The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo. SATURDAY, JANUARY 4, 1896.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 3, 4 January 1896, Page 4

The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 4, 1896.

For tli» oause that lacks aßsintase;;, F'.r Uia wrons that naeela resistance, .For ti# future ia tiie distance. Asi the food that wo can co.

The startling events which have taken place in South Africa in such rapid succession that we are confronted by a crisis of the most dangeroas character before we have quite grasped the circumstances which led to it, have almost made us forget that other difficulty in which Great Britain is involved in America. The situation in the Transvaal has for the moment made us oblivious of the Venezuelan trouble and the more serious complications with America into which England may be forced through it, just as the dispute with the South American Republic eclipsed the crisis in Turkey. But the difficulties arising out of the Venezuelan boundary dispute and President Cleveland's reading of the Monroe doctrine have by no means been solved, and although we here are at present absorbed in following the fortunes of our countrymen in Africa, the people of the United States are full of this breach with England and the consequences it may lead to. I

We are forcibly reminded of this fact by the Sari Francisco files just to hand by the Monowai. ThVy contain the latest views of the situation which we have yet obtained outside of the cable news, which is necessarily very brief, and often unsatisfactory. Of course, these views are taken, for the most part, from the American standpoint, and are consequently much more favourable to the Stales than to England. It can do

us no harm, however, to look at the matter through Uncle Sam's spectacles as well as through John Bull's. It may, on the contrary, enable us to be more impartial in our judgment, which, unless we are very exceptional personages, is sure to be influenced by national prejudices.

With that Jove for sensationalism which distinguishes him the American . journalist generally endeavours to ! exaggerate and intensify everything he j touches; but it must be said to his credit that in this Venezuelan affair he has been singularly moderate. The big black type is of course made use of in the usual prodigal fashion, but j the tone either of the multitudinous | headings or the articles is not overj bearing or offensive. The Americans I evidently think they are in the right, j but the press generally shows a wise disinclinarion to bluster even to the . extent the President did. | It was as far back as July last that the Government of the United States set forth their position in a despatch j addressed to their ambassador in London. The general conclusions formulated in that document are that iue traditional and established policy of the United States Government is firmly opposed to a forcible increase by any European power of its territorial possessions in America; that this poiicy is as well founded in principle as it is strongly supported by numerous precedents; that as a consequence the United States is bound to protest against the enlargement of British Guiana in derogation of the rights and against the will of Venezuela ; that considering the disparity in strength of Great Britain and Venezuela, the territorial dispute between them can be reasonably settled oniy by friendly 1 impartial arbitration. This statement of the case formed the ground for various communications between Great 'Britain and the United States, which culminated in the imperative refusal of LoTd Saiisbuiy to submit to arbitration. At the same time the administrator of British Guiana, acting under instructions from the Home Government, officially declared that British Guiana was prepared to assert her rights by force if necessary. Venezuela was equally determined, and it was said could place 100,000 men in the field.

With regard to the disputed boundary which has been the cause of all the trouble, the United States holds that all the claim Great Britain has in British Guiana she derives from the Dutch by the treaty of London in 18 14. In this treaty the States General of Holland ceded to Great Britain the

' " three colonies of Essequibo, Demerara and Berbice," at the mouths of the rivers of the same names, which had been planted by the Dutch and held since the sixteenth century entirely by suffrance on the part of Spain. She did not pretend to mark out or set any boundaries to the colonies so ceded. She could not by the nature of the case. She only held what Spain saw fit to permit her, and she ceded nothing more to Great Britain. Spain was not a party to the treaty of London (in 1814), and was in no way bound thereby to any cession Holland might have made to Gieat Britain, and subsequently she did not by any treaty, cession, or any other act of sovereignty recognise Great Britain's right or title to anything more than she had permitted to the Dutch, nor has Venezuela, after her, given any such recognition. On the contrary, the whole history of the question presents an unbroken list of protests on the part of Venezuela against British aggression. Spain held the title to the whole of the Guianas as the original discoverer and, first occupying Venezuela, fell heir to all' her rights and titles, and neither of them has ever conceded to Hoiland, or to Great Britain alter her, a single foot of territory west of the Essequibo River.

But in answer to this Lord Salisbury has called attention to titles and surveys. He shows by testimony that England is only claiming what has been recognised as her property, and that the objections of the Venezuelan Government have nothing on which to rest. He contends that the Scbomberg line of demarcation was not arbitrarily run ; that it was located upon authentic data, and that it cau be proved by the records, the treaty descriptions and the maps, that it correctly represents the limits of the territory which Great Britain acquired by cession from Holland,

President Cleveland and his supporters hold that this position is not tenable. They maintain that "if the mere territorial jurisdiction on the American continent by Great Britain is sufficient to exclude the United States from objecting and from demanding a fair arbitration, then the Monroe doctrine is a dead letter." Further, they assert that the whole matter rests on that " neither Venezuela nor Spain has ever conceded the British pretensions which are based upon a treaty with the Dutch of Holland, who never occupied the region."

We rather fancy that if the same argument were to hold good universally there are many lands now in the possession of nations who have no claim to them. It is not likely to influence Lord Salisbury, who sees its flimsiness at once, but the fact that it is very hollow is by no means a guarantee that it will not be employed, in and out of season, to give some colour to the interference of the United States. The best guarantee that we have, perhaps, that an amicable settlement will be arrived at between Great Britain and America lies in the fact that the best section of Americans realises that President Cleveland's action was a political dodge, and that for the two countries to be involved in war would be an inestimable disaster for both. .