repeatedly expressed their readiness to submit to arbitration
the conflicting claims of Great Britain and Venezuela to large
tracts of territory which from their auriferous nature are
known to be of almost untold value. But they cannot consent
to entertain, or to submit to the arbitration of another
power or of foreign jurists however eminent, claims based on
the extravagant pretensions of Spanish officials in the last
century and involving the transfer of large numbers of British
subjects, who have for many years enjoyed the settled rule of
a British colony, to a nation of different race and language,
whose political system is subject to frequent disturbance, and
whose institutions as yet too often afford very inadequate
protection to life and property.
These despatches exhibit a refusal to admit such an interest in the
controversy on our part as entitled us to insist upon an arbitration
for the purpose of having the line between Great Britain and Venezuela
established; a denial of such force or meaning to the Monroe Doctrine
as made it worthy of the regard of Great Britain in the premises;
and a fixed and continued determination on the part of her Majesty’s
Government to reject arbitration as to any territory included within
the extended Schomburgk line. They further indicate that the existence
of gold within the disputed territory had not been overlooked; and
they distinctly put forward the colonization and settlement by English
subjects in such territory, during more than half a century of dispute,
as creating a claim to dominion and sovereignty, if not strong enough
to override all question of right and title, at least so clear and
indisputable as to be properly considered as above and beyond the
contingencies of arbitration.
If we had been obliged to accept Lord Salisbury’s estimate of the
Monroe Doctrine, and his ideas of our interest, or rather want of
interest, in the settlement of the boundary between Great Britain and
Venezuela, his despatches would have certainly been very depressing.
It would have been unpleasant for us to know that a doctrine which we
had supposed for seventy years to be of great value and importance to
us and our national safety was, after all, a mere plaything with which
we might amuse ourselves; and that our efforts to enforce it were to
be regarded by Great Britain and other European nations as meddlesome
interferences with affairs in which we could have no legitimate concern.
The reply of the English Government to Mr. Olney’s despatch, whatever
else it accomplished, seemed absolutely to destroy any hope we might
have entertained that, in our changed position in the controversy and
upon our independent solicitation, arbitration might be conceded to us.
Since, therefore, Great Britain was unwilling, on any consideration,
to coöperate with Venezuela in setting on foot an investigation of
their contested claim, and since prudence and care dictated that any
further steps we might take should be proved to be as fully justified
as was practicable in the circumstances, there seemed to be no better
way open to us than to inaugurate a careful independent investigation
of the merits of the controversy, on our own motion, with a view of
determining as accurately as possible, for our own guidance, where the
divisional line between the two countries should be located.
Mr. Olney’s despatch and Lord Salisbury’s reply were submitted to the
Congress on the seventeenth day of December, 1895, accompanied by a
message from the President.
In this message the President, after stating Lord Salisbury’s positions
touching the Monroe Doctrine, declared:
Without attempting extended argument in reply to these
positions, it may not be amiss to suggest that the doctrine
upon which we stand is strong and sound, because its
enforcement is important to our peace and safety as a nation,
and is essential to the integrity of our free institutions and
the tranquil maintenance of our distinctive form of government.
It was intended to apply to every stage of our national life,
and cannot become obsolete while our Republic endures. If the
balance of power is justly a cause for jealous anxiety among
the governments of the Old World and a subject for our absolute
non-interference, none the less is the observance of the Monroe
Doctrine of vital concern to our people and their Government.
Speaking of the claim made by Lord Salisbury that this doctrine had no
place in international law, it was said in the message: “The Monroe
Doctrine finds its recognition in those principles of international law
which are based upon the theory that every nation shall have its rights
protected and its just claims enforced.”
Referring to the request contained in Mr. Olney’s despatch that the
entire boundary controversy be submitted to arbitration, the following
language was used:
It will be seen from the correspondence herewith submitted that
this proposition has been declined by the British Government
upon grounds which in the circumstances seem to me to be far
from satisfactory. It is deeply disappointing that such an
appeal, actuated by the most friendly feelings toward both
nations directly concerned, addressed to the sense of justice
and to the magnanimity of one of the great powers of the world,
and touching its relations to one comparatively weak and small,
should have produced no better results.
The course to be pursued by this Government in view of the
present condition does not appear to admit of serious doubt.
Having labored faithfully for many years to induce Great
Britain to submit their dispute to impartial arbitration, and
having been finally apprised of her refusal to do so, nothing
remains but to accept the situation, to recognize its plain
requirements, and deal with it accordingly. Great Britain’s
present proposition has never thus far been regarded as
admissible by Venezuela, though any adjustment of the boundary
which that country may deem for her advantage and may enter
into of her own free will cannot, of course, be objected to
by the United States. Assuming, however, that the attitude of
Venezuela will remain unchanged, the dispute has reached such
a stage as to make it now incumbent upon the United States to
take measures to determine with sufficient certainty for its
justification what is the true divisional line between the
Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana. The inquiry to that
end should, of course, be conducted carefully and judicially;
and due weight should be given to all available evidence,
records, and facts in support of the claims of both parties.
After recommending to the Congress an adequate appropriation to
meet the expense of a commission which should make the suggested
investigation and report thereon with the least possible delay, the
President concluded his message as follows:
When such report is made and accepted, it will, in my opinion,
be the duty of the United States to resist by every means
in its power, as a wilful aggression upon its rights and
interests, the appropriation by Great Britain of any lands or
the exercise of governmental jurisdiction over any territory
which after investigation we have determined of right belongs
to Venezuela.
In making these recommendations I am fully alive to the
responsibility incurred, and keenly realize all the
consequences that may follow.
I am, nevertheless, firm in my conviction that while it is a
grievous thing to contemplate the two great English-speaking
peoples of the world as being otherwise than friendly
competitors in the onward march of civilization, and strenuous
and worthy rivals in all the arts of peace, there is no
calamity which a great nation can invite which equals that
which follows a supine submission to wrong and injustice, and
the consequent loss of national self-respect and honor, beneath
which are shielded and defended a people’s safety and greatness.
The recommendations contained in this message were acted upon with
such promptness and unanimity that on the twenty-first day of
December, 1895, four days after they were submitted, a law was passed
by the Congress authorizing the President to appoint a commission
“to investigate and report upon the true divisional line between
the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana,” and making an ample
appropriation to meet the expenses of its work.
On the first day of January, 1896, five of our most able and
distinguished citizens were selected to constitute the commission; and
they immediately entered upon their investigation. At the outset of
their labors, and on the fifteenth day of January, 1896, the president
of the commission suggested to Mr. Olney the expediency of calling
the attention of the Governments of Great Britain and Venezuela to
the appointment of the commission, adding: “It may be that they would
see a way entirely consistent with their own sense of international
propriety to give the Commission the aid that it is no doubt in
their power to furnish in the way of documentary proof, historical
narrative, unpublished archives, or the like.” This suggestion, on its
presentation to the Government of Great Britain, was met by a most
courteous and willing offer to supply to our commission every means
of information touching the subject of their investigation which was
within the reach of the English authorities; and at all times during
the labors of the commission this offer was cheerfully fulfilled.
In the meantime, and as early as February, 1896, the question of
submitting the Venezuelan boundary dispute to mutual arbitration was
again agitated between the United States and Great Britain.
Our ambassador to England, in a note to Lord Salisbury, dated February
27, 1896, after speaking of such arbitration as seeming to be “almost
unanimously desired by both the United States and Great Britain,”
proposed, in pursuance of instructions from his Government, “an
entrance forthwith upon negotiations at Washington to effect this
purpose, and that Her Majesty’s Ambassador at Washington should be
empowered to discuss the question at that capital with the Secretary
of State.” He also requested that a definition should be given of
“settlements” in the disputed territory which it was understood her
Majesty’s Government desired should be excluded from the proposed
submission to arbitration.
Lord Salisbury, in his reply to this note, dated March 3, 1896, said:
The communications which have already passed between Her
Majesty’s Government and that of the United States have made
you acquainted with the desire of Her Majesty’s Government to
bring the difference between themselves and the Republic of
Venezuela to an equitable settlement. They therefore readily
concur in the suggestion that negotiations for this purpose
should be opened at Washington without unnecessary delay. I
have accordingly empowered Sir Julian Pauncefote to discuss the
question either with the representative of Venezuela or with
the Government of the United States acting as the friend of
Venezuela.
With this transfer of treaty negotiations to Washington, Mr. Olney
and Sir Julian Pauncefote, the ambassador of Great Britain to this
country, industriously addressed themselves to the subject. The
insistence of Great Britain that her title to the territory within
the Schomburgk line should not be questioned, was no longer placed by
her in the way of submitting the rights of the parties in the entire
disputed territory to arbitration. She still insisted, however, that
English settlers long in the occupancy of any of the territory in
controversy, supposing it to be under British dominion, should have
their rights scrupulously considered. Any difference of view that
arose from this proposition was adjusted without serious difficulty,
by agreeing that adverse holding or prescription during a period of
fifty years should make a good title, and that the arbitrators might
deem exclusive political control of a district, as well as actual
settlement, sufficient to constitute adverse holding or to make title
by prescription.
On the 10th of November, 1896, Mr. Olney addressed a note to the
president of the commission which had been appointed to investigate
the boundary question on behalf of our Government, in which he said:
“The United States and Great Britain are in entire accord as to the
provisions of a proposed treaty between Great Britain and Venezuela.
The treaty is so eminently just and fair as respects both parties--so
thoroughly protects the rights and claims of Venezuela--that I cannot
conceive of its not being approved by the Venezuelan President and
Congress. It is thoroughly approved by the counsel of Venezuela here
and by the Venezuelan Minister at this Capital.” In view of these
conditions he suggested a suspension of the work of the commission.
The treaty was signed at Washington by the representatives of Great
Britain and Venezuela on the second day of February, 1897. No part of
the territory in dispute was reserved from the arbitration it created.
It was distinctly made the duty of those appointed to carry out its
provisions, “to determine the boundary-line between the Colony of
British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela.”
The fact must not be overlooked that, notwithstanding this treaty
was promoted and negotiated by the officers of our Government, the
parties to it were Great Britain and Venezuela. This was a fortunate
circumstance, inasmuch as the work accomplished was thus saved from
the risk of customary disfigurement at the hands of the United States
Senate.
The arbitrators began their labors in the city of Paris in January,
1899, and made their award on the third day of October in the same year.
The line they determined upon as the boundary-line between the two
countries begins in the coast at a point considerably south and east of
the mouth of the Orinoco River, thus giving to Venezuela the absolute
control of that important waterway, and awarding to her valuable
territory near it. Running inland, the line is so located as to give
to Venezuela quite a considerable section of territory within the
Schomburgk line. This results not only in the utter denial of Great
Britain’s claim to any territory lying beyond the Schomburgk line, but
also in the award to Venezuela of a part of the territory which for a
long time England had claimed to be so clearly hers that she would not
consent to submit it to arbitration.
Thus, we have made a laborious and patient journey through the
incidents of a long dispute, to find at last a peaceful rest. As
we look back over the road we have traversed, and view again the
incidents we have passed on our way, some may be surprised that this
controversy was so long chronic, and yet, in the end, yielded so easily
to pronounced treatment. I know that occasionally some Americans
of a certain sort, who were quite un-American when the difficulty
was pending, have been very fond of lauding the extreme forbearance
and kindness of England toward us in our so-called belligerent and
ill-advised assertion of American principle. Those to whom this is a
satisfaction are quite welcome to it.
My own surprise and disappointment have arisen more from the honest
misunderstanding and the dishonest and insincere misrepresentation, on
the part of many of our people, regarding the motives and purposes of
the interference of the Government of the United States in this affair.
Some conceited and doggedly mistaken critics have said that it was
dreadful for us to invite war for the sake of a people unworthy of our
consideration, and for the purpose of protecting their possession of
land not worth possessing. It is certainly strange that any intelligent
citizen, professing information on public affairs, could fail to see
that when we aggressively interposed in this controversy it was
because it was necessary in order to assert and vindicate a principle
distinctively American, and in the maintenance of which the people
and Government of the United States were profoundly concerned. It was
because this principle was endangered, and because those charged with
administrative responsibility would not abandon or neglect it, that our
Government interposed to prevent any further colonization of American
soil by a European nation. In these circumstances neither the character
of the people claiming the soil as against Great Britain, nor the value
of the lands in dispute, was of the least consequence to us; nor did
it in the least concern us which of the two contestants had the best
title to any part of the disputed territory, so long as England did not
possess and colonize more than belonged to her--however much or however
little that might be. But we needed proof of the limits of her rights
in order to determine our duty in defense of our Monroe Doctrine;
and we sought to obtain such proof, and to secure peace, through
arbitration.
But those among us who most loudly reprehended and bewailed our
vigorous assertion of the Monroe Doctrine were the timid ones who
feared personal financial loss, or those engaged in speculation
and stock-gambling, in buying much beyond their ability to pay, and
generally in living by their wits. The patriotism of such people
traverses exclusively the pocket nerve. They are willing to tolerate
the Monroe Doctrine, or any other patriotic principle, so long as it
does not interfere with their plans, and are just as willing to cast it
off when it becomes troublesome.
But these things are as nothing when weighed against the sublime
patriotism and devotion to their nation’s honor exhibited by the great
mass of our countrymen--the plain people of the land. Though, in case
of the last extremity, the chances and suffering of conflict would have
fallen to their lot, nothing blinded them to the manner in which the
integrity of their country was involved. Not for a single moment did
their Government know the lack of their strong and stalwart support.
I hope there are but few of our fellow-citizens who, in retrospect,
do not now acknowledge the good that has come to our nation through
this episode in our history. It has established the Monroe Doctrine
on lasting foundations before the eyes of the world; it has given us
a better place in the respect and consideration of the people of all
nations, and especially of Great Britain; it has again confirmed
our confidence in the overwhelming prevalence among our citizens of
disinterested devotion to American honor; and last, but by no means
least, it has taught us where to look in the ranks of our countrymen
for the best patriotism.
[Transcriber's Note:
Page 101, ‘yourself, Walker, and marshal should confer’ changed to read
‘yourself, Walker, and the marshal should confer’.
Obvious printer errors corrected silently.