Spain 
 and Portugal, to which, with small ex- 
 ceptions, the whole of Central and South 
 America were nominally subject. It was 
 not an imaginary danger that he fore- 
 saw, if he feared that the same spirit 
 which had dictated the French expedi- 
 tion into Spain might inspire the more 
 
THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 powerful governments of Europe with 
 the idea of imposing, by the force of 
 :mus, upon the South American com- 
 munities the form of government and the 
 political connection which they had 
 thrown off. In declaring that the United 
 Slates would resist any such enterprise 
 if it were contemplated, President Mon- 
 roe adopted a policy which received the 
 entire sympathy of the English govern- 
 ment of that day. 
 
 COLONIZING NOT INTENDED. 
 
 The dangers which were apprehended 
 by President Monroe have no relation 
 to the state of things in which we live 
 at the present day. There is no dan- 
 ger of any Holy Alliance imposing its 
 system upon any portion of the Ameri- 
 can continent, and there is no danger 
 of any European state treating any part 
 of the American continent as a fit object 
 for European colonization. 
 
 It is intelligible that Mr. Olney should 
 'invoke, in defense of the views on which 
 he is now insisting, an authority which 
 enjoys so high a popularity with his own 
 fellow-countrymen. But the circum- 
 stances with which President Monroe 
 was dealing and those to which the pres- 
 ent American government is addressing 
 itself, have very few features in common. 
 Great Britain is imposing no "system" 
 upon Venezuela, and is not concerning 
 herself in any way with the nature of the 
 political institutions under which the 
 Venezuelans may prefer to live. But the 
 British empire and the republic of Vene- 
 zuela are neighbors, and they have dif- 
 fered for some time past, and continue to 
 differ, as to the line by which their 
 dominions are separated. 
 
 It is a controversy with which the 
 United States have no apparent prac- 
 tical concern. It is difficult, indeed, to 
 see how it can materially affect any state 
 or community outside those primarily 
 interested, except perhaps other parts of 
 her majesty's dominions, such as Trini- 
 dad. The disputed frontier of Vene- 
 zuela has nothing to do with any of the 
 questions dealt with by President .Mon- 
 roe. It is not a question of the coloniza- 
 tion by any European power of any por- 
 tion of America. It is not a question of 
 the imposition upon the communities of 
 South America of any system of govern- 
 ment 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 exist- 
 ence. 
 
 But even if the interests of Vene- 
 zuela 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 has not formed, 
 and certainly does -not express, any 
 opinion upon the actual merits of the dis- 
 pute. The government of the United 
 States does not say that Great Britain 
 or that Venezuela is in the right in the 
 matters that are in issue. But it lays 
 down that the doctrine of President 
 Monroe, when he opposed the imposition 
 of European systems or the renewal of 
 European colonization, confers upon 
 them the right of demanding that when 
 a European power has a frontier dif- 
 ference with a South American com- 
 munity the European power shall con- 
 sent to refer that controversy to arbi- 
 tration, and Mr. Oluey states that unless 
 her majesty's government accede to this 
 demand it will "greatly embarrass the 
 future relations between Great Brit-' 
 ain and the United States." 
 OLNEY'S POSITION NOT TENABLE. 
 
 Whatever may be the authority of the 
 doctrine laid down by President Mon- 
 roe, there is nothing in his language to 
 show that he ever thought of claiming 
 this novel prerogative for the United 
 States. It is admitted that he did not 
 seek to assert a protectorate over Mex- 
 ico or the states of Central and South 
 America. Such a claim would have im- 
 posed upon the United States the duty 
 of answering for the conduct of these 
 states,' and consequently the responsi- 
 bility of controlling it. His sagacious 
 foresight would have led him energetic- 
 ally to deprecate the addition of so seri- 
 ous a burden to those which the rulers 
 of the United States have to bear. It 
 follows of necessity that if the govern- 
 ment of the United States will not con- 
 trol the conduct of these communities, 
 neither can it undertake to protect them 
 from the consequences attaching to any 
 misconduct of which they may be guilty 
 towards other nations. 
 
 If they violate in any way the rights 
 of another state or of its subjects, it. is 
 not alleged that the Monroe doctrine will 
 assure them the assistance of the United 
 States in escaping from any reparation 
 which they may be bound by inter- 
 national law to givr. .Mr. Olney ex- 
 pressly disclaims such an inference from 
 the principles he lays down. But the 
 claim which he founds upon them is 
 that, if any independent American state 
 advances a demand for territory of 
 
32 
 
 THE COREESPONDENCE. 
 
 which its neighbor claims to be the 
 owner, and that neighbor is a colony 
 or a European biaie, me United btatoa 
 have a right to insist that the iliurapean 
 state shall submit the demand and its 
 own impugned rights, to arbitration. 
 
 ARBITRATION POLICY OPPOSED. 
 
 I will not now enter into a discussion 
 of the merits of this method of terminat- 
 ing international differences. It has 
 proved itself valuable in many cases, 
 but it is not free from defects which 
 often operate as a serious drawback on 
 its value. It is not. always easy to find 
 an arbitrator who is competent, and 
 who at the same time is wholly free 
 from bias, and the task of insuring com- 
 pliance with the award when it is made 
 is not exempt from difficulty. It is a 
 mode of settlement of which the value 
 varies much according to the nature of 
 the controversy to which it is applied 
 and the character of the litigants who 
 appeal to it. Whether, in any particular 
 case, it is a suitable method of pro- 
 cedure, is generally a delicate and diffi- 
 cult question. The only parties who are 
 competent to decide that question are 
 the two parties whose rival contentions 
 are in issue. The claim of a third na- 
 tion, which is unaffected by the contro- 
 versy, to impose this particular pro- 
 cedure on either of the two others can- 
 not be reasonably justified, and has no 
 foundation in the law of nations. 
 
 In the remarks which I have made 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 states- 
 men to whom it is due and the great 
 nations 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 compet- 
 ent to insert into the code of inter- 
 national law a novel principle which 
 was never recognized before, and which 
 has not since been recognized by the 
 government of any other country. 
 
 The United States has a right, like 
 any other nation, to interpose in any 
 controversy by which their own in- 
 terests are affected, and they are the 
 judge whether those interests are touched 
 and in what measure they should be 
 sustained. But their rights are in no 
 way strengthened or extended by the 
 
 fact that the controversy affects some ter- 
 ritory which is called American. Mr. 
 Olney quotes the case of the recent Chil- 
 ian war, in which the United States de- 
 clined to join with France and England 
 in an eiTort to bring hostilities to a close, 
 on account of the Monroe doctrine. The 
 United States were entirely in their right 
 in declining to join in an attempt at pa- 
 cification if they thought fit, but Mr. 
 Oluey's principle that "American ques- 
 tions are for American decision," even 
 if it received any countenance from the 
 language of President Monroe (which it 
 does not), cannot be sustained by any 
 reasoning drawn from the law of na- 
 tions. 
 
 UNITED STATES NOT CONCERNED. 
 
 The government of the United States 
 is not entitled to affirm as a universal 
 proposition, with reference to a number 
 of independent states for whose con- 
 duct it assumes no responsibility, that 
 its interests are necessarily concerned in 
 whatever may befall those states simply 
 because they are situated in the western 
 hemisphere. It may well be that the inter- 
 ests of the United States are affected by 
 something that happens to Chili or Peru, 
 and that the circumstances may give 
 them the right of interference; but such 
 a contingency may equally happen in the 
 case of China or Japan, and the right of 
 interference is not more extensive or 
 more assured in the one case than in the 
 other. 
 
 Though the language of President Mon- 
 roe is directed to the attainment of ob- 
 jects which most Englishmen would 
 agree to be salutary, it is impossible to 
 admit that they have been inscribed by 
 any adequate authority in the code of 
 international law, and the danger which 
 such admission would involve is suffi- 
 ciently exhibited both by the strange 
 development which the doctrine has re- 
 ceived at Mr. Olney 's hands and the ar- 
 guments by which it is supported in the 
 dispatch under reply. In defense of it 
 he says: "That distance and 3,000 miles 
 of intervening ocean make any perman- 
 ent political union between a European 
 and an American state unnatural and 
 inexpedient will hardly be denied. But 
 physical and geographical considerations 
 are the least of the objections to such a 
 union. Europe has a set of primary in- 
 terests which are peculiar to herself; 
 America is not interested in them, and 
 ought not to be vexed or complicated 
 with them." And again: "Thus far in 
 our history we have been spared the bur- 
 
Tllti CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 dens and evils of immense standing 
 armies and all the other accessories of 
 huge warlike establishments, and the 
 exemption has highly contributed to our 
 national greatness and wealth, as well 
 as lo the happiness of every citizen. But 
 with the powers tf Kurope permanently 
 encamped on American soil the ideal con- 
 ditions we have thus far enjoyed cannot 
 he expected to continue." 
 
 UNION IS EXPEDIENT. 
 
 The necessary meaning of these words 
 is that the union between Great Britain 
 ,md Canada, between Great Britain and 
 .Jamaica and Trinidad, between Great 
 Britain and British Honduras or British 
 Guiana, is "inexpedient and unnatural." 
 President Monroe disclaims any such 
 inference from his doctrine, but in this 
 as in other respects Mr. Olney develops 
 it. He lays down that the inexpedient 
 and unnatural character of the union 
 between a European and an American 
 state is so obvious that it "will hardly 
 be denied." 
 
 Her majesty's government are pre- 
 pared emphatically to deny it on behalf 
 of both the British and American peo- 
 ple who are subject to the crown. They 
 maintain that the union between Great 
 Britain and her territories in the west- 
 ern hemisphere is both natural and ex- 
 pedient. They fully concur with the 
 view which President Monroe appar- 
 ently entertained, that any disturbance 
 of the existing territorial distribution 
 in that hemisphere by any fresh acqui- 
 
 sitions on the part of any European 
 state would be a highly inexpedient 
 change. Hut they are not prepared to 
 admit that the recognition of that expe- 
 diency is clothed with the ^auction which 
 belongs to a doctrine of international 
 law. They are not prepared to admit 
 that the interests of the United States 
 are necessarily concerned in every fron- 
 tier dispute which may arise between 
 any two of the states who possess do- 
 minion in the western hemisphere, and 
 still less can they accept the doctrine 
 that the United States are entitled to 
 claim that the process of arbitration 
 shall be applied to any demand for the 
 surrender of territory which one of 
 those states may make against another. 
 
 I have commented in the above re- 
 marks only upon the general aspect of 
 Mr. Olney 's doctrine, apart from the 
 sp"rial considerations which attach to 
 the controversy between the United 
 Kingdom and Venezuela in its present 
 phase. This controversy has undoubtedly 
 been made more difficult by the incon- 
 siderate action of the Venezuelan gov- 
 ernment in breaking off relations with 
 her majesty's government, and its settle- 
 ment has been correspondingly delayed; 
 but her majesty's government have not 
 surrendered the hope that it will be ad- 
 justed by a reasonable arrangement at 
 an early date. 
 
 I request that you will read the sub- 
 ject of the above dispatch to Mr. Olney 
 and leave him a copy if he desires it. 
 SALISBURY. 
 
 SALISBURY'S SECOND LETTER. 
 
 Says Olney's Narration of What Passed is 
 Based on Hx Parte Statements. 
 
 "Foreign Office, Nov. 26, 1895. 
 Sir: In my preceding dispatch of 
 to-day's date I have replied only to the 
 latter portion of Mr. Olney's despatch of 
 .July 20 last, which treats of the applica- 
 tion of the Monroe doctrine to the ques- 
 tion of the boundary dispute between 
 Venezuela and the colony of British 
 Guiana. But it seems desirable, in order 
 to remove some evident misapprehen- 
 sions as to the main features of the ques- 
 tion. that the statement of it contained 
 
 in the earlier portion of Mr. Olney's des- 
 patch should not be left without reply. 
 Such a course will be the more conveni- 
 ent, because, in consequence of the sus- 
 pension of diplomatic relations, I shall 
 not have the opportunity of setting right 
 misconceptions of this kind in the ordin- 
 ary way in a despatch addressed to the 
 Venezuelan government itself. 
 
 Her majesty's government while it 
 has never avoided or declined argument 
 on the subject with the government of 
 
THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Venezuela, has always held that the 
 question was one which had no direct 
 bearing on the material interests of any 
 other country, and has consequently re- 
 frained hitherto from presenting any de- 
 tailed statement of its case either to v the 
 1'nlted States or to other foreign gov- 
 ernments. It is perhaps a natural con- 
 sequence of this circumstance that Mr. 
 Olney's narration of what has passed 
 bears the impress of being mainly, if 
 not entirely, founded on ex parte state- 
 ments emanating from Venezuela, and 
 gives, in the opinion of her majesty's 
 government, an erroneous view of many 
 material facts. 
 
 Mr. Olney commences his observa- 
 tions by remarking that 'the dispute is 
 of ancient date, and began at least as 
 early as the time when Great Britain ac- 
 quired by the treaty with the Nether- 
 lauds in 1814 the establishments of 
 Deuierara, Essequibo and Berbice. From 
 that time to the present the dividing 
 line between these establishments, now 
 called British Guiana and Venezuela, 
 has never ceased to be a subject of con- 
 tention.' 
 
 OLNEY WRONG IN FACTS. 
 
 This statement is founded on miscon- 
 ception. The dispute on the subject of 
 the frontier did not, in fact, commence 
 till after the year 1840. The title of 
 Great Britain to the territory in ques- j 
 tion is derived, in the first place, from 
 conquest and military occupation of 
 the Dutch settlements in 1796. Both on 
 this occasion and at the time of a pre- 
 vious occupation of these settlements 
 in 1781 the British authorities marked 
 the western boundary of their posses- 
 sions as beginning some distance up 
 the Orinoco beyond Point Barima, in 
 accordance with the limits claimed and 
 actually held by the Dutch, and this 
 has always since remained the frontier 
 claimed by Great Britain. 
 
 The definite cession of the Dutch 
 settlements to England was, as Mr. Ol- 
 ney states', placed on record by the treaty 
 of 1814, and although the Spanish gov- 
 ernment were parties to the negotiations 
 which led to that treaty, they did not at 
 any stage of them raise objection to the 
 frontiers claimed by Great Britain, 
 though these were perfectly well known 
 to them. At that time the government of 
 Venezuela had not been recognized even 
 by the United States, though the prov- 
 ince was already in revolt against the 
 Spanish "government, and had declared 
 its independence. No question of fron- 
 
 tier was raised with Great Britain either 
 by it or by the government of the United 
 States of Colombia, in which it became 
 merged in 1810. That government, in- 
 deed, on repeated occasions, acknowl- 
 edged its indebtedness to Great Britain 
 for her friendly attitude. When in 183< ) 
 the republic of Venezuela assumed a 
 separate existence its government was 
 equally warm in its expressions of 
 gratitude and friendship, and there was 
 not at the time any indication of an in- 
 tention to raise such claims as have 
 been urged by it during the latter por- 
 tion of this century. 
 
 A'ENEZUELA'S DECLARATIONS 
 INVALID. 
 
 It is true, as stated by Mr. Oluey, 
 that iii the Venezuelan constitution of 
 18:50, article 5 lays down that 'the terri- 
 tory of Venezuela comprises all that 
 which previously to the political changes 
 of 1810 was denominated the Captaincy- 
 General of Venezuela.' Similar declar- 
 ations had been made in the funda- 
 mental laws promulgated in 1819 and 
 1821. 
 
 I need not point out that a declara- 
 tion of this kind made by a newly self- 
 constituted state can have no valid force 
 as against international arrangements 
 previously concluded by the nation from 
 which it had separated itself. 
 
 But the present difficulty would never 
 have arisen if the government of Vene- 
 zuela had been content to claim only 
 those territories which could be proved 
 or even reasonably asserted to have been 
 practically in the possession and under 
 the effective jurisdiction of the Cap- 
 taincy-General of Venezuela. 
 
 There is no authoritative statement by the 
 Spanish government of those territories, for 
 a decree which the Venezuelan government 
 alleges to have been issued by the king of 
 Spain in 1768, describing- the province Gui- 
 ana as bordered on the south by the Ama- 
 zon and on the east by the Atlantic, cer- 
 tainly cannot be regarded as such. It abso- 
 lutely ignores the Dutch settlements, which 
 not only existed in fact, but had been form- 
 ally recognized by the treaty of Munster of 
 1648, and it would, if now considered valid, 
 transfer to Venezuela the whole of the Brit- 
 ish, Dutch and French Guianas, and an 
 enormous tract of territory belonging to 
 Brazil. 
 
 But of the territory claimed and actually 
 occupied by the Dutch, which were those 
 acquired from them by Great Britain, there 
 exist the most authentic declarations. In 
 1759, and again in 1769, the states general of 
 Holland addressed formal remonstrances to 
 the court of Madrid against the incursions 
 of the Spaniards into their posts and set- 
 tlements in the basin of the Cuyuni. In 
 those remonstrances they distinctly claimed 
 all the branches of the Essequibo river, and 
 
THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 especially the Cuyuni river, as lying within 
 Dutch territory. They demanded immediate 
 reparation for the proceedings of Spaniards 
 and reinstatement of the posts said to have 
 been injured by them, and suggested that a 
 proper delineation between the colony of 
 Essequibo and the Rio Orinoco should be 
 laid down by authority. 
 
 To this claim the Spanish government 
 never attempted to make any reply. But it 
 is evident from the archives which are pre- 
 served in Spain and to which, by the court- 
 esy of the Spanish government, reference 
 has been made, that the council of state did 
 not consider that they had the means of re- 
 butting it, and that neither they nor the 
 governor of Cumana were prepared seri- 
 ously to maintain the claims which were 
 suggested in reports from his subordinate 
 officer, the commandant at Guiana. These 
 reports were characterized t>y the Spanish 
 ministers as insufficient and unsatisfactory 
 as professing to show the province of Gui- 
 ana under too favorable a light, and finally 
 by the council of state as appearing from 
 other information to be very improbable. 
 
 They form, however, with a map 
 which accompanied them, the evidence 
 on which the Venezuelan government 
 appears most to rely, though it may be 
 observed among other documents which 
 have from time to time been produced 
 or referred to by them in the course of 
 the discussions is a bull of Pope Alex- 
 ander VI. in 1493, which, if it is to be 
 considered as having any present valid- 
 ity, would take from the government 
 of the United States all titles to juris- 
 diction on the continent of North Amer- 
 ica. The fundamental principle under- 
 lying the argument is, in fact, that in- 
 asmuch as Spain was originally entitled 
 of right to the whole of the American 
 continent, any territory on that contin- 
 ent which she cannot be shown to have 
 acknowledged in positive and specific 
 terms to have passed to another power 
 can only Lave been acquired by wrong- 
 ful usurpation, and if situated to the 
 north of the Amazon and west of the At- 
 lantic, must necessarily belong to Vene- 
 /Aiela as her self constituted inheritor in 
 those regions. 
 
 ASKS OLNEY WHAT HE WOULD DO. 
 
 It may reasonably be asked whether 
 Mr. Olney would consent to refer to the 
 arbitration of another power preten- 
 sions received by the government of 
 Mexico on such a foundation to large 
 tracts of territory which had long been 
 comprised in the federation. 
 
 The circumstances connected with the 
 marking of what is called the 'Schom- 
 burgk' line are as follows: 
 
 In 1831 a grant was made by the Brit- 
 ish government for the exploration of 
 the interior of the British colony, and 
 Mr. (afterwards Sir) Schomburgk, who 
 
 was employed in this service, on his 
 return to the capital of the colony, in 
 .Inly, 1839, called the attention of the 
 government to the necessity for an early 
 demarcation of its boundaries. He was 
 in consequence appointed in November, 
 1840, special commissioner for provision- 
 ally surveying and delimiting the boun- 
 daries of British Guiana, and notice of 
 the appointment was given to the gov- 
 ernments concerned, including that of 
 Venezuela. The intention of her majesty's 
 government at that time was, when the 
 work of the commissioner had been com- 
 pleted, to communicate to the other gov- 
 ernments its views as to the true boun- 
 dary of the British colony, and then to 
 settle any details to which those gov- 
 ernments might take objection. 
 
 It is important to notice that Sir II. 
 Schomburgk did not discover or invent 
 any new boundaries. He took particu- 
 lar care to fortify himself with the his- 
 tory of the case. He had, further, from 
 actual exploration and information ob- 
 tained from the Indians, and from the 
 evidence of local remains, as at Barima, 
 and local traditions, as on the Cuyuni, 
 fixed the limits of the Dutch posses- 
 sions, and the zone from which all trace 
 of Spanish influence was absent. On 
 such data he bases his reports. At the 
 very outset of his mission he surveyed 
 Point Barima, where the remains of a 
 Dutch fort still existed, and placed there 
 and at the mouth of Amacura two boun- 
 dary posts. At the urgent entreaty of the 
 Venezuelan government these two posts 
 were afterwords removed, as stated by 
 Mr. Olney, but this concession was made 
 on the distinct understanding that Great 
 Britain did not thereby in any way 
 abandon its claim to that position. 
 
 In submitting the maps of his survey 
 on which he indicated the line which he 
 would propose ttf her majesty's govern- 
 ment for adoption, Sir R. Schomburgk 
 called attention to the fact that her ma- 
 jesty's government might justly claim 
 the whole basin of the Cuquni and Yu- 
 ruari, on the ground that the natural 
 boundary of the colony included any ter- 
 ritory through which flows rivers which 
 fall into the Essquibo. "Upon this prin- 
 ciple," he wrote, "the boundary line would 
 run from the sources of the Carumani 
 towards the courses of the Cuyuni 
 proper, and thence towards its far more 
 northern tributaries, the rivers Iruary 
 (Yutauari) and Iruangkiruang (Yuruan). 
 and thus approach the ver^ heart of 
 Venezuelan Guiana." But on grounds of 
 complaisance towards Venezuela he pro- 
 
36 
 
 THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 posed that Great Britain should consent 
 to surrender its claim to a more extended 
 frontier inland in return for the formal 
 recognition of her right to Point Barinia. 
 It was on this principle that he drew the 
 boundary line which has since been called 
 by his name. 
 
 THE SCHOMBURGK LINE. 
 
 Undoubtedly, therefore, Mr. Olney is 
 right when he states that it seems im- 
 possible to treat the Schomburgk line, 
 being the boundary claimed by Great 
 Britain, as matter of right or as any- 
 thing but a line originating in consider- 
 ations of convenience and expediency. 
 The Schomburgk line was in fact a great 
 reduction of the boundary claimed by 
 Great Britain as matter of right, and its 
 proposal originated in a desire to come 
 to a speedy and friendly arrangement 
 with a weaker powder with whom Great 
 Britain was at the time, and desired to 
 remain, in cordial relations. 
 
 The following are the main facts of 
 the discussions that ensued with the 
 Venezuela government. While Mr. 
 Schomburgk was engaged on his survey 
 the Venezuelan minister in London had 
 urged her majesty's government to enter 
 into a treaty of limits, but received the 
 answer that if it should be necessary to 
 enter into such a treaty, a survey was at 
 any rate the necessary preliminary. 
 
 As soon as her majesty's government 
 were in possession of Mr. Schomburgk' s 
 report, the Venezuelan minister w r as in- 
 formed that they were in a position to 
 commence negotiations, and in January, 
 1844, Mr. Fortique commenced by stat- 
 ing the claim of his government. This 
 claim, starting from such obsolete 
 grounds as the original discovery by 
 Spain of the American continent, and 
 mainly supported by quotations of a 
 more or less vague character from the 
 writings of travelers and geography, 
 but adducing no substantial evidence of 
 actual conquest or occupation of the ter- 
 ritory claimed, demanded the Essequibo 
 itself as the boundary of Venezuela. 
 
 A reply was returned by Lord Aber- 
 deen, then secretary of state for foreign 
 affairs, pointing out that it would be im- 
 possible to arrive at any agreement if 
 both sides brought forward pretensions 
 of so extreme a character, but stating 
 that the British government w 7 ould not 
 imitate Mr. Fortique in putting forward 
 a claim which it could not be intended 
 seriously to maintain. Lord Aberdeen 
 then proceeded to announce the conces- 
 sions which, out of friendly regard to 
 
 Venezuela, her majesty's government 
 were prepared to make, and proposed a 
 line starting from the mouth of the Alor- 
 oco to the junction of the river Karama 
 with the Waini, thence up the Barama 
 to the point at which that stream ap- 
 proached nearest to the Acarabisi, and 
 thence following Sir R. Schomburgk's 
 line from the source of the Acarabisi 
 onward. 
 
 WHAT ENGLAND OFFERED. 
 
 A condition was attached to the prof- 
 fered cession, viz., that the Venezuelan 
 government should enter into an engage- 
 ment that no portion of the territory pro- 
 posed to be ceded should be alienated at 
 any time to a foreign power and that the 
 Indian tribes residing in it should be 
 protected from oppression. No answer to 
 the note was ever received from i In- 
 Venezuelan government, and in 1850 her 
 majesty's government informed her 
 majesty's charge d'affairs at Caracas 
 that as the proposal had remained for 
 more than six years unaccepted it must 
 be considered as having lapsed, and au- 
 thorized him to make a communication 
 to the Venezuelan government to that 
 effect. 
 
 A report having at the time become 
 current in Venezuela that Great Britain 
 intended to seize Venezuelan Guiana, 
 the British government distinctly dis- 
 claimed such an intention, but inasmuch 
 as the government of Venezuela sub- 
 sequently permitted projects to be set 
 on foot for the occupation of Point 
 Barima and certain other positions in dis- 
 pute, the British charge d'affairs was 
 instructed in June, 1850, to call the seri- 
 ous attention of the president and gov- 
 ernment of Venezuela to the question 
 and to declare to them, "that whilst on 
 the one hand, Great Britain had no in- 
 tention to occupy or encroach on the dis- 
 puted territory, she would not on the 
 other hand view with indifference ag- 
 gressions on that territory by Vene- 
 zuela." 
 
 The Venezuelan government replied 
 in December of the same year that 
 Venezuela had no intention of occupy- 
 ing or encroaching upon any part of the 
 territory the dominion ef which w r as in 
 divspute, and that orders would be issued 
 to the authorities in Guiana to abstain 
 from taking any steps contrary to this 
 engagement. This constitutes what has 
 been termed the agreement of 1850, to 
 which the government of Venezuela have 
 frequently appealed, but which the 
 
THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 :n 
 
 Venezuelans have repeatedly violated in 
 succeeding years. Their first acts of this 
 nature consisted iii the assumption of 
 positions to the east of their previous 
 settlements and the founding in 1858 of 
 the town of Nueva Providencia on the 
 right bank of the Yuruiari, all previous 
 settlements being on the left bank. The 
 British government, however, consider- 
 ing that these settlements were so near 
 positions which they had not wished to 
 claim, considering also the difficulty of 
 controlling the bounds of mining popula- 
 tions, overlooked this breach of the 
 agreement. 
 
 The governor of the colony was, in 1857, 
 sent to Caracas to negotiate for a settle- 
 ment of the boundary, but he found the 
 Venezuelan state in so disturbed a condi- 
 tion that it was impossible to commence 
 negotiations, and eventually he came away 
 without having effected anything. For the 
 next nineteen years, as stated by Mr. Olney, 
 the civil commotions in Venezuela prevented 
 any resumption of negotiations. In 1876 it 
 was reported that the Venezuelan govern- 
 ment had for the second time broken the 
 agreement of 1850 by granting licenses to 
 trade and cut wood in Barima and east- 
 ward. 
 
 Later in the same year that government 
 once more made an overture for the settle- 
 ment of the boundary. Various delays inter- 
 posed before negotiations actually com- 
 menced, and it was not till 1879 that Senor 
 Rojaz began them with a renewal of the 
 claim to the Essequibo as the eastern boun- 
 dary of Venezuelan Guiana. At the same 
 time he stated that his government wished 
 to obtain by means of a treaty a definitive 
 settlement of the question and was dis- 
 posed to proceed to the demarcation of the 
 divisional line between the two Guianas in a 
 spirit of conciliation and true friendship to- 
 wards her majesty's government. 
 
 Tn reply to this communication a note was 
 addressed to Senor Rojaz on January in, 
 1880, reminding him that the boundary which 
 her majesty's government claimed, as a 
 matter of strict right on grounds of con- 
 quest and concessions by treaty, commenced 
 at a point at the mouth of the Orinoco, 
 westward of Point Barima, that it pro- 
 ceeded thence in a southerly direction to 
 the Tmataca mountains, the line of which 
 it followed to the northwest, passing from 
 thence by the highland of Santa Maria, just 
 south of the town of Upata, until it struck 
 a range of hills on the eastern bank of the 
 Caroni river, followed thence southward 
 until it struck the great backbone of the 
 Guiana district, the Barima mountains of 
 British Guiana and thence southward to the 
 Pacarai mountains. 
 
 On the other hand, the claim which had 
 been put forward on behalf of Venezuela by 
 General Guzman Blanco in his message to 
 the national congress of February 20, 1877, 
 would involve the surrender of a province 
 now inhabited by 40,000 British subjects, and 
 which had been in the uninterrupted pos- 
 session of Holland and of Great Britain suc- 
 cessively for two centuries. The difference 
 between these two claims being so great, 
 it was pointed out to Senor Rojaz that, in 
 order to arrive at a satisfactory arrange- 
 ment, each party must be prepared to make 
 very considerable concessions to thp other, 
 and he was assured that, although the claim 
 
 of Venezuela to the Essequibo river boun- 
 dary could not, under any circumstances, in- 
 entertained, yet that her majesty's govern- 
 ment were anxious to meet the Venezuelan 
 government in the spirit of conciliation, 
 and would be willing, in the event of a re- 
 newal of negotiations for the general settle- 
 ment of boundaries, to waive a portion of 
 what they considered to be their sti-i-i 
 rights, if Venezuela were really disposed t<> 
 make corresponding concessions on her part. 
 
 VENEZUELA WAS OBDURATE. 
 
 The Venezuelan minister replied in 
 February, 1881, by proposing a line 
 which commenced on the coast a mile 
 to the north of the Moroco river, and fol- 
 lowed by certain parallels and meridians 
 inland, bearing a general resemblance to 
 the proposal made by Lord Aberdeen in 
 1844. 
 
 Senor Rojaz's proposal was referred 
 to the lieutenant governor and attorney 
 general of British Guiana, who were then 
 in England, and they presented an elab- 
 orate report, showing that in the thirty- 
 five years which elapsed since Lord 
 Aberdeen's proposed concession, natives 
 and others had settled in the territory 
 under the belief that they would enjoy 
 the benefits of English rule, and that it 
 was impossible to assent to any such con- 
 cessions, as Senor Rojaz's line would in- 
 volve. They, however, proposed an alter- 
 native line, which involved considerable 
 reductions of that laid down by Sir 1 1. 
 Schomburgk. This boundary was pro- 
 posed to the Venezuelan government by 
 Lord Granville in September, 1881. bin 
 no answer was ever returned by thai 
 government to the proposal. 
 
 While, however, the- Venezuelan min- 
 ister constantly stated that the matter 
 was under active consideration, it was 
 found that in the same year a conces- 
 sion had been given by his government 
 to General Pulgar, which included a 
 large portion of the territory in dispute. 
 This was the third breach by Vene- 
 zuela of the agreement of 1850. Early in 
 1884 news arrived of a fourth bread) by 
 Venezuela of the agreement ot isr.n. 
 through two different grants which cov- 
 ered the whole of the territory in dis- 
 pute, and as this was followed by actual 
 attempts to settle on the disputed terri- 
 tory the British government could no 
 longer remain inactive. 
 
 WARNING*' GIVEN. 
 
 Warning was therefore given i<> the 
 Venezuelan government and to the -(.u- 
 cessionaries, and a British magistrate 
 was sent into the threatened district to 
 assert the British rights. Meanwhile the 
 negotiations for a settlement of the bouu- 
 
38 
 
 THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 dary had continued, but the only replies 
 that could be obtained from Senor Guz- 
 man Blanco, the Venezuelan minister, 
 were proposals for arbitration in differ- 
 ent forms, all of which her majesty's 
 government were compelled to decline as 
 involving a submission to the arbitra- 
 tion of the claim advanced by Venezuela 
 in 1844 to all territory up to the left 
 bank of the Essequibo. 
 British subjects made a decision of some 
 kind absolutely necessary, and as the 
 
 As the progress of settlement by 
 Venezuelan government refused to come 
 to any reasonable arrangement, her maj- 
 esty's government decided not to repeat 
 the offer of concessions which had not 
 been reciprocated, but to assert her un- 
 doubted right to the territory within the 
 Schomburgk line, while still consenting 
 to hold open for further negotiation, 
 and even for arbitration, the unsettled 
 lands between that line and what they 
 considered to be the rightful boundary 
 as stated in the note to Senor Rojaz of 
 January 10, 1880. 
 
 The execution of this design was de- 
 ferred for a time, owing to the return of 
 Seuor Guzman Blanco to London, and the 
 desire of Lord Rosebery, then secretary 
 of state for foreign affairs, to settle all 
 pending questions between the two gov- 
 ernments. 
 
 Mr. Olney is mistaken in supposing 
 that in 1886 a treaty was practically 
 agreed upon containing a general arbi- 
 tration clause under which the parties 
 might have submitted the boundary dis- 
 pute to the decision of a third power, 
 or of several powers in amity with both. 
 It is true that General Guzman Blanco 
 proposed that the commercial treaty 
 between the two countries should con- 
 tain a clause of this nature, but it had 
 reference to future disputes only. Her 
 majesty's government have always in- 
 sisted on a separate decision of the fron- 
 tier question, and have considered its 
 settlement to be a necessary preliminary 
 to other arrangements. 
 
 LORD ROSEBERY'S PROPOSAL. 
 
 Lord Roseberry's proposal, made in 
 .July, 1886, was that the two governments 
 should agree to consider the territory 
 lying between the boundary lines re- 
 spectively proposed in the eighth para- 
 graph of Senor Rojaz's note of February 
 21, 1881, and in Lord Granville's note 
 of September 15, 1881, as the territory in 
 dispute between the two countries, and 
 that a boundary line within the limits of 
 this territory should be traced either by 
 an arbitrator or by a joint commission on 
 
 the basis of an equal division of this ter- 
 ritory, due regard being had to natural 
 boundaries. Senor Guzman Blanco re- 
 plied, declining the proposal, and repeat- 
 ing that arbitration on the whole claim 
 of Venezuela was the only method of 
 solution which he would suggest. 
 
 This pretension is hardly less exorbitant 
 than would be a refusal by Great Britain 
 to agree to an arbitration on the boundary 
 of British Columbia and Alaska, unless the 
 United States would consent to bring into 
 question one-half of the whole area of the 
 latter territory. He shortly afterwards left 
 Kngland and as there seemed no hope of 
 arriving at an agreement by further discus- 
 sions, the Schomburgk line was proclaimed 
 as the irreducible boundary of the colony in 
 October, 1886. 
 
 It must be borne in mind that in tak- 
 ing this step her majesty's government 
 did not assert anything approaching 
 their extreme claim, but confined them- 
 selves within the limits of what had as 
 early as 1840 been suggested as a con- 
 cession out of friendly regard and com- 
 pliance. When Senor Guzman Blanco, 
 having returned to Venezuela, announced 
 his intention of erecting a light house 
 at Point Barima. the British government 
 expressed their readiness to permit this 
 if he would enter into a formal written 
 agreement that its erection would not 
 be held to prejudice their claim to the 
 site. In the meanwhile the Venezuelan 
 government had sent commissioners into 
 the territory to the east of the Schom- 
 burgk line, and upon their return two 
 notes were addressed to the British min- 
 ister at Caracas, dated respectively the 
 26th and 30th of January, 1887, demand- 
 ing the evacuation of the whole territory 
 held by Great Britain from the mouth of 
 the Orinoco to the Pomeroon river, and 
 adding that should this not be done by 
 February 20, and should the evacuation 
 not be accompanied by the acceptance 
 of arbitration as the means of deciding 
 the pending frontier question, diplomatic 
 relations would be broken off. 
 
 THE DIPLOMATIC RUPTURE. 
 
 In pursuance of this decision the Brit- 
 ish representative at Caracas received 
 his passports and relations were declared 
 by the Venezuelan government to be sus- 
 pended on February 21. 1887. 
 
 In December of that year, as a mat- 
 ter of precaution and in order that the 
 claims of Great Britain beyond the 
 Schomburgk line might not be consid- 
 ered to have been abandoned, a notice 4 
 was issued by the governor of British 
 Guiana formally reserving those claims. 
 No steps have, however, at any time been 
 taken by the British authorities to exer- 
 cise jurisdiction beyond the Schom- 
 
THE CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 bnrgk line, nor to interfere with the pro- 
 ceedings of the Venezuelans in the ter- 
 ritory outside of it. although, pending 
 a settlement of the dispute, Great Brit- 
 ain cannot recognize these proceedings as 
 valid, or as conferring any legitimate 
 title. 
 
 The question has remained in this po- 
 sition ever since. The basis on which 
 her majesty's government were prepared 
 lo negotiate for its settlement were 
 dearly indicated to the Venezuelan pleni- 
 potentiaries who were successively dis- 
 patched to London in 1890, 1891, and 
 1893 to negotiate for a renewal of diplo- 
 matic relations, but as on those occas- 
 ions the only solutions which the Vene- 
 zuelan government professed themselves 
 ready to accept would still have involved 
 the submission to arbitration of the 
 Venezuelan claim to a large portion of 
 the British colony, no progress has yet 
 been made towards a settlement. 
 
 It will be seen from the preceding 
 statement that the government of Great 
 Britain have from the first held the same 
 view as to the extent of the territory 
 which they are entitled to claim as a 
 matter of right. It comprised the coast 
 line up fo the river Amacure and the 
 whole basin of the Essequibo river and 
 its tributaries. A portion of that claim, 
 however, they have always been willing 
 to waive altogether; in regard to another 
 portion they have been and continue to 
 be perfectly ready to submit the ques- 
 tion of their title to arbitration. 
 
 RIGHTS NOT OPEN TO QUESTION. 
 
 As regards the rest, that which lies 
 within the so-called Schomburgk line, 
 they do not consider that the rights of 
 Great Britain are open to question. 
 Kven within that line they have, on 
 various occasions, offered to Venezuela 
 considerable concessions as a matter of 
 friendship and conciliation, and for the 
 purpose of securing an amicable settle- 
 ment of the dispute. 
 
 If, as time has gone on, the conces- 
 sions thus offered diminished in extent 
 and have now been withdrawn, this has 
 been the necessary consequence of the 
 gradual spread over the country of Brit- 
 ish settlements, which her majesty's gov- 
 ernment cannot, in justice to the inhabi- 
 tants, offer to surrender to foreign rule; 
 and the justice of such withdrawal is 
 amply borne out by the researches in 
 the national archives of Holland and 
 Spain, which have furnished further and 
 more convincing evidence in support of 
 the British claims. 
 
 The discrepancies in the frontiers as- 
 signed to the British colony in various 
 
 maps published in England and errone- 
 ously assumed to lie founded on othVial 
 information are easily accounted for by 
 the circumstances which I have men- 
 tioned. Her majesty's government can- 
 not, of course, be responsible for such 
 publications made without its authority, 
 ity. 
 
 Although the negotiations in l,X!o. 
 1891 and 1893 did not lead to any result, 
 her majesty's government have not aban- 
 doned the hope that they may be re- 
 sumed with better success, and that 
 when the internal politics of Venezuela 
 are settled on a more durable basis than 
 has lately appeared to be the case, her 
 government may be enabled to adopt a 
 more moderate and conciliatory course in 
 rouard to this question than that of their 
 predecessors. 
 
 Her majesty's government are sin- 
 cerely desirous of being on friendly re- 
 lations with Venezuela, and certainly 
 have no design to seize territory that 
 forcibly belongs to her, or forcibly to ex- 
 tend sovereignty over any portion of her 
 population. 
 
 THE SUMMARY. 
 
 They have, on the contrary, repeated 1\ 
 expressed their readiness to submit, to 
 arbitration the conflicting claims of 
 Great Britain and Venezuela to large 
 tracts of territory which from their auri- 
 ferous nature are known to be of al- 
 most untold value. But they cannot con- 
 sent to entertain, or to submit to the 
 arbitration of another power or of for- 
 eign 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 Brit- 
 ish colony, to a nation of different race 
 and language, whose political system is 
 subject to freqaent 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 United States 
 have consented to submit to arbitration. 
 and her majesty's government are con- 
 vinced that in similar circumstances the 
 government of the United States would 
 be equally tirm in declining to entertain 
 proposals of such a nature. 
 
 Your excellency is authorized n> state 
 the substance of this dispatch to Mr. 
 Olney and to leave him a copy of it if 
 he should desire it. I am, etc., 
 
 "SALISBURY." 
 

14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 57NIS 
 
 i rt 
 
 
 ,p cs* 
 
 **- ca 
 
 
 ^ ** 
 
 
 : 
 
 
 r" ;' e1 V ' 
 
 
 ^c'0^ 
 
 
 ttK (o!196\ 
 
 
 ^nMu^*lt) H 
 
 
 i*y \ 
 
 1 
 
 
 i '-->-U p. 
 1 *U^ f 
 
 
 T 
 
 ftT 
 
 j yifiYl 8 1973^ 
 
 LD 21A-50m-8,'57 
 (C8481slO)476B 
 
 '73 -7 PM 1 
 
 General Library 
 University of California 
 Berkeley 
 
YP I R4 I 
 
 I L/ I OH I