YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY Ij CONTROVERSY THE STAFFORD LITTLE LECTURES PUBLISHED BY PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS The Two Hague Conferences, by Joseph H. Choate. Cloth, 124 pp., $1.00 net, by mail $1.06. Experiments in Government and the Essentials of the Constitution, by Elihu Root. Cloth, 88 pp., $1.00 net, by mail $1.06. The Independence of the Executive, by Grover Cleveland. Cloth, 90 pp., $1.00 net, by mail $1.06. The Government in the Chicago Strike of 1894, by Grover Clevkland. Cloth, 57 pp., $1.00 net, by mail $I.O(j. The Venezuelan Boundary Controversy, by Grover Cleveland. Cloth, 130 pp., $1.00 net, by mail $1.06. ¦' 1 THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY GROVER CLEVELAND PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS PRINCETON LONDON : HUMPHREY MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1913 PREFATORY NOTE YALE Copyright, 1913, by Princkton University Press Published October, 1913 LVwv ft President Cleveland first visited Princeton at the time of the Sesquicentennial Celebration and made the chief address of that occasion on October 22, 1896. A few months later he retired from the Presidency and made Prince ton his home for the remaining eleven years of his life. ;,For the last seven of these years he served as Trustee of Princeton University and for the closing four years also acted as Chair man of the Committee on the Graduate School having special charge of the project for the residential Graduate College. He died on June 24, 1908, and was buried, as he desired, in his family plot in Princeton. By express pro vision of his will the only monument to mark his grave Mas to be the simple one which has already been erected. Shortly after Mr. Cleveland came to live in Princeton it was proposed to found a Lecture ship on Public Affairs in his honor. In the -,.-,> h PREFATORY NOTE early summer of 1899 ^r- Henry Stafford Little, an alumnus of the University, endowed the lectureship and expressed the hope that Mr. Cleveland would consent to hold it, or at any rate to be the first incumbent. Mr. Cleveland was reluctant to undertake any new work at that time, but on receiving special word from Mr. Little, who was then critically ill, agreed to prepare an address for the next year. On April 9 and 10, 1900, every seat in Alexander Hall was taken and there were throngs standing to hear his two addresses on "The Independence of the Executive." The next spring he lectured twice on "The Vene zuelan Boundary Question." For the next two years there were no lectures, and in 1904 Mr. Cleveland read one lecture on "The Government in tlie Chicago Strike." He always had crowded audiences, both for him self and the grave importance of the questions he treated. He was heard with tlie closest attention and repeatedly welcomed with affec tionate enthusiasm. Seventeen years ago to the day since Mr. Cleveland first spoke in Princeton, his Princc- PREFATOKY NOTE v ton lectures are now republished in expanded form on the day of the dedication of the Graduate College he so strongly supported and did not live to see realized, and also the dedi cation day of the Cleveland Memorial Tower, erected by national subscription and built into the Graduate College for which he labored. The lectures here reprinted are disclosures of the meaning of important happenings in our national history. They are even more; for they make clear as light that plain, strict, un swerving and unaffected honesty which was the vigorous central power in Grover Cleve land's life. It is well his words should be heard again at the time we gather to dedicate his national monument. Andrew F. West. The Graduate College Princeton University October 22, 1913 * THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY » I There is no better illustration of the truth that nations and individuals are affected in the same manner by like causes than is often fur nished by the beginning, progress, aud results 1 of a national boundary dispute. We all know that among individuals, when neighbors have entered upon a quarrel concerning their divi sion-line or the location of a line fence, they will litigate until all account of cost and all regard for the merits of the -contention give place to a ruthless and all-dominating deter mination, by fair means or foul, to win; and if fisticuffs and forcible possession are resorted i to, the big, strong neighbor rejoices in his strength as he mauls and disfigures his small and weak antagonist. It will be found that nations behave in like f fashion. One or the other of two national THE VENEZUELAN neighbors claims that their dividing-line should be defined or rectified in a certain manner. If this is questioned, a season of diplomatic un truthfulness and finesse sometimes intervenes for the sake of appearances. Developments soon follow, however, that expose a grim de termination behind fine phrases of diplomacy; and in the end the weaker nation frequently awakens to the fact that it must either accede to an ultimatum dictated by its stronger ad versary, or look in the face of war and a" spolia tion of its territory; and if such a stage is reached, superior strength and fighting ability, instead of suggesting magnanimity, are grasp- ingly used to enforce extreme demands if not to consummate extensive conquest or complete subjugation. I propose to call attention to one of these un happy national boundary disputes, between the kingdom of Great Britain and the South American republic of Venezuela, involving the boundary-line separating Venezuela from the English colony of British Guiana, which ad joins Venezuela on the east. Venezuela, once a Spanish possession, de clared her independence in 1810, and a few BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY years afterward united with two other of Spain's revolted colonies in forming the old Colombian federal union, which was recog nized by the United States in 1822. In 1836 this union was dissolved and Venezuela became again a separate and independent republic, be ing promptly recognized as such by our Gov ernment and by other powers. Spain, however, halted in her recognition until 1845, when she quite superfluously ceded to Venezuela by treaty the territory which as an independent republic she had actually owned and possessed since 1810. But neither in this treaty nor in any other mention of the area of the republic were its boundaries described with more defi niteness than as being "the same as those which marked the ancient viceroyalty and captaincy- general of New Granada and Venezuela in the year 1810." England derived title to the colony of Guiana from Holland in 1814, by a treatv in which the territory was described as "the Cape of Good Hope and the establishments of De merara, Essequibo, and Berbice." No boun daries of those settlements or "establishments" were given in the treaty, nor does it appear that 4 THE VENEZUELAN any such boundaries had ever been particularly defined. It is quite apparent that the limits of these adjoining countries thus lacking any mention of definite metes and bounds, were in need of extraneous assistance before they could be ex actly fixed, and that their proper location was quite likely to lead to serious disagreement. In such circumstances threatening complica tions can frequently be avoided if the adjoin ing neighbors agree upon a divisional line promptly, and before their demands are stimu lated and their tenacity increased by a real or fancied advance in the value of the possessions to be divided, or other incidents have intervened to render it more difficult to make concessions. I shall not attempt to sketch the facts and arguments that bear upon the exact merits of this boundaiy controversy between Great Britain and Venezuela. They have been thor oughly examined by an arbitral tribunal to which the entire difficulty was referred, and by whose determination the boundary between the two countries has been fixed — perhaps in strict accord with justice, but at all events finally and irrevocably. Inasmuch, however, as our own <*¦ BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 5 country became in a sense involved in the con troversy, or at least deeply concerned in its settlement, 1 have thought there might be in terest in an explanation of the manner and the processes by which the interposition of the United States Government was brought about. I must not be expected to exclude from men tion every circumstance that may relate to the merits of the dispute as between the parties primarily concerned ; but so far as I make use of such circumstances I intend to do so only in aid and simplification of the explanation I have undertaken. This dispute began in 1841. On October 5 of that year the Venezuelan minister to Great Britain, in a note to Lord Aberdeen, Princi pal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, after reminding the secretary that a proposal made by Venezuela on the 28th of January, 1 841, for joint action in the matter of fixing a divisional boundary, still awaited the accept ance of Great Britain, wrote as follows : The Honorable Earl of Aberdeen may now judge of the surprise of the Government of Ven ezuela upon learning that in the territory of the 6 THE VENEZUELAN Republic a sentry-box has been erected upon which the British flag has been raised. The Venezuelan Government is in ignorance of the origin and purport of these proceedings, and hopes that they may receive some satisfactory explanation of this action. In the meantime the undersigned, in compliance with the instructions communicated to him, urges upon the Honorable Eari of Aberdeen the necessity of entering into a treaty of boun daries as a previous step to the fixation of limits, and begs to ask for an answer to the above- mentioned communication of January 28. Lord Aberdeen, in his reply, dated October 21, .841, makes the following statement: Her Majesty's Government has received from the Governor of British Guiana, Mr. Schom burgk's report of his proceedings in execution of the commission with which he has been charged. That report states that Mr. Schomburgk set out from Demerara in April last and was on his re turn to the Essequibo River at the end of June. It appears that Mr. Schomburgk planted boun dary posts at certain points of the country which he has surveyed, and that he was fully aware that the demarcation so made was merely a prelimin- BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 7 ary measure, open to further discussion between the Governments of Great Britain and Venezuela. But it does not appear that Mr. Schomburgk left behind him any guard-house, sentry-box, or other building having the British flag. With respect to tlie proposal of the Venezuelan Government that the Governments of Great Britain and Venezuela should conclude a treaty as a preliminary step to the demarcation of the boundaries between British Guiana and Vene zuela, the undersigned begs leave to observe that it appears to him that if it should be necessary to make a treaty upon the subject of the boundaries in question, such a measure should follow rather than precede the operation of the survey. In a communication dated the 18th of No vember, 1841, the Venezuelan minister, after again complaining of the acts of Schomburgk and alleging that he "has planted at a point on the mouth of the Orinoco several posts bearing Her Majesty's initials, and raised at the same place, with a show of armed forces, the British flag, and also performed several other acts of dominion and government," refers to the great dissatisfaction aroused in Venezuela by what lie calls "this undeserved offense," and adds: 8 THE VENEZUELAN "The undersigned therefore has no doubts but that he will obtain from Her Majesty's Gov ernment a reparation for the wrong done to the dignity of the Republic, and that those signs which have so unpleasantly shaken public confidence will be ordered removed." No early response having been made to this communication, another was addressed to Lord Aberdeen, dated December 8, 1841, in which the representative of Venezuela refers to his previous unanswered note and to a recent order received from his government, which he says directs him "to insist not only upon the con clusion of a treaty fixing the boundaries be tween Venezuela and British Guiana, but also, and this very particularly, to insist upon the removal of the signs set up, contrary to all rights, by the surveyor R. Ii. Schomburgk in Barima and in other points of the Venezuelan territory"; and he continues: "In his afore mentioned communication of the 18th of last month, the undersigned has already informed the Honorable Earl of Aberdeen of the dis satisfaction prevailing among the Venezuelans on this account, and now adds that this dis satisfaction, far from diminishing, grows BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 9 stronger — as is but natural — as time goes on and no reparation of the wrongs is made." These two notes of the Venezuelan minister were answered on the eleventh day of Decem ber, 1841. In his reply Lord Aberdeen says : The undersigned begs leave to refer to his note of the 2ist of October last, in which he explained that the proceeding of Mr. Schomburgk in plant ing boundary posts at certain points of the country which he has surveyed was merely a preliminary measure open to future discussion between the two Governments, and that it would be premature to make a boundary treaty before the survey will be completed. The undersigned has only further to state that much unnecessary inconvenience would result from the removal of the posts fixed by Mr. Schomburgk, as they will afford the only tangible means by which lier Majesty's Government can be prepared to discuss the question of the boundaries with the Govern ment of Venezuela. These posts were erected for that express purpose, and not, as the Ven ezuelan Government appears to apprehend, as indications of dominion and empire on the part "f Great Britain. IO THE VENEZUELAN In a reply to this note, after referring to the explanation of the purpose of these posts or signs which Lord Aberdeen had given, it was said, in further urging their removal: "The undersigned regrets to be obliged to again in sist upon this point ; but the damages sustained by Venezuela on account of the permanence of said signs are so serious that he hopes in view of those facts that the trouble resulting from their removal may not appear useless." The minister followed this insistence with such earnest argument that on the thirty-first day of January, 1842, nearly four months after the matter was first agitated, Lord Aberdeen in formed the Venezuelan minister that instruc tions would be sent to the governor of British Guiana directing him to remove the posts which had been placed by Mr. Schomburgk near the Orinoco. He, however, accompanied this assurance with the distinct declaration "that although, in order to put an end to the misapprehension which appears to prevail in Venezuela with regard to tlie object of Mr. Schomburgk's survey, the undersigned has consented to comply with the renewed repre sentation of the Minister upon this affair, Her BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 11 Majesty's Government must not be understood to abandon any portion of the rights of Great Britain over the territory which was formerly held by the Dutch in Guiana." It should be here stated that the work which Schomburgk performed at the instance of the British Government consisted not only in plac ing monuments of some sort at the mouth of the Orinoco River, upon territory claimed by Venezuela, but also in locating from such monuments a complete dividing-line running far inland and annexing to British Guiana on the west a large region which Venezuela also claimed. This line, as originally located or as afterward still further extended to the west, came to be called "the Schomburgk line." The Orinoco River, flowing eastward to the sea, is a very broad and deep waterway, which, with its affluents, would in any event, and how ever the bounds of Venezuela might be limited, traverse a very extensive portion of that coun try's area; and its control and free navigation are immensely important factors in the prog ress and prosperity of tlie republic. Substan tially at the mouth of the Orinoco, and on its south side, two quite large rivers, tlie Barima 12 THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 13 and the Amacuro, flow into the sea. The re gion adjacent to the mouth of those rivers has, sometimes at least, been called Barima; and it was here that the posts or signs complained of by Venezuela were placed. The coast from the mouth of the Orinoco River slopes or drops to the east and south ; and some distance from that river's mouth, iu the directions mentioned, the Essequibo, a large river flowing for a long distance from the south, empties into the sea. After the correspondence I have mentioned. which resulted in the removal of the so-called initial monuments of the Schomburgk line from the Barima region, there seems to have been less activity in the boundary discussion until January 31, 1844, when the Venezuelan min ister to England again addressed Lord Aber deen on the subject. He referred to the erection of the Schomburgk monuments and the complaints of Venezuela on that account, and stated lhat since the removal of those monu ments he had not ceased to urge Lord Aber deen "to commence without delay negotiations for a treaty fixing definitely the boundary-line that shall divide the two countries." He adds the following very sensible statement : "Al though it was undoubtedly the duty of the one who promoted this question to take the first step toward the negotiation of the treaty, the undersigned being well aware that other im portant matters claim the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and as he ought not to wait indefinitely, hastens to propose an agree ment which, if left for a later date, may be difficult to conclude." It is disappointing to observe that the good sense exhibited in this statement did not hold out to the end of the minister's communication. After a labored presentation of historical incidents, beginning with the discovery of the American continent, he concludes by putting forward the Essequibo River as the proper bound ary-line between the two countries. This was a proposition of such extreme pretensions that the Venezuelan rep resentative knew, or ought to have known, it would not be considered for a moment by the Government of Great Britain ; and it seems to me that a diplomatic error was made when, failing to apprehend the fact that the exigen cies of the situation called for a show of con cession, the Venezuelan minister, instead of 14 THE VENEZUELAN intimating a disposition to negotiate, gave Great Britain an opportunity to be first in mak ing proposals apparently calculated to meet the needs of conciliation and compromise. Thus two months after the receipt of this communication, — on the thirtieth day of March, 1844, — Lord Aberdeen sent his reply. After combating the allegations contained in the letter of the Venezuelan representative, he remarked that if he were inclined to act upon the spirit of that letter, it was evident that he ought to claim on behalf of Great Britain, as the rightful successor to Holland, all the coast from the Orinoco to the Essequibo. Then fol lows this significant declaration : But the undersigned believes that the nego tiations would not be free from difficulties if claims that cannot be sustained are presented, and shall not therefore follow Sefior Fortique's ex ample, but state here the concessions that Great Britain is disposed to make of her rights, prompted by a friendly consideration for Ven ezuela and by her desire to avoid all cause of serious controversies between the two countries. Being convinced that the most important object BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 15 for the interests of Venezuela is the exclusive possession of the Orinoco, Her Majesty's Gov ernment is ready to yield to the Republic of Venezuela a portion of the coast sufficient to in sure her the free control of the mouth of this her principal river, and to prevent its being under the control of any foreign power. Lord Aberdeen further declared that, "with this end in view, and being persuaded that a concession of the greatest importance has been made to Venezuela," he would consent on be half of Great Britain to a boundary which he particularly defined, and in general terms may be described as beginning in the mouth of the Moroco River, which is on the coast southeast of the mouth of the Orinoco River and about two thirds of the distance between that point and the Essequibo River, said boundary run ning inland from that point until it included in its course considerably more territory than was embraced within the original Schomburgk line, though it excluded the region embraced within that line adjacent to the Barima and Amacuro rivers and the mouth of the Orinoco. This boundary, as proposed by Lord Aber- i6 THE VENEZUELAN deen, was not satisfactory to Venezuela; and soon after its submission her diplomatic repre sentative died. This interruption was quickly followed by a long period of distressing inter nal strifes and revolutions, which so distracted and disturbed her government that for more than thirty years she was not in condition to renew negotiations for an adjustment of her territorial limits. During all this lime Great Britain seemed not especially unwilling to allow these negotia tions to remain in abeyance. This interval was not, however, entirely de void of boundary incidents. In 1850 great ex citement and indignation were aroused among the Venezuelans by a rumor that Great Britain intended to take possession of Venezuelan Gui ana, a province adjoining British Guiana on the west, and a part of the territory claimed by Venezuela ; and the feeling thus engendered be came so extreme, both among the people and on the part of the government of the republic, that all remaining friendliness between the two countries was seriously menaced. Demon strations indicating that Venezuela was de termined to repel the rumored movement as an BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 17 invasion of her rights, were met by instructions given by Great Britain to the commander of her Majesty's naval forces in the West Indies as to the course he was to pursue if the Ven ezuelan forces should construct fortifications within the territory in dispute. At the same time, Mr. Balford Hinton Wilson, England's representative at Caracas, in a note addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Vene zuela, indignantly characterized these disquiet ing rumors of Great Britain's intention to occupy the lands mentioned, as mischievous, and maliciously false ; but he also declared that, on the other hand, her Majesty's Government would not see with indifference the aggressions of Venezuela upon the disputed territory. This note contained, in addition, a rather im pressive pronouncement in these words : The Venezuelan Government, in justice to Great Britain, cannot mistrust for a moment the sincerity of the formal declaration, which is now made in the name and by the express order of Her Majesty's Government, that Great Britain has no intention to occupy or encroach upon the terri tory in dispute; therefore the Venezuelan Gov- i8 THE VENEZUELAN ernment, in an equal spirit of good faith and friendship, cannot refuse to make a similar declaration to Her Majesty's Government, namely, that Venezuela herself has no intention to occupy or encroach upon the territory in dispute. The Minister of Foreign Affairs for Vene zuela responded to this communication in the following terms : The undersigned has been instructed by His Excellency the President of the Republic to give the following answer : The Government never could be persuaded that Great Britain, in con tempt of the negotiation opened on the subject and the alleged rights in the question of limits pending between the two countries, would want to use force in order to occupy the land that each side claims — much less after Mr. Wilson's re peated assurance, which the Executive Power believes to have been most sincere, that those imputations had no foundation whatever, being, on the contrary, quite the reverse of the truth. Fully confident of this, and fortified by the pro test embodied in the note referred to, the Gov ernment has no difficulty in declaring, as they do declare, that Venezuela has no intention of BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 19 occupying or encroaching upon any portion of the territory the possession of which is in con troversy; neither will she look with indifference on a contrary proceeding on the part of Great Britain. In furtherance of these declarations the English Government stipulated that it would not "order or sanction such occupations or en croachments on the part of the British authori ties" ; and Venezuela agreed on her part to "instruct the authorities of Venezuelan Guiana to refrain from taking an}' step which might clash with the engagement hereby made by the Government." I suspect there was some justification on each side for the accusations afterward inter changed between the parties that this under standing or agreement, in its strict letter and spirit, had not been scrupulously observed. As we now pass from this incident to a date more than twenty-five years afterward, when attempts to negotiate for a settlement of the boundary controversy were resumed, it may be profitable, before going further, to glance at some of the conditions existing at the time of such resumption. II In 1876 — thirty-two years after the discon tinuance of efforts on the part of Great Britain and Venezuela to fix by agreement a line which should divide their possessions — Venezuela was confronted, upon the renewal of nego tiations for that purpose, by the following conditions : The claim by her, of a divisional line, founded upon her conception of strict right, which her powerful opponent had insisted could not in any way be plausibly supported, and which therefore she would in no event accept. An indefiniteness in the limits claimed by Great Britain — so great that, of two boundary- lines indicated or "suggested by her, one had been plainly declared to be "merely a prelim inary measure open to future discussion be tween the Governments of Great Britain and Venezuela," while the other was distinctly claimed to be based not on any acknowledg- BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 21 ment of the republic's rights, but simply upon generous concessions and a "desire to avoid all cause of serious controversies between the two countries." A controversy growing out of this situation impossible of friendly settlement except by such arrangement and accommodation as would satisfy Great Britain, or by a submission of the dispute to arbitration. A constant danger of such an extension of British settlements in the disputed territory as would necessarily complicate the situation and furnish a convenient pretext for the refusal of any concession respecting the lands containing such settlements. A continual profession on the part of Great Britain of her present readiness to make benev olent concessions and of her willingness to co operate in a speedy adjustment, while at the same time neither reducing her pretensions, nor attempting in a conspicuous" manner to hasten negotiations to a conclusion. A tremendous disparity in power aud strength between Venezuela and her adversary, whiclrgave her no hope of defending her terri tory or preventing its annexation to the pos- 22 THE VENEZUELAN sessions of Great Britain in case the extremity of force or war was reached. The renewed negotiations began with a com munication dated November 14, 1876, ad dressed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Venezuela to Lord Derby, then Great Britain's principal Secretary of State. In this communi cation the efforts made between the years 1841 and 1844 to establish by agreement a divisional line between the two countries, and their inter ruption, were referred to, and the earnest de sire was expressed that negotiations for that purpose might at once be. resumed. The minis ter suggested no other line than the Essequibo River, but in conclusion declared that the Pres ident of Venezuela was led to "hope that the solution of this question, already for so many years delayed, will be a work of very speedy and cordial agreement." On the same day that this note was written to Lord Derby, one was also written by the same Venezuelan official to Mr. Fish, then our Secretary of State. After speaking of the United States as ["the most powerful and the oldest of the Republics of the new continent, and called on to lend to others its powerful BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 23 moral support in disputes with European na tions," the minister directs attention to the boundary controversy between Venezuela and Great Britain and the great necessity of bring ing it to a speedy termination. Lie concludes as follows : "But whatever may be the result of the new steps of the Government, it has de sired that the American Government might at once take, cognizance of them, convinced, as it is, that it will give the subject its kind consider ation and take an interest in having due jus tice done to Venezuela." A memorandum was inclosed with the note, setting forth the claims of Venezuela touching the boundaiy location. This appears to be the first communication addressed to our Government ou the subject of a controversy in which we afterward became very seriously concerned. A short time after the date of these com munications, a Venezuelan envoy to Great Britain was appointed; and, on the thirteenth day of February, 1877, he addressed to Lord Derby a note in which, after asserting the right of Venezuela to insist upon the boundary pre viously claimed by her, he declared the will ingness of his government "to settle this 24 THE VENEZUELAN long-pending question in the most amicable manner," and suggested either the acceptance of a boundary-line such as would result from a presentation by both parties of Spanish and Dutch titles, maps, documents, and proofs ex isting before the advent in South America of either Venezuela or British Guiana, or the adoption of "a conventional line fixed by mutual accord between the Governments of Venezuela and Great Britain after a careful ami friendly consideration of the case, keeping in view the documents presented by both sides, solely with the object of reconciling their mu tual interests, and to fix a boundary as equit able as possible." The suggestion is made that the adoption of a divisional line is important "to prevent the occurrence of serious differ ences in the future, particularly as Guiana is attracting the general attention of the world on account of the immense riches which are daily being discovered there." Let us here note that this renewal by Vene zuela of her efforts to settle her boundary-line was accompanied by two new features. These, though in themselves entirely independent, be came so related to each other, and in their BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 25 subsequent combination and development they so imperiously affected our Government, that their coincident appearance at this particular stage of the controversy may well strike us as significant. One of these features was the abandonment by Venezuela of her insistence upon a line representing her extreme claims, and which England would not in any contin gency accept, thus clearing the field for possi ble arbitration; and the other was her earnest appeal to us for our friendly aid. Neither should we fail to notice the new and important reference; of the Venezuelan envoy to the im mense riches being discovered in the disputed territory. Gold beneath soil in controversy does not always hasten the adjustment of un certain or disputed boundary-lines. On the twenty-fourth day of March, 1877, Lord Derby informed the Venezuelan envoy that the governor of British Guiana was shortly expected in London, and that he was anxious to await his arrival before taking any steps in the boundary discussion. After waiting for more than two years for a further answer from the English Government, the Venezuelan representative in London, on _ f- z s '. s 26 THE VENEZUELAN the 19th of May, 1879, addressed a note on the subject to Lord Salisbury, who, in the mean time, had succeeded Lord Derby. In this note reference was made to the communication sent to Lord Derby in 1877, to the desire expressed by him to await the arrival of the governor of British Guiana before making reply, and to the fact that the communication mentioned still remained unanswered; and on behalf of Vene zuela her representative repeated the alterna tive proposition made by him in February, 1877, in these words: "The boundary treaty may be based either on the acceptance of the line of strict right as shown by the records, documents, and other authoritative proofs which each party may exhibit, or on the ac ceptance at once by both Governments of a frontier bf accommodation which shall satisfy the respective interests of the two countries" ; and he concluded his note as follows : If Her Britannic Majesty's Government should prefer the frontier of accommodation or con venience, then it would be desirable that it should vouchsafe to make a proposition of an arrange ment, on the understanding that, in order to BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 27 1 obviate future difficulties and to give Great Britain the fullest proof of the consideration and friendship which Venezeula professes for her, my Government would not hesitate to accept a demarcation that should satisfy as far as possible the interests of the Republic. At all events, my Lord, something will have to be done to prevent this question from pending any longer. Thirty-eight years ago my Government wrote urging Her Majesty's Government to have the Boundary Treaty concluded, and now this affair is in the same position as in 1841, without any settlement; meanwhile Guiana- has become of more importance than it was then, by reason of the large deposits of gold which have been and still are met with in that region. Now, at the date of this communication England's most extreme claims were indicated either by the Schomburgk line or by the line which Lord Aberdeen suggested iu 1844 as a concession. These were indeed the only lines which Great Britain had thus far presented. When in such circumstances, and with these lines distinctly in mind, the envoy of Vene zuela offered to abandon for his country her 28 THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 29 most extreme claims, and asked that Great Britain should "vouchsafe to make a proposi tion of an arrangement" upon the basis of a "frontier of accommodation or convenience," what answer had he a right to expect? Most assuredly he had a right to expect that if Great Britain should prefer to proceed upon the theory of "accommodation or convenience," she would respond by offering such a reduc tion of the claims she had already made as would indicate a degree of concession or "accommodation" on her part that should en title her to expect similar concession from Venezuela. What was the answer actually made? After a delay of nearly eight months, on the tenth day of January, 1880, Lord Salisbury replied that her Majesty's Government were of the opinion that to argue the matter on the ground of strict right would involve so many intricate questions that it would be very unlikely to lead to a satisfactory solution of the question, and they would therefore prefer the alternative "of endeavoring to come to an agreement as to the acceptance by the two Governments of a fron tier of accommodation which shall satisfy the respective interests of the two countries." He then gives a most startling statement of the English Government's claim, by specifying boundaries which overlap the Schomburgk line and every other line that had been thought of or dreamed of before, declaring that such claim is justified "by virtue of ancient treaties with the aboriginal tribes and of subsequent cessions from Holland." He sets against this claim, or "on the other hand," as he says, the fact that the President of Venezuela, in a mes sage dated February 20, 1877, "put forward a claim on the part of Venezuela to the river Essequibo as the boundary to which the Re public was entitled" — thereby giving prejudi cial importance to a claim of boundary made by the President of Venezuela three years lie- fore, notwithstanding his Lordship was ans wering a communication in which Venezuela's present diplomatic representative distinctly proposed "a frontier of accommodation." His declaration, therefore, that the boundary which was thus put forward by the President of Venezuela would involve "the surrender of a province now inhabited by forty thousand British subjects," seems quite irrelevant, be- 30 THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 31 cause such a boundary was not then undcr corisideration ; and in passing it may occur to us that the great delay in settling the boun daries between the two countries had given abundant opportunity for such inhabitation as Lord Salisbury suggests. His Lordship hav ing thus built up a contention in which he puts on one side a line which for the sake of pacific accommodation Venezuela no longer proposes to insist upon, and on the other a line for Great Britain so grotesquely extreme as to ap pear fanciful, soberly observes: The difference, therefore, between these two claims is so great that it is clear that, in order to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement, each party must be prepared to make considerable conces sions to the other ; and although the claim of Ven ezuela to the Essequibo River boundary could not under any circumstances be entertained, I beg leave to assure you that Her Majesty's. Gov ernment are anxious to meet the Venezuelan Government in a spirit of conciliation, and would be willing, in the event of a renewal of negotia tions for a general settlement of boundaries, to waive a portion of what they consider to be their strict right, if Venezuela is really disposed to make corresponding concessions on her part. And ignoring entirely the humbly respectful request of the Venezuelan minister that Great Britain would "vouchsafe to make a proposi tion of an arrangement," his Lordship thus concludes his communication : "Her Majesty's Government will therefore be glad to receive, and will undertake to consider in the most friendly spirit, any proposal that the Venezue lan Government may think fit to make for the establishment of a boundary satisfactory to both nations." This is diplomacy — of a certain sort. It is a deep and mysterious science; and we probably cannot do better than to confess our inability to understand its intricacies and sinuosities ; but at this point we can hardly keep out of mind the methods of the shrewd, sharp trader who demands exorbitant terms, and at the same time invites negotiation, looking for a result abundantly profitable in the large range for dicker which he has created. An answer was made to Lord Salisbury's note on the twelfth day of April, 1880, in 32 THE VENEZUELAN which the Venezuelan envoy stated in direct terms that he had received specific instructions from his government for the arrangement of the difficulty, by abandoning the ground of strict right and "concurring in the adoption for both countries of a frontier mutually conven ient, and reconciling in the best possible manner their respective interests — each party having to make concessions to the other for the purpose of attaining such an important result." It will be remembered that in 1844, when this boundary question was under discussion, Lord Aberdeen proposed a line beginning in the mouth of the Moroco River, being a point 011 the coast south and east of the mouth of the Orinoco, thus giving to Venezuela the control of that river, but running inland in such a man ner as to include, in the whole, little if any less area than that included in the Schomburgk line; and it will also be recalled that this line was not then acceptable to Venezuela. It ap pears, however, that the delays and incidents of thirty-six years had impressed upon the government of the republic the serious disad vantages of her situation in contention with Great Britain ; for we find in this reply of the BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 33 Venezuelan envoy the inquiry "whether Her Britannic Majesty's Government is disposed now, as it was in 1844, to accept the mouth of the river Moroco as the frontier at the coast." To this Lord Salisbury promptly responded that the attorney-general for the colony of British Guiana was shortly expected in Eng land, and that her Majesty's Government would prefer to postpone the boundary dis cussion until his arrival. This was followed by a silence of five months, with no word or sign from England's Foreign Office; and in the meantime Earl Granville had succeeded Lord Salisbury as Secretary bf State for Foreign Affairs. Af ter waiting thus long, the representative of Venezuela, on the 23d of September, 1880, re minded Lord Granville that in the preceding April his immediate predecessor had informed him that the arrival of the attorney-general of British Guiana was awaited before deciding the question of . boundaries between the two Guianas; and as he had not, after the lapse of five months, been honored with a communica tion on the subject, he was bound to suppose that the attorney-general had not accomplished 34 THE VENEZUELAN his voyage, in which case it was useless longer to wait for him. He further reminded his Lordship that on the 24th of March, 1877, Lord Derby, then in charge of British foreign affairs, also desired to postpone the consider ation of the question until the arrival in Lou don of the governor of British Guiana, who was then expected, but who apparently never came. He then proceeds as follows: Consequently it is best not to go on waiting either for the Governor or for the Attorney- General of the Colony, but to decide these ques tions ourselves, considering that my Government is now engaged in preparing the official map of tlie Republic and wishes of course to mark out the boundaries on the East. In my despatch of the 12th of April last, I in formed your Excellency [Excellency's predeces sor ?] that as a basis of a friendly demarcation my Government was disposed to accept the mouth of the River Moroco as the frontier on the coast. If Her Britannic Majesty's Government should accept this point of departure, it would be very easy to determine the general course of the fron tier, either by means of notes or in verbal con ferences, as your Excellency might prefer. BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 35 On the twelfth day of February, 1881, Lord Granville, replying to Venezuela's two notes dated April 12 and September 23, 1880, in formed her representative, without explanation, that her Majesty's Government would not ac cept the mouth of the Moroco as the divisional boundary on the coast. A few days afterward, in an answer to this refusal, Venezuela's representative mentioned the extreme claims of the two countries and the fact that it had been agreed between the parties that steps should be taken to settle upon a frontier of accommodation ; that in pursuance thereof he had proposed as the point of depar ture for such a frontier the mouth of the Moroco River, which was in agreement thus far with the proposition made by Lord Aber deen on behalf of Great Britain in 1844; and pertinently added: "Thus thirty-seven years ago Her Britannic Majesty's Government spontaneously proposed the mouth of the Mo roco River as the limit on the coast, a limit which your Excellency does not accept now, for you are pleased to tell me so in the note which I have 'the honor of answering." He thereupon suggests another boundary, begin- 36 THE VENEZUELAN mug on the coast at a point one mile north of tlie mouth of the Moroco River and thence ex tending inland in such maimer as to constitute a large concession on the part of Venezuela but falling very far short of meeting the claims of Great Britain. He declares^how- ever, that this demarcation "is the maximum of all concessions which in this matter the Government of Venezuela can grant by way of friendly arrangement." Apparently anticipating, as he well might that the boundary he proposed would faif of acceptance, he suggests that in such case the two governments would have no alternative but to determine the frontier by strict right, and that on this basis they would find it impossible to arrive at an agreement. Therefore he de clares that he has received instructions from his government to urge upon Great Britain the submission of the question to an arbitrator, to be chosen by both parties, to whose award both governments should submit. In this proposal of arbitration by Venezuela we find an approach to a new phase of the controversy. At first, the two countries had stood at arm's-length, each asserting strict BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 37 right of boundary, only to be met by obstinate and unyielding resistance. Next, the field of mutual concession and accommodation had been traversed, with no result except dama ging and dangerous delay. And now, after forty years of delusive hope, the time seemed at hand when the feebler contestant must con template ignominious submission to dictatorial exaction, or forcible resistance, futile and dis tressing, unless honorable rest and justice could be found in arbitration — the refuge which civilization has builded among the na tions of the earth for the protection of the weak against the strong, and the citadel from which the ministries of peace issue their decrees against the havoc and barbarism of war. The reply of Lord Granville to the com munication of the envoy of Venezuela pro posing an alternative of arbitration was delayed for seven months; and when, in September, 1881, it was received, it contained a rejection of the boundary offered by Venezuela and a proposal of a new line apparently lacking al most every feature of concession; and, singu larly enough, there was not in this reply the 38 THE VENEZUELAN slightest allusion to Venezuela's request for arbitration. I do not find that this communication of Great Britain was ever specifically answered, though an answer was often requested. No further steps appear to have been taken until September 7, 1883, when Lord Granville in structed the British minister to Venezuela to invite the serious attention of the Venezuelan Government to the questions pending between the two countries, with a view to their early settlement. These questions are specified as relating to the boundary, to certain differential duties imposed on imports from British colo nies, and to the claims of British creditors of the republic. His Lordship declared in those instructions that as a preliminary to entering upon negotiations it was indispensable that an answer should be given to the pending pro posal which had been made by her Majesty's Government in regard to the boundary. The representations made to the Govern ment of Venezuela by the British minister, in obedience to those instructions, elicited a reply, in which a provision of the Venezuelan consti tution was cited prohibiting the alienation or BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 39 cession of any part of the territory of the re public; and it was suggested that, inasmuch as the Essequibo line seemed abundantly sup ported as the true boundary of Venezuela,- a concession beyond that line by treaty would be obnoxious to this constitutional prohibition, whereas any reduction of territory brought about by a decree of an arbitral tribunal would obviate the difficulty. Therefore the urgent necessity was submitted for the selec tion of an arbitrator, "who, freely and unani mously chosen by the two Governments, would judge and pronounce a sentence of a definitive character." The representative of her Majesty's Govern ment, in a response dated February 29, 1884, commented upon the new difficulty introduced by the statement concerning the prohibition contained in the constitution of the republic, and expressed a fear that if arbitration was agreed to, the same prohibition might be in voked as an excuse for not abiding by an award unfavorable to Venezuela; and it was declared that if, on the other hand, the arbi trator should decide in favor of the Venezuelan Government to the full extent of their claim, 40 THE VENEZUELAN "a large and important territory which has for a long period been inhabited and occupied by Her Majesty's subjects and treated as a part of the Colony of British Guiana would be severed from the Queen's dominions." This declaration is immediately followed by a con clusion in these words : For the above-mentioned reasons, therefore, the circumstances of the case do not appear to Her Majesty's Government to be such as to render arbitration applicable for a solution of the difficulty ; and I have accordingly to request you, in making this known to the Venezuelan Government, to express to them the hope of Her Majesty's Government that some other means may be devised for bringing this long-standing matter to an issue satisfactory to both powers. Let us pause here for a moment's examina tion of the surprising refusal of Great Britain to submit this difficulty to arbitration, and the more surprising reasons presented for its justi fication. The refusal was surprising because the controversy had reached such a stage that arbitration was evidently the only means by BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 41 which it could be settled consistently with har monious relations between the two countries. It was on this ground that Venezuela pro posed arbitration; and she strongly urged it on the further ground that inasmuch as the prohibition of her constitution prevented the relinquishment, by treaty or voluntary act, of any part of the territory which her people and their government claimed to be indubitably Venezuelan, such a relinquishment would pre sent no difficulties if it was in obedience to a decree of a tribunal to which the question of ownership had been mutually submitted. In giving her reasons for rejecting arbitra tion Great Britain says in effect: The plan you urge for the utter and complete elimina tion of this constitutional prohibition — for its expurgation and destruction so far as it is re lated to the pending dispute— is objectionable, because we fear the prohibition thus eliminated, expunged, and destroyed will still be used as a pretext for disobedience to an award which, for the express purpose of avoiding this con stitutional restraint, you have invited. ^ The remaining objection interposed by Great Britain to the arbitration requested by 42 THE VENEZUELAN Venezuela is based upon the fear that an award might be made in favor of the Vene zuelan claim, in which case "a large aud im portant territory which has for a long period been inhabited and occupied by Her Majesty's subjects and treated as a part of the Colony of British Guiana would be severed from the Queen's dominions." It first occurs to us that a contention may well be suspected of weakness when its sup porters are unwilling to subject it to the test of impartial arbitration. Certain inquiries are also pertinent in this connection. Who were the British subjects who had long occupied the territory that might through arbitration be severed from the Queen's dominions ? How many of them began this occupancy during the more than forty years that the territory had been steadily and notoriously disputed? Did they enter upon this territory with knowl edge of the dispute and against the warning of the government to which they owed allegi ance, or were they encouraged and invited to such entry by agencies of that government who had full notice of the uncertainty of the British title? In one case, being themselves in BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 43 the wrong, they were entitled to no consider ation ; in the other, the question of loss and in demnification sliould rest between them and their government, which had impliedly guar anteed them against disturbance. In any event, neither case presented a reason why Great Britain should take or possess the lands of Venezuela; nor did either case furnish an excuse for denying to Venezuela a fair and impartial adjudication of her disputed rights. By whom had this territory "been treated as a part of the Colony of British Guiana"? Surely not by Venezuela. On the contrary, she had persistently claimed it as her own, and had "treated" it as her own as far as she could and dared. England alone had treated it as a part of British Guiana; her immense power had enabled her to do this; and her decrees in her own favor as against her weak adversary undoubtedly promised greater advantages than arbitration could possibly assure. Ill The Secretary of State of Venezuela, soon after tins refusal of Great Britain to submit the boundary dispute to arbitration, in a de spatch dated the second day of April, 1884 still urged that method of settlement, citing precedents and presenting arguments in its favor; and m conclusion he asked the minister of the English Government at Caracas "to have the goodness to think out and suggest any acceptable course for attaining a solution of Hie difficulty." This was followed, a few days afterward, by another communication from the Venezuelan Secretary of State, repeating his urgent request for arbitration. From this communication it may not be amiss to make the following quotation: Venezuela and Great Britain possess the same rights in the question under discussion. If the Republic sliould yield up any part of her pre tensions, she would recognize the superior right of Great Britain, would violate the above-quoted 44 BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 45 article of the Constitution, and draw down the censure of her fellow-citizens. But when both nations, putting aside their independence of action in deference to peace and good friendship, create by mutual consent a Tribunal which may decide in the controversy, the same is able to pass sentence that one of the two parties or both of them have been mistaken in their opinions con cerning the extent of their territory. Thus the case would not be in opposition to the Constitu tion of the Republic, there being no alienation of that which shall have been determined not to be her property. O11 the tenth day of June, 1884, arbitration was again refused in a curt note from Lord Granville, declaring that "Her Majesty's Gov ernment adhere to their objection to arbitra tion as a mode of dealing with this question." About this time complaints and protests of the most vigorous character, based upon al leged breaches of the agreement of 1850 con cerning the non-occupation of the disputed territory broke out on both sides of the* con troversy, and accusations of aggression and occupation were constantly made. I shall not attempt to follow them, as in detail they are 46 THE VENEZUELAN not among the incidents which I consider es pecially relevant to the presentation of my theme. On the thirteenth day of December, 1884, Venezuela, in reply to a proposition of the British Government that the boundary question and certain other differences should be settled simultaneously, suggested, in view of the un willingness of Great Britain to submit the boundary dispute to arbitration, that it should be presented for decision to a court of law, the members of which should be chosen by the parties respectively. The British Government promptly declined this proposition, and stated that they were not prepared to depart from the arrangement made in 1877 to decide the question by adopt ing a conventional Boundary fixed by mutual accord between the two governments. This was in the face of the efforts which had been made along that line and found utterly fruitless. Immediately following the last-mentioned proposition by Venezuela for the presentation of the difficulty to a court of law mutually chosen, negotiations were entered upon for the BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 47 conclusion of a treaty between Great Britain and Venezuela, which should quiet a difference pending between the two countries relating to differential duties and which should also dis pose of other unsettled questions. In a draft of such a treaty submitted by Venezuela there was inserted an article providing for arbitra tion in case of all differences which could not be adjusted by friendly negotiation. To this article Great Britain suggested an amendment, making such arbitration applicable only to mat ters arising out of the interpretation or exe cution of the treaty itself, and especially excluding those emanating from any other source ; but on further representation by Vene zuela, Lord Granville, in behalf of the Gov ernment of Great Britain, expressly agreed with Venezuela that the treaty article relating to arbitration should be unrestricted in its operation. This diplomatic agreement was in explicit terms, her Majesty's Government agreeing "that the undertaking to refer differ ences to arbitration shall include all differences which may arise between the Lligh Contract ing Parties, and not those only which arise on the interpretation of the Treaty." 48 THE VENEZUELAN This occurred on the fifteenth day of May, 1885. Whatever Lord Granville may have in tended by the language used, the Government of Venezuela certainly understood his agree ment to include the pending boundary dispute as among tbe questions that should be sub mitted to arbitration; and all other matters which the treaty should embrace seemed so easy of adjustment that its early comple tion, embodying a stipulation for the final arbitration of the boundary conlrovcrsv, was confidently and gladly anticipated by the re public. The high hopes and joyful anticipations of Venezuela born of this apparently favorable situation were, however, but short-lived. On the twenty-seventh day of July, 1885, Lord Salisbury, who in the meantime had suc ceeded the Earl of Granville in Great Britain's Foreign Office, in a note to Venezuela's envoy declared: "Her Majesty's Government are unable to concur in the assent given by their predecessors in office to the general arbitration article proposed by Venezuela, and they are unable to agree to the inclusion in it of mat ters other than those arising out of the inter- BOUNDARY CONTROVFP' 49 pretation or alleged violation of this particular treaty." No assertion of fhe irrevocability of the agreement which Venezuela had made with his predecessor, and no plea or argument of any kind, availed to save the enlarged terms of this arbitration clause from Lord Salisbury's destructive insistence. On the twentieth day of June, 1886, Lord Rosebery suggested for Great Britain, and as a solution of the difficulty, that the territory within two certain lines which had been al ready proposed as boundaries should be equally divided between the contestants, either by arbi tration or the determination of a mixed commission. This was declined by Venezuela on the twenty-ninth day of July, 1886, upon the same grounds that led to the declination of prior proposals that apparently involved an absolute cession of a part of her territory; and she still insisted upon an arbitration embracing the en tire disputed territory as the only feasible method of adjustment. This declination on the part of Venezuela of Lord Rosebery's proposition terminated the 50 THE VENEZUELAN second attempt in point of time, to settle this vexed question. In the meantime the aggres sive conduct which for some time the officials of both countries had exhibited in and near the contested region had grown in distinctness and significance, until Great Britain had openly and with notorious assertion of ownership taken possession of a valuable part of the territory in dispute. On the 26th of October, 1886, an official document was published in the London "Gazette" giving notice that no grants of land made by the Government of Venezuela in the territory claimed by Great Britain would be admitted or recognized by her Majesty; and this more significant statement was added : "A map showing the boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela claimed by Her Maj esty's Government can be seen in the library of the Colonial Office, Downing Street, or at the Office of the Government Secretary, Georgetown, British Guiana." The boundary here spoken of, as shown on the map to which attention is directed, follows the Schomburgk line. Protests and demands in abundance on the part of Venezuela followed, which were ut terly disregarded, until, on the thirty-first day BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 51 of January, 1887, the Venezuelan Secretary of State distinctly demanded of Great Britain the evacuation of the disputed territory which she was occupying in violation of prior agreement and the rights of the republic, and gave formal notice that unless such evacuation should be completed, and accompanied by acceptance of arbitration as a means of deciding the pending frontier dispute, by the twentieth day of Feb ruary, 1887, diplomatic relations between the two countries would on that day cease. These demands were absolutely unheeded ; and thereupon, when the twentieth day of Feb ruary arrived, Venezuela exhibited a long list of specific charges of aggression and wrong doing against Great Britain, and made the fol lowing statement and final protest : In consequence, Venezuela, not deeming it fitting to continue friendly relations with a state which thus injures her, suspends them from to-day. And she protests before the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, before all civilized nations, before the whole world, against the acts of spoliation which the Government of Great 52 THE VENEZUELAN Britain has committed to her detriment, and which she will never on any consideration recog nize as capable of altering in the slightest degree the rights which she has acquired from Spain, and respecting which she will be always ready to submit to a third power, as the only way to a solution compatible with her constitutional principles. Notwithstanding all this, three years after ward, and on the tenth day of January, 1890, an agent of Venezuela, appointed for that pur pose, addressed a note to Lord Salisbury, still in charge of Great Britain's foreign relations, expressing the desire of Venezuela to renew diplomatic relations with Great Britain, and requesting an interview to that end. A short time thereafter the Government of Great Britain expressed its satisfaction that a renewal of diplomatic relations was in pros pect, and presented to the representative of Venezuela "a statement of the conditions which Her Majesty's Government considered necessary for a satisfactory settlement of the questions pending between the two countries." As the first of these conditions it was de- BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 53 clared that "Her Majesty's Government could not accept as satisfactory any arrangement which did not admit the British title to the territory comprised within the line laid down by Sir R. Schomburgk in 1841 ; but they would be willing to refer to arbitration the claims of Great Britain to certain territory to the west of that line." Naturally enough, this statement was re ceived by Venezuela with great disappointment and surprise. Her representative promptly re plied that his government could not accept any single point of the arbitrary and capricious line laid down by Sir R. Schomburgk in 1841, which had been declared null and void even by the Government of her Majesty; and that it was not possible for Venezuela to accept arbi tration in respect to territory west of that line. He further expressed his regret that the con ditions then demanded by Lord Salisbury were more unfavorable to Venezuela than the pro posals made to the former agent of the re public prior to the suspension of diplomatic relations. On the 19th of March, 1890, the British Government reiterated its position more in de- 54 THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 55 tail. Its refusal to admit any question as to Great Britain's title to any of the territory within the Schomburgk line was emphatically repeated, and the British claim was defined to extend beyond any pretension which I believe had ever been previously made except by Lord Salisbury himself in 1880. A map was pre sented indicating this extreme claim, the Schomburgk line, and a certain part of the territory between the boundary of this ex treme claim on the west and the Schomburgk line, which Great Britain proposed to submit to arbitration, abandoning all claim to the re mainder of the territory between these last- named two lines. This scheme, if adopted, would give to England absolutely and with out question the large territory between Brit ish Guiana's conceded western boundary and the Schomburgk line, with an opportunity to lay claim before a board of arbitration for extensive additional territory beyond the Schomburgk line. This is pitiful. The Schomburgk line, which was declared by the British Government, at the time it wag made, to be "merely a pre liminary measure, open to further discussion between the Governments of Great Britain and Venezuela," and which had been since largely extended in some mysterious way, is now de clared to be a line so well established, so in fallible, and so sacred that only the territory that England exorbitantly claims beyond that line is enough in dispute to be submitted to im partial arbitration. The trader is again in evi dence. On this basis England could abundantly afford to lose entirely in the arbitration she at length conceded. And yet Venezuela was not absolutely dis couraged. Soon after the receipt of Great Britain's last depressing communication, she appointed still another agent who was to try his hand with England in the field of diplo macy. On the twenty-fourth day of June, 1890, this new representative replied to the above proposal made to his predecessor by her Majesty's Government, and expressed the great regret of Venezuela that its recent pro posals for a settlement of the boundary diffi culty by arbitration affecting all the disputed territory had been peremptorily declined. He also declared that the emphatic statement con tained in Great Britain's last communication in 56 THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 57 leference to this question created for his government "difficulties not formerly contem plated," and thereupon, formally declined on behalf of Venezuela the consideration of the proposals contained in said communication. This statement of discouraging conditions was, however, supplemented by a somewhat new suggestion "to the effect that a preliminary agreement should be made containing a dec laration on the part of the Government of Venezuela that the river Essequibo, its banks, and the lands covering it belong exclusively to British Guiana, and a declaration on the part of her Majesty's Government that the Orinoco River, its banks, and the lands covering it be long exclusively to Venezuela, and providing that a mixed commission of two chief engi neers and their staffs should be appointed to make, within one year, careful maps and charts of the region to the west and northwest of the Essequibo River, toward the Orinoco, in order to determine officially the exact course of its rivers and streams, and the precise position of its mountains and hills, and all other details that would permit both countries to have re liable official knowledge of the territory which was actually in dispute, enabling them to de termine with a mutual feeling of friendship and good will a boundary with perfect knowl edge of the case; but in the event that a de termination should not be thus reached, the final decision of the boundary question should be submitted to two arbitrators, one selected by each government, and a third chosen by the other two, to act as umpire in case of disagree ment, who, in view of the original titles and documents presented, should fix a boundary- line which, being in accordance with the respective^ rights and titles, should have the advantage1 as far as possible of constituting a natural boundary; and that, pending such de termination, both governments should remove or withdraw all posts and other indications and signs of possession or dominion on said territory, and refrain from exercising any jurisdiction within the disputed region, On the 24th of July, 1890, Lord Salisbury declined to accept these suggestions of the Venezuelan representative, and declared : "Her Majesty's Government have more than once explained that they cannot consent to sub mit to arbitration what they regard as their '- -• S8 THE VENEZUELAN indisputable title to districts in the possession of the British Colony." Is it uncharitable to see in this reference to "possession" a hint of the industrious man ner in which Great Britain had- attempted to improve her position by permitting coloniza tion, and by other acts of possession, during the half-century since the boundary dispute began ? Efforts to settle this controversy seem to have languished after this rebuff until March, 1893, when still another agent was appointed by Venezuela for the purpose of reestablishing diplomatic relations with Great Britain, and settling, if possible, the boundary trouble and such other differences as might be pending be tween the two countries. As a means to that end, this agent, on the twenty-sixth day of May, 1893, presented a memorandum to the British Government containing suggestions for such settlement. The suggestion relating to the adjustment of the boundary question rested upon the idea of arbitration and did not ma terially differ from that made by this agent's immediate predecessor in 1890, except as to the stains quo, pending final adjustment, which BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 59 it was proposed should be the same as that ex isting after the agreement of non-interference in the disputed territory made by the two gov ernments in 1850. The plan thus suggested was declined by the Government of Great Britain, because, in the first place, it involved an arbitration, "which had been repeatedly declined by Iier Majesty's Government," and, further, because it was, in the language of the British reply, "quite im possible that they should consent to revert to the status quo of 1850 and evacuate what has for some; years constituted an integral portion of British Guiana." A further communication from the agent of Venezuela, offering additional arguments in support of his suggestions, brought forth a re ply informing him that the contents of his note did not "appear to Iier Majesty's Gov ernment to afford any opening for arriving at an understanding on this question which they could accept." Six months afterward, on the twenty-ninth day of September, 1893, a final communication was addressed by the representative of Vene zuela to the British Government, reviewing the 60 THE VENEZUELAN situation and the course of past efforts to ar rive at a settlement, and conchuling with the words : I must now declare in the most solemn manner, and in the name of the Government of Venezuela, that it is with the greatest regret that that Gov ernment sees itself forced to leave the situation produced in the disputed territory by the acts of recent years unsettled, and subject to the serious disturbances which acts of force cannot but pro duce; and to declare that Venezuela will never consent to proceedings of that nature being accepted as title-deeds to justify the arbitrary occupation of territory which is within its juris diction. Here closed a period in this dispute, fifty- two years in duration, vexed with agitation, aud perturbed by irritating and repealed fail ures to reach a peaceful adjustment. Instead of progress in the direction of a settlement of their boundaries, the results of their action were increased obstacles to fair discussion, in tensified feelings of injury, extended assertion of title, ruthless appropriation of the territory in controversy, and an unhealed breach in dip lomatic relations. IV 1 have thus far dealt with this dispute as one in which Great Britain and Venezuela, the parties primarily concerned, were sole par ticipants. We have now, however, reached a stage in the affair which requires a recital of other facts which led up to the active and posi tive interference of our own Government in tlie controversy. In discussing this branch of our topic it will be necessary not only to deal with circumstances following those . already narrated, but to retrace our steps sufficiently to exhibit among other things the appeals and representations made to the Government of the United States by Venezuela, whife she was still attempting to arrive at an adjustment with Great Britain. 1 have already referred to the first communi cation made to us by Venezuela on the sub ject. This, it will be remembered, was in 1876, when she sought to resume negotiations with Great Britain, after an interruption of thirty- two years. I have also called attention to the 61 62 THE VENEZUELAN fact that coincident with this communication Venezuela presented to Great Britain a willing ness to relax her insistence upon her extreme 1 boundary claim, based upon alleged right, and suggested that a conventional line might be fixed by mutual concession. Venezuela's first appeal to us for support and aid amounted to little more than a vague and indefinite request for countenance and sympathy in her efforts to settle her differ ences with her contestant, with an expression of a desire that we would take cognizance of her new steps in that direction. I do not find that any reply was made to this communication. Five years afterward, in 1881, the Vene zuelan minister in Washington presented to Mr. Evarts, then our Secretary of State, in formation he' had received that British vessels had made their appearance in the mouth of the Orinoco River with materials to build a tele graph-line, and had begun to erect poles for that purpose at Barima : and he referred to the immense importance to his country of the Ori noco; to the efforts of his government to ad just her difficulty with Great Britain, and to the delays interposed; and finally expressed his BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 63 confident belief that the United States would not view with indifference what was being done in a matter of such capital importance. Mr. Evarts promptly replied, and informed the Venezuelan representative that "in view of the deep interest which the Government of the United States takes in all transactions tend ing to attempted encroachments of foreign powers upon the territory of any of the re publics of this continent, this Government 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." Again, on the thirtieth day of November, 1881, our minister to Venezuela reported to Mr. Blaine, who had succeeded Mr. Evarts as Secretary of State, an interview with the Presi dent of Venezuela at his request, in which the subject of the boundary dispute was discussed. Our minister represented that the question was spoken of by the President as being of essen tial importance and a source of great anxiety to him, involving a large and fertile territory between the Essequibo and Orinoco, and prob- ablv the control of the mouth and a consider- 1> 64 THE VENEZUELAN able portion of the latter river; and he alleged that the policy of Great Britain, in the treat ment of this question, had been delay — the in terval being utilized by gradually but steadily extending her interest and authority into the disputed territory; and "that, though the rights of Venezuela were clear and indispu table, he questioned her ability, unaided by some friendly nation, to maintain them." In July, 1882, Mr. Frelinghuysen, successor to Mr. Blaine, sent to our representative at Venezuela a despatch to be communicated to the government of the republic, in which he stated that, if Venezuela desired it, the United States would propose to the Government of Great Britain that the boundary question be submitted to the arbitrament of a third power. It will be remembered that a proposition for arbitration had been made by Venezuela to Great Britain in February, 1881, and that Great Britain had refused to accede to it. In July, 1884, Mr. Frelinghuysen sent a con fidential despatch to Mr. Lowell, our minister to Great Britain, informing him lhat Guzman Blanco, ex-President of Venezuela, who had recently been accredited as a special envoy BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 65 from his country to Great Britain, had called on him relative to the objects of his mission, in respect of which he desired to obtain the good offices of this Government, and that doubtless he would seek to confer with Mr. Lowell in London. Lie further informed Mr. Lowell that he had told the Venezuelan envoy that, "in view of our interest in all that touches the independent life of. the Republics of the American Continent, the United States could not be indifferent to anything that might im pair their normal self-control"; that "the moral position of the United States in these matters was well known through the enunciation of fhe Monroe Doctrine," though formal action in the direction of applying that doctrine to a speculative case affecting Venezuela seemed to him to be inopportune, and therefore he could not advise Venezuela to arouse a discussion of that point. He instructed our minister to show proper consideration to the Venezuelan envoy, and to "take proper occasion to let Lord Gran ville know that we are not without concern as to whatever may affect the interest of a sister Republic of the American Continent and its position in the family of nations." 66 THE VENEZUELAN I» July, 1885, the Venezuelan minister to Hie United States addressed a communication to Secretary of Stale Bayard, setting forth the correspondence which had already taken place between our Government and that of Vene zuela touching the boundary dispute, and re ferring to the serious conditions existing on account of the renewed aggressions of Great Britain. Mr. Bayard thereupon sent a despatch on the subject to Mr. Phelps, our diplomatic rep resentative to England, in which, after staling that the Venezuelan Government had never definitely declared what course she desired us to pursue, but, on the contrary, had expressed a desire to be guided by our counsel, he said : "The good offices of this Government have been tendered to Venezuela to suggest to Great Britain the submission of the boundary dis pute to arbitration; but when shown that such action on our part would exclude us from act ing as arbitrator, Venezuela ceased to press the matter in that direction"; and the next day after writing this despatch Mr. Bayard in formed (he Venezuelan minister that the Presi dent of the United States could not entertain a BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 67 request to act as umpire in any dispute un less it should come concurrently from both contestants. In December, 1886, our minister to Vene zuela addressed a despatch to Mr. Bayard, in which he reported that matters looked very angry and threatening in Venezuela on account of fresh aggressions on the part of Great Britain in the disputed territory; and he ex pressed the fear that an open rupture might occur between the two countries. He inclosed a statement made by the Venezuelan Minister of .Foreign Affairs, containing a list of griev ances, followed by this declaration: "Vene zuela, listening to the advice of the United States, has endeavored several times to obtain lhat the difference should be submitted to the award of a third power. . . But such efforts have proven fruitless, and the possibility of that result, the only one prescribed by our con stitution, being arrived at, becomes more and more remote from day to day. Great Britain bas been constant in her clandestine advances upon the Venezuelan territory, not taking into consideration either the rights or the com plaints of this Republic." And he adds the 68 THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY 69 following declaration: "Under such circum stances the Government has but two courses left open: either to employ force in order to recover places from which force has ejected the Republic, since its amicable representations on the subject have failed to secure redress, or to present a solemn protest to the Govern ment of the United States against so great an abuse^ which is an evident declaration of war — a provocative aggression." Thereupon, and on the twentieth day of De cember, 1886, a despatch was sent by Mr. Bayard to Mr. Phelps, in which the secretary comments on the fact that at no time thereto fore had the good offices of our Government been actually tendered to ayert a rupture be tween Great Britain and Venezuela, and that our inaction in this regard seemed to be due to the reluctance of Venezuela to have the Gov ernment of the United States take any steps having relation to the action of the British Government which might, in appearance even, prejudice the resort to our arbitration or medi ation which Venezuela desired ; but that the intelligence now received warranted him in tendering the good offices of the United States to promote an amicable settlement of the diffi culty between the two countries, and offering our arbitration if acceptable to both countries —as he supposed the dispute turned upon simple and readily ascertainable historical facts. Additional complaints against Great. Britain on account of further trespasses on Venezue lan territory were contained in a note from the Venezuelan minister to Mr. Bayard, dated January 4, 1887. I shall quote only the fol lowing passage: ii My Government has tried all possible means to induce that of London to accept arbitration, as advised by the United States ; this, however, has resulted in nothing but fresh attempts against the integrity of the territory by the colonial authori ties of Demerara. It remains to be seen how long my Government will find it possible to exercise forbearance transcending the limits of its positive official duty. Pursuant to his instructions from Mr. Bay ard, our minister to Great Britain formally tendered to the English Government, on the 70 THE VENEZUELAN eighth day of February, 1887, the good offices of the United States to promote an amicable settlement of the pending controversy, "and offered our arbitration, if acceptable to both parties. A few days afterward Lord Salisbury, on behalf of Great Britain, replied that the atti tude which had been taken by the President of the Venezuelan republic precluded her Maj esty's Government from submitting the ques tion at that time to the arbitration of any third power. The fact that Lord Salisbury had declined our offer of mediation and arbitration, was promptly conveyed to the government of Vene zuela; and thereupon, on the fourth day of May, 1887, her minister at Washington ad dressed another note to our Secretary of State indicating much depression on account of the failure of all efforts up to that time made to induce Great Britain to agree to a settlement of the controversy by arbitration, and express ing the utmost gratitude for the steps taken by our Government in aid of those efforts. He also referred to the desire his government once entertained that, in case arbitration could be BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY /I ! f. attained, the United States might be selected as arbitrator, and to the fact that this desire, ha/1 been relinquished because the maintMtantt O'f impartiality essential in an &rbi+»ato>r