« ForrigeFortsett »
labor, can not be fully accepted. The fact is, non-citizens are not per. mitted to acquire real estate in the Choctaw country.
However, the Secretary of the Interior is investigating the matter of these removals, and such action as may be proper will be taken to secure to all persons such protection as they may be entitled to under treaty stipulations and provisions of law.
The Secretary concludes with the statement that from information recently received he is led to believe that the trouble between the miners and their employers will soon be adjusted satisfactorily to all parties. I return herewith the inclosure to your note, as therein requested. Believe me, etc.,
ALVEY A. ADEE,
BRITISH GUIANA AND THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY.
Mr. Gresham to Mr. Bayard. No. 442.)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, July 13, 1894. SIR: During your incumbency of the office of Secretary of State you became acquainted with a long pending controversy between Great Britain and Venezuela concerning the boundary between that Republic and British Guiana.
The recourse to arbitration, first proposed in 1881, having been supported by your predecessors, was in turn advocated by you in a spirit of friendly regard for the two nations involved. In the meantime, successive advances of British settlers in the region admittedly in dispute were followed by similar advances of British colonial administration, contesting and supplanting Venezuelan claims to exercise authority therein.
Toward the end of 1887 the British territorial claim, which had, as it would seem, been silently increased by some 33,000 square miles between 1885 and 1886, took another comprehensive sweep westward to embrace the rich mining district of the Yuruari as far as Guacipati; and this called forth your instruction to Mr. Phelps of February 17, 1888, respecting the widening pretensions of British Guiana to possess territory over which Venezuelan jurisdiction” had never theretofore been disputed.
Since then repeated efforts have been made by Venezuela as a directly interested party, and by the United States as the impartial friend of both countries, to bring about a resumption of diplomatic relations, which had been suspended in consequence of the dispute now under consideration. The proposition to resume such relations has, however, been intimately bound up with the ultimate question of arbitration. Until recently Venezuela has insisted upon joining to the agreement to arbitrate a stipulation for the restoration of the status quo of 1850 pending the proposed arbitration; but it seems that this condition is now abandoned. On the other hand, Great Britian has on several occasions demanded, as a preliminary to an understanding touching arbitration, that Venezuela shall definitely abandon all claim to a large part of the territory in dispute and limit the eventual arbitration to that portion only to which Great Britain has more recently laid claim.
In May, 1890, replying to a note of Mr. Lincoln tendering the good offices of this Government to bring about a resumption of relations, by means of a conference of representatives of the three powers, or in any friendly way, Lord Salisbury offered to submit to arbitration any questions in respect to territory west of Schomburgk's line of 1840, but insisted on admission of the British claim to all parts to the east of that line.
The Venezuelan Government has on three occasions since the rupture sent accredited agents to London to negotiate for a restoration of diplomatic intercourse. Dr. Urbaneja having failed, Señor Pulido succeeded him, and insisted, as his predecessor had done, upon a preliminary agreement for unreserved arbitration, but he was met by a counter proposal for a conventional boundary line which was somewhat more favorable to Venezuela than that formerly insisted upon, in that it departed importantly from the Schomburgk line and relinquished claim to the Barima district, on the main branch of the Orinoco. Not reaching an accord, Señor Púlido returned to Caracas in September, 1890, and the matter rested for a time.
In 1893 Señor Michelena was sent to London as a confidential agent, bearing a modified proposal to resume diplomatic relations on the basis of the status quo of 1850, and to appoint commissioners to determine a conventional boundary, leaving to arbitration any question as to which they might fail to agree. Lord Rosebery, replying July 3, 1893, treated this proposal as a substantial renewal of Venezuela's claim for unconditional arbitration, and in effect declared that the proposed settlement of the boundary by a commission could only be entered upon after Venezuela should have relinquished all claim to any territory eastward of the line laid down on a map submitted to Venezuela 19th March, 1890. This line appears to substantially follow Schomburgk's, with some modification. Señor Michelena declined this proposition and advanced a counter proposition July 31, 1893, to which Lord Rosebery replied, September 12, that it did not appear to Her Majesty's Government that Señor Michelena's note opened the way to any agreement that they could accept concerning this question, but that they were "still desirous to come to an understanding in regard to the frontier between the possessions of the two countries,” and were “disposed to give their best attention to any practicable proposals that might be offered them to that effect."
A discussion soon followed touching a scheme for the British occupation of High Barima and the region to the northwest as far as the Orinoco, which elicited from Lord Roseberry, September 22, 1893, the declaration that the acts of jurisdiction complained of did not encroach upon Venezuela's rights, but were, “in fact, no more than part of the necessary administration of a territory which Her Majesty's Government consider to be indisputably a portion of the colony of British Guiana, and to which, as it has been their duty to state more than once, they can admit no claim on the part of Venezuela.” Against this declaration Señor Michelena protested October 6, 1893; and there the matter now rests.
The President is inspired by a desire for a peaceable and honorable adjustment of the existing difficulties between an American state and a powerful transatlantic nation, and would be glad to see the reestab. lishment of such diplomatic relations between them as would promote that end.
I can discern but two equitable solutions to the present controversy. One is the arbitral determination of the rights of the disputants as the respective successors to the historical rights of Holland and Spain over the region in question. The other is to create a new boundary line in accordance with the dictates of mutual expediency and consideration. The two Governments having so far been unable to agree on a conventional line, the consistent and conspicuous advocacy by the United States and England of the principle of arbitration, and their recourse thereto in settlement of important questions arising between them, make such a mode of adjustment especially appropriate in the present instance, and this Government will gladly do what it can to further a determination in that sense.
With these considerations I commit the matter to your hands, leaving it to you to avail yourself of any convenient opportunity to advance the adjustment of the disputo in question.
I append for your convenient perusal copy of a memorandum' on the controversy, which has recently been handed to me by the Vene. zuelan minister at this capital, I am, etc.,
W. Q. GRESHAM.
Mr. Gresham to Mr. Bayard. No. 548.1
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, December 1, 1894. Sir: On the 13th of July last, in my instruction No. 442, I summarized the views of this Government in regard to the boundary dispute between Great Britain and Venezuela, and inclosed copy of a memorandum on the subject which was handed to me by the Venezuelan minister on March 31, 1894.
In conferences with Señor Andrade, during your recent visit home, he doubtless expressed the earnest desire of his Government for a speedy determination of the question by arbitration.
I can not believe Her Majesty's Government will maintain that the validity of their claim to territory long in dispute between the two countries shall be conceded as a condition precedent to the arbitration of the question whether Venezuela is entitled to other territory which, until a very recent period, was never in doubt. Our interest in the question has repeatedly been shown by our friendly efforts to further a settlement alike honorable to both countries, and the President is pleased to know that Venezuela will soon renew her efforts to bring about such an adjustment.
It is not doubted that you will discreetly exert your influence in favor of some plan of honorable settlement. I am, sir, etc.,
W. Q. GRESHAM.
AMERICAN INTERESTS IN THE TRANSVAAL.
Mr. Adee to Mr. Bayard. No. 437.)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, July 3, 1894. SIR: With a dispatch, numbered 56, of May 29, 1894, the consul of the United States at Cape Town has acquainted the Department with what at that time threatened to become a serious warfare between the Sonth African Republic and the Kaffre tribes on its northeast boun. daries. It is represented that the Transvaal Government threatened to proclaim martial law, and had actually begun to draft or impress its citizens for the scene of hostilities, stated to be hundreds of iniles from the center of population at Johannisburg.
1 Not printed.
Mr. Benedict inclosed with his dispatch a clipping from the Cape Times of May 29 last, which, he states, contains a clear and accurate account of the situation at that date. This published statement asserts that the commandeer-law-by which every male inhabitant of the State between given ages was to be pressed into the country's service for the suppression of the war-was to be rigorously enforced. At that date, however, its operations had been confined to three districts. Naturally this harsh and arbitrary measure was objected to on the part of those not citizens of the Transvaal Republic, and it is understood that protests have been made on the part of British subjects in that quarter. As a last resource, a direct appeal is reported to have been made to the foreign office at London, and “according to recent cable messages the matter is now under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.” Meanwhile, the discontented at Johannisburg and Pretoria are preaching defiance of the law as announced by the President of the South African Republic.
There are several thousand Americans in the Transvaal, mostly in and about Johannisburg. As at present advised, no attack has been made against the State, nor have the lives and property of our citizens been threatened. The Government of the United States would be glad to know what decision, if any, has been reached by Her Majesty's Government in the case of the “ direct appeal” referred to in the clipping from the Cape Times.
I shall reply to the consul's dispatch, and, in answer to his request for instructions as to his guidance in the premises, recite the general conclusions of this Government in such contingency. It may be well, however, for his additional information, to give him copy of your dis. patch to the Department, or pertinent extracts therefroin, upon receipt of definite intelligence from the British foreign office. I make this suggestion with a view to place him in possession of this information at the earliest practicable date, confiding in your prudence and judgment. I am, etc.
ALVEY A. ADEE,
Mr. Bayard to Mr. Gresham.
EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, July 19, 1894. (Received July 30.) SIR: I had the honor to receive, on the 15th instant, your instruction No. 437, dated July 5, in relation to the status of citizens of the United States residing in the South African Republic, and inquiring as to the action of Her Majesty's Government in relation to British subjects res ident in that region.
In pursuance of an appointment, I called on Lord Kimberley at the foreign office yesterday, and found the subject had already seriously engaged his attention.
The question of the exemption of British subjects, resident in other countries, from compulsory military service, had been submitted to the law officers of the Crown, whose reply was to the effect that, by the general rule of law, such exemption was not held to exist, and that it was not claimed as a legal right by Great Britain, but that, by conventional agreement, based upon mutuality between governments, such an exemption could be established.,
And Lord Kimberley also said that by existing treaties between the Sonth African Republic and Portugal, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland, severally, it is mutually stipulated that resident citizens of either and both of the respecting contracting governments shall be exempted from compulsory military service.
The Government of the Transvaal had, under its commandeer-law, sought to compel British subjects within its jurisdiction to enlist in its military service against the Kaffre tribes, and this had led to much discontent, the individual resistance of the impressed citizens, and in many cases to their imprisonment for refusing to perform such military duties.
The presence in the Transvaal of Sir Henry Loch, governor of Cape Colony, was, however, conducive to a discreet and amicable arrangement, and the framing of a convention (now pending) containing a “most favored nation" clause is expected to secure to British subjects the same exemption from compulsory military duty as is enjoyed by the citizens of those governments above enumerated who have treaties with the South African Republic of a mutual nature on the subject. I have, etc.,
T. F. BAYARD.
Mr. Roosevelt to Mr. Gresham.
EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES,
London, August 20, 1894. (Received August 30.) SIR: In relation to the status of aliens in the South African Republic, I have now the honor of inclosing herewith a clipping from this day's Times giving the details of a further debate, and statement of the under secretary of state for the Colonies on this subject. I have, etc.,
JAMES R. RoosEVELT.
(Inclosure.-From the London Times, Monday, August 20, 1894. ]
The house then went into committee of supply, and resumed the consideration of the remaining votes of the civil service and revenue department estimates, class 2.
On the vote to complete the sum of £40,960 for salaries and expenses of the colonial department, including certain expenses connected with emigration, Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett called attention to the oppressive treatment of British subjects who were resident in the Transvaal. They were some thousands in number, and there was invested in the Transvaal some £ 100,000,000 of British capital. In consequence of the treatment they had received at the hands of the Boer Government of the Transvaal, hundreds of these British subjects had been driven from their homes, had had their property confiscated, and had been ruined. These unfortunate persons, although they contributed largely to the wealth of the community, were practically debarred forever from obtaining the franchise in consequence of the Boers having passed a law which prevented a foreigner from becoming enfranchised unless his father had been naturalized. Numbers of them had been commandeered, and when they had been released on the demand of Sir H. Loch they were turned adrift 200 miles from their homes without any means of getting back to them. When he had put a ques