66 whose government complaint is made." The United States, said Mr. Bayard, was ready to secure any advantage which might be derived from a coincident and even identical representation" with other powers with regard to matters of common concern, but was averse to joint presentation as the term is strictly understood." A truly joint demand might involve a joint enforcement, and the United States was "indisposed to contemplate such entanglement of its duties and interests with those of another power." It was entirely proper for an American minister so to act "in concert" with his colleagues as to secure the benefit of cooperative action without "the ultimate embarrassments to which united action may be liable." When, in 1871, the German Government had proposed to certain European cabinets the adoption of joint measures to urge upon Venezuela a more orderly government and better observance of her obligations, the United States "took occasion to deprecate such a resort on the ground that a combination to present and enforce such demands by the European powers against an American state could only be observed by the United States with the greatest concern." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Scott, min. to Venezuela, No. 70 (confid.), Boundary with (3) TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY. § 966. "I should have been glad to announce some favorable disposition of the boundary dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela, touching the western frontier of British Guiana, but the friendly efforts of the United States in that direction have thus far been unavailing. This Government will continue to express its concern at any appearance of foreign encroachment on territories long under the administrative control of American states. The determination of a disputed boundary is easily attainable by amicable arbitration, where the rights of the respective parties rest, as here, on historic facts, readily ascertainable." President Harrison, annual message, Dec. 9, 1891, For. Rel. 1891, iv. 66 In 1848, while the question of occupying Yucatan was before the Senate, a report appeared in the press concerning British aggressions in Venezuela. It was stated by a writer who appeared to be well informed upon the subject," that the British had in 1841 encroached on Spanish Guiana to the extent of twenty thousand square miles, and that they had since extended their possessions to the whole of Spanish Guiana, amounting in all to a hundred and eighty thousand square miles, or nearly double what they are said now to claim. Mr. Niles, a Senator from Connecticut, brought the subject to the attention of the Senate, as a warning against the responsibilities that might be involved in the views which he understood certain members of the Senate to hold. The advocates of those views do not, however, appear to have referred to the subject, unless there was such a reference by Mr. Cass, when he said: "The honorable Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Niles] considers the reiteration of the principle by the present Executive, and perhaps its original annunciation by Mr. Monroe, as the claim of a right to regulate all the affairs of this continent, so far as respects Europeans. But this, sir, is an entire misconception of the whole subject. It has, however, prevailed somewhat extensively, both here and elsewhere, though it seems to me that the slightest consideration of the messages referred to would have corrected, or rather prevented, this flagrant error. Neither of these Presidents, the past nor the present, assumed to interfere with any existing rights of other nations upon this continent. Neither of them called in question their right to hold and improve the colonies they possessed, at their own pleasure. Such an assumption would have been equally obtrusive and ineffectual; and how the opinion could have prevailed that has been advanced, no one can tell; for, in the documents themselves, the true doctrine is cautiously guarded and existing rights considered as unassailable." (Cong. Globe, 30 Cong. 1 sess. App. 614.) "I enclose herewith a copy of a joint resolution of Congress approved by the President on the 20th day of February last, by which friendly arbitration is earnestly recommended to the favorable consideration of the Governments of Great Britain and Venezuela as a means of settling the dispute existing between them in relation to the boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela. "During the last ten years, the Government of the United States has on more than one occasion sought to employ its good offices for the adjustment of this dispute, in a manner just and honorable to both the Governments involved in it, and, while its efforts in that direction have not been successful, it earnestly hopes that the result which it has endeavored to promote may yet be attained. "In pursuing the course it has taken in this matter, this Government, it is needless to say, has not been actuated by any partial purpose. On the contrary, animated with a spirit of friendliness to both parties, it has refrained from entering into the merits of the controversy. In this spirit it now recommends impartial arbitration as a method which affords equal opportunities to both parties for the establishment of their claims. "Her Majesty's Government is aware of the interest which the Government and people of the United States feel in matters affecting the peace and welfare of independent states of this hemisphere. While we do not assume to dictate to those states, or to exercise an undue influence over them, as to what their relations with other powers of the world shall be, yet their fortunes have always been an object of solicitude, and we can not view without anxiety the continuance of disputes in which their peace and happiness are deeply involved." Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Bayard, amb. to England, No. 657, The joint resolution, enclosed with the foregoing instruction, read as "Resolved, By the Senate and the House of Representatives, &c., that See Mr. Uhl, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Andrade, Venez. min., No. 8, May Mr. Olney's in "I am directed by the President to communicate to you his views upon a subject to which he has given much anxious thought and respecting which he has not reached a conclusion without a lively sense of its great importance as well as of the serious responsibility involved in any action now to be taken. structions, July 20, 1895. 6 "It is not proposed, and for present purposes is not necessary, to enter into any detailed account of the controversy between Great Britain and Venezuela respecting the western frontier of the colony of British Guiana. The dispute is of ancient date and began at least as early as the time when Great Britain acquired by the treaty with the Netherlands of 1814 the establishments of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice.' From that time to the present the dividing line between these establishments' (now called British Guiana) and Venezuela has never ceased to be a subject of contention. The claims of both parties, it must be conceded, are of a somewhat indefinite nature. On the one hand Venezuela, in every constitution of government since she became an independent state, has declared her territorial limits to be those of the captaincy-general of Venezuela in 1810. Yet, out of moderation and prudence,' it is said, she has contented herself with claiming the Essequibo line the line of the Essequibo River, that is to be the true boundary between Venezuela and British Guiana. On the other hand, at least an equal degree of indefiniteness distinguishes the claim of Great Britain. "It does not seem to be asserted, for instance, that in 1814 the 'establishments' then acquired by Great Britain had any clearly defined western limits which can now be identified and which are either the limits insisted upon to-day, or, being the original limits, have been the basis of legitimate territorial extensions. On the contrary, having the actual possession of a district called the Pomaron district, she apparently remained indifferent as to the exact area of the colony until 1840, when she commissioned an engineer, Sir Robert Schomburgk, to examine and lay down its boundaries. The result was the Schomburgk line which was fixed by metes and bounds, was delineated on maps, and was at first indicated on the face of the country itself by posts, monograms, and other like symbols. If it was expected that Venezuela would acquiesce in this line, the expectation was doomed to speedy disappointment. Venezuela at once protested and with such vigor and to such purpose that the line was explained to be only tentative-part of a general boundary scheme concerning Brazil and the Netherlands as well as Venezuela-and the monuments of the line set up by Schomburgk were removed by the express order of Lord Aberdeen. Under these circumstances, it seems impossible to treat the Schomburgk line as being the boundary claimed by Great Britain as matter of right, or as anything but a line originating in considerations of convenience and expediency. Since 1840 various other boundary lines have from time to time been indicated by Great Britain, but all as conventional lines-lines to which Venezuela's assent has been desired but which in no instance, it is believed, have been demanded as matter of right. Thus neither of the parties is to-day standing for the boundary line predicated upon strict legal right-Great Britain having formulated no such claim at all, while Venezuela insists upon the Essequibo line only as a liberal concession to her antagonist. "Several other features of the situation remain to be briefly noticed the continuous growth of the undefined British claim, the fate of the various attempts at arbitration of the controversy, and the part in the matter heretofore taken by the United States. As already seen, the exploitation of the Schomburgk line in 1840 was at once followed by the protest of Venezuela and by proceedings on the part of Great Britain which could fairly be interpreted only as a disavowal of that line. Indeed-in addition to the facts already noticed-Lord Aberdeen himself in 1844 proposed a line beginning at the River Moroco, a distinct abandonment of the Schomburgk line. Notwithstanding this, however, every change in the British claim since that time has moved the frontier of British Guiana farther and farther to the westward of the line thus proposed. The Granville line of 1881 placed the starting point at a distance of twenty-nine miles from the Moroco in the direction of Punta Barima. The Rosebery line of 1886 placed it west of the Guiama River, and about that time, if the British authority known as the Statesman's Year Book is to be relied upon, the area of British Guiana was suddenly enlarged by some 33,000 square miles-being stated as 76,000 square miles in 1885 and 109,000 square miles in 1887. The Salisbury line of 1890 fixed the starting point of the line in the mouth of the Amacuro west of the Punta Barima on the Orinoco. And finally, in 1893, a second Rosebery line carried the boundary from a point to the west of the Amacuro as far as the source of the Cumano River and the Sierra of Usupamo. Nor have the various claims thus enumerated been claims on paper merely. An exercise of jurisdiction corresponding more or less to such claims has accompanied or followed closely upon each and has been the more irritating and unjustifiable if, as is alleged, an agreement made in the year 1850 bound both parties to refrain from such occupation pending the settlement of the dispute. "While the British claim has been developing in the manner above described, Venezuela has made earnest and repeated efforts to have the question of boundary settled. Indeed, allowance being made for the distractions of a war of independence and for frequent internal revolutions, it may be fairly said that Venezuela has never ceased to strive for its adjustment. It could, of course, do so only through peaceful methods, any resort to force as against its powerful adversary being out of the question. Accordingly, shortly after the drawing of the Schomburgk line, an effort was made to settle the boundary by treaty and was apparently progressing towards a successful issue when the negotiations were brought to an end in 1844 by the death of the Venezuelan plenipotentiary. "In 1848 Venezuela entered upon a period of civil commotions which lasted for more than a quarter of a century, and the negotiations thus interrupted in 1844 were not resumed until 1876. In that year Venezuela offered to close the dispute by accepting the Moroco line proposed by Lord Aberdeen. But, without giving reasons for his refusal, Lord Granville rejected the proposal and suggested a new line comprehending a large tract of territory all pretension to which seemed to have been abandoned by the previous action of Lord Aberdeen. Venezuela refused to assent to it, and negotiations dragged along without result until 1882, when Venezuela concluded that the only course open to her was arbitration of the controversy. Before she had made any definite proposition, however, Great Britain took the initiative by suggesting the making of a treaty which should determine various other questions as well as that of the disputed boundary. The result was that a treaty was practically agreed upon with the Gladstone government in 1886 containing a general arbitration clause under which the parties might have submitted the boundary dispute to the decision of a third power or of several powers in amity with both. "Before the actual signing of the treaty, however, the administration of Mr. Gladstone was superseded by that of Lord Salisbury, which declined to accede to the arbitration clause of the treaty notwithstanding the reasonable expectations of Venezuela to the contrary based upon the premier's emphatic declaration in the House of |