Page images
PDF
EPUB

"The boundary dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana is yet unadjusted. A restoration of diplomatic intercourse between that Republic and Great Britain, and a reference of the question to impartial arbitration, would be a most gratifying consummation."

A year later, his second annual message 20 contained a much longer paragraph upon the same subject, again expressing the hope that the question at issue might be settled by reference to arbitration—“ a resort which Great Britain so conspicuously favours in principle, and respects in practice, and which is earnestly sought by her weaker adversary."

Probably not one American in a million took any notice of these sentences at the time when they were given to the public. Certainly no human being could have guessed that the controversy to which they made allusion held within it mighty potentialities of mischief. The very few persons who knew anything about the subject were aware that for more than half a century there had existed a dispute between Venezuela and Great Britain over the boundary line between the domains of the former and the colony of British Guiana. Certain sections of territory were claimed by both countries. Venezuela's title rested upon the alleged explorations and discoveries of early Spanish adventurers, while that of Great Britain was inherited from the Dutch, who had ceded the colony to the English in 1810, without, however, defining its boundary. The whole question of delimitation was so vague as very naturally to give rise to the dispute which began as early as 1841, when the Venezuelan Government protested against the hoisting of the British flag upon what it regarded as Venezuelan soil. A request was also made for

20 December 3, 1894.

the drafting of a treaty which should describe and fix a definite boundary line. From this time a long and desultory diplomatic correspondence was carried on at intervals, sometimes with scant courtesy on the part of the British Foreign Ministers, who often left the Venezuelan notes unanswered, or in answering, gave no definite promise of satisfaction. Meanwhile, the English had themselves caused a survey to be made by Mr. (later Sir) Robert Schomburgk, who established what Lord Aberdeen called "boundary posts as a preliminary measure." Great Britain, however, disclaimed any intentions of encroaching upon the disputed territory, and regarded the whole subject as still open to negotiation.

[ocr errors]

Here the matter had rested for many years, when, in 1876, it was once more revived, and Venezuela appealed to the United States Government to interest itself in any further steps that might be taken, and to concern itself "in having due justice done to Venezuela." But something of much importance had occurred. On the territory in dispute, rich gold deposits had been discovered. It was no longer a question of getting possession of a tropical wilderness, but of securing a great mining field, stored with immense and still undeveloped riches. Thenceforth, English unwillingness to arrange a boundary treaty perceptibly increased. The Venezuelan Minister in London pressed for some definite solution of the pending controversy. Lord Derby, and later Lord Salisbury, delayed giving any answer for two whole years. Meanwhile, British settlers, miners and others, were entering the territory and were establishing their homes within its bounds. In 1880. after delaying eight months before answering another Venezuelan note, Lord Salisbury suddenly put forward, as embodying his contention, a claim to lands which, even by all

prior British surveys, were Venezuela's. He also mentioned the fact that some 40,000 British settlers were now within the province claimed by Venezuela, intimating that this made it impossible for Great Britain to give it up. In other words, because the long delay in adjusting the boundary-a delay for which Great Britain was largely responsible-had led Englishmen to enter lands that were known to be in dispute, therefore the title to those lands must be vested in Great Britain. From this time, Venezuela argued, protested, and appealed in vain. The British Foreign Ministers held back their answers as before. They would agree to nothing. At last (February 20, 1887) diplomatic relations between the two countries were broken off. Great Britain had refused to submit the question to arbitration, and Venezuela withdrew her Minister from London, publishing a protest "before all civilised nations, against the acts of spoliation which the Government of Great Britain has committed."

During the last fourteen years of this controversy, the Government of the United States had endeavoured, in a spirit of amity, to bring about some equitable adjustment. Under President Arthur's administration, the American Minister to England-Mr. James Russell Lowell-had informed Lord Granville that the United States was "not without concern as to whatever may affect the interest of a sister Republic of the American Continent." During Mr. Cleveland's first presidency, the matter had been pressed with much more urgency. At last, in 1886, the American Minister, Mr. Phelps, was directed to offer the good offices of the United States in settling the difficulty and to propose its arbitration, if acceptable.21 To this offer and suggestion, Lord Salisbury somewhat curtly replied that arbitration was at that time impossible. Under

21 Despatch of December 20, 1886.

President Harrison, Secretary Blaine had continued the policy of his predecessors, and had again pressed upon Lord Salisbury some action which would be a preliminary step to arbitration, and to the termination of a wearisome dispute.22 Lord Salisbury made to this suggestion a wholly non-committal answer, postponing any decision upon the subject. Other communications passed, but to them all no definite or satisfactory reply was given. The tone of the British Foreign Office was one of civil indifference, with just a suggestion of boredom and an intimation that while the United States might be listened to out of courtesy, that country was regarded as thrusting itself into an affair with which it had no concern.

Such was the situation when President Cleveland took office for the second time. A weak South American Republic had been trying for fifty years to secure from Great Britain a determination of its boundary. The question at issue was purely geographical and historical-one to be settled properly by a commission of impartial experts. Venezuela was willing to abide by the decision of such a board of arbitrators. On the other hand, Great Britain had practically refused to submit her claims to any arbitration, and had at the same time suggested no other way of ending the dispute. In July, 1894, Secretary Gresham sent a despatch 23 to Mr. Bayard (then Ambassador to England), which contained some very pertinent and pungent sentences. Mentioning the fact that the British Foreign Office had, since 1881, turned a deaf ear to all offers of arbitration, Mr. Gresham went on to say:

"In the meantime, successive advances of British settlers in the region admittedly in dispute, were followed by similar advances 23 July 13, 1894.

22 Despatch of May 1, 1890.

of British colonial administration, contesting and supplanting Venezuelan claims to exercise authority therein. . . . Toward the end of 1887, the British territorial claim, which had, as it would. seem, been silently increased by some 23,000 square miles between 1885 and 1886, took another comprehensive sweep westward."

This "comprehensive sweep" was taken in order to include the district in which the gold mines had been lately found. Mr. Gresham's despatch ended with a strong statement of the President's desire to see the respective rights of the two countries settled by arbitration. By this time, general attention in the United States had been drawn to the question, even outside of diplomatic circles; and after President Cleveland had made a direct allusion to it in his message of December 3, 1894, Congress passed a joint resolution (February 3, 1895) urging "that Great Britain and Venezuela refer their dispute as to boundaries, to friendly arbitration." On the following day, Lord Salisbury sent a despatch to the British Ambassador in Washington, containing the assertion that "although Her Majesty's Government were ready to go to arbitration as to a certain portion of the territory,

[ocr errors]

they could not consent to any departure from the Schomburgk line." Now when it is remembered that the Schomburgk line was originally drawn only as a tentative one; that at the time when it was drawn the British Foreign Minister, Lord Aberdeen, had disclaimed its permanency; and that he had specifically called it "a preliminary measure to discussion," -a mere ex parte survey, in fact-one can measure the assurance of Lord Salisbury in declaring that the absolute acceptance of this line must be an indispensable preliminary to any negotiation whatsoever. "First give me everything I want, and then I will arbitrate as to the

« PreviousContinue »