Lord Salisbury to Sir Julian Pauncefote.
Sir: I have to acknowledge your excellency’s dispatch, No. 200, of 15th June, inclosing a note from Mr. Olney, in which he explains the reasons that induce the Government of the United States to withhold their assent from the proposals with respect to the Venezuelan frontier contained in my dispatch, No. 130, of the 22d of May.
The arguments by which Mr. Olney supports this view will receive the careful consideration of Her Majesty’s Government. I am not now writing to you for the purpose of discussing them. My object in addressing your excellency is to point out that in a matter of some importance, Mr. Olney—owing, doubtless, to the inadequacy of my own explanation—has misapprehended the purport of the proposal which I had the honor to make to him. He states that “it appears to be a fundamental condition that the boundary line, decided to be the true one by the arbitrators, shall not operate upon territory bona fide occupied by a British subject—shall be deflected in every such case so as to make such territory part of British Guiana.”
This was not the intention of my proposals, and the language of my dispatch of 22d May does not, I think, fairly bear this construction. I proposed that “the tribunal should not have power to include such districts as the territory of Venezuela;” but I did not propose that they should necessarily be assumed without further proof to be part of British Guiana. I only stipulated that the ownership of them was not to be decided by the tribunal, which, in our judgment, was inadequate for this purpose, though it was adequate for the assignment of the unsettled districts. The settled districts, shown to be in dispute by the inquiries of the commission, were to be disposed of by subsequent negotiation. The claim of Venezuela is so far-reaching that it brings into question interests and rights which can not properly be disposed of by an unrestricted arbitration. It extends as far as the Essequibo; it covers two-thirds of the colony of British Guiana; it impeaches titles which have been unquestioned for many generations. These districts must be treated separately, and until further inquiry has thrown more light upon the matter it is only by reserving the settled districts generally that this can be done.
The view of Her Majesty’s Government is that, where the matter in issue is of great importance and involves rights which belong to a considerable population and are deeply cherished by them, special precautions against any miscarriage of justice are required, of which I have indicated the general character in this correspondence, but which are not required where a title to unoccupied territory is alone in issue. It is for this reason that Her Majesty’s Government proposed to except these districts from the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, though it [Page 253] could deal adequately with the disputed claims to territory that is not occupied. But they did not intend by that stipulation to ask the Government of the United States to prejudge any questions which had been raised, or might be raised, with respect to the ownership of settled districts. This part of the subject, confessedly the most difficult part, would have been reserved for separate examination.
I should wish you to offer this explanation to Mr. Olney when you have an opportunity, and if he desires it, give him a copy of this dispatch. I will reserve for another occasion the observations which, after consideration, I may have to make in reply to the general argument of his note.