A copy of the first part of the brief submitted on behalf of Venezuela to the Commission of Enquiry at Washington has been published. The argument consists of three parts. That now issued comprises an introduction and summary. The second part will contain a statement of the whole case, while certain specific topics will be more fully examined in the third part, which will also contain copies of important documents. The present statement begins with a quotation from Lord Salisbury's despatch of Jan. 10, 1880, in which he says that the Venezuelan claim to the Essequibo River as a boundary would involve the surrender of a province now inhabited by 40,000 British subjects, and which has been the uninterrupted possession of Holland and of Great Britian successive centuries." The key to the position now taken up by Venezuela is found in the passage commenting upon this statement The claim to which that consequence is imputed will be dealt with by another hand, and it may then appear that the alleged uninterrupted possession fas been but the continued repetition of a wrong, such as works no justification of it, and that, so long as England refuses either compromise or arbitration, Venezuela may properly stand upon her strict right, however long the depredations upon that right may have been going on, or however considerable, as to population, may have been its extent.
But even the embarrassment to which Lord Salisbury refers was, says the Venezuclan Goverament, not a real difficulty. Tu 1890, it says Asking for arbitration, it proposed to recognise in Great Britain a right to its settlements on both banks of the uibo; to reserve for itself the banks of the Orinoco which the treaty of Aranjuez had recognised as Spanish, and which every English Ministry, except Lord Salisbury's, had offered to so recognise; and to arbitrate the rest, which consisted entirely of territory where, even then, England had no settlements but the offer was refused.
The New York correspondent of the Times wrote on the 19th of July The publication of the two sets of despatches about Venezuela and general arbitration has aroused but very moderate interest among the American public, Lord Salisbury's speech in the House of Lords on Friday was much more warmly received. The tone of it was felt: to be friendly, and the assurances which he gave were of a nature to dispel some of the apprehensions which exist here respecting an ultimate agreement about Venezuela. There is, on whole, a general readiness to let the diplomatic negotiations take their course, coupled with some surprise that Lord Salisbury and Mr. Olney are still so far from agreement. There is a general expectation that, whatever be the difficulties about the settled districts of specific and the Capuchin Missions, which were arbitration, a way out of them will be found. It is seen, nevertheless, that, taking the despatches as now published, deadlock seems to exist. Lord Salis-{bury and Mr. Olney agree in desiring'to find a solution honourable to both patties, but disagree about everything else.
it might almost be said that nothing but Lord Salisbury's speech and the known wish of this Government for a settlement holds out solid hopes of an ultimate adjustment. Tt has to be added that a danger still exists in Washington. A careful reading of Mr. Olney's last notes shows him in no yielding mood upon those points where he and Lord Salisbury differ. How auch he or the President may be affected by the general feeling remains to be seen, but there is, I fear, no doubt that they still hold to the views expressed in the President's Message of December. As for general arbitration, there is a considerable American sentiment in favour of it, but no very strong opinion is expressed on the merits of either Lord Salisbury's proposal or Mr, Olney's—which is really the President's. It'is' thought well that the subject should be threshed out. There is Some hope that a middle ground may be discovered on which the two nations can stand. Those who know most about the tactical difficulties of the business are least sanguine that a workable scheme is attainable, A Reuter telegram from Washington says the Venezuelan Boundary Commission is steadily. pursuing its investigation. Professor Burr is now abroad collecting information in the hitherto unpublished archives at the Hague, which, it is said, throw light on the merits of the controversy. Dr. De Haan, linguist, assists Dr. Burr, who will be joined by Mr. Frederick R. Coudert. After inspecting the Dutch archives Mr. Coudert will go to Rome to superintend the investigation there respecting the commencement, extent, and duration of the Catholic missions in the disputed territory. In America the work is being prosecuted with equal. vigour. Mr. Marcus Baker, of the Geological Survey, has been working at Harvard ersity Library in company with the secretary of the Commission. Mr. Baker is now consulting Dr. Gilman, who is working at his home in Maine. President Brewer, Judge Alvey, Dr. White, and Dr. Mallet Provost are severally examining the large amount of material which has been collected in preparation for the final report. At the same time work is proceeding at the Commission in Washington.
The New York correspondent of the Standard writes:—In the comments on the. Venezuela dispute, the contrast recently noted between the former violence and the recent moderation still continues. The New York Times deprecates the adoption of a contentious tone. The Tribe remarks that the issues joined prove afresh the necessity and the fitness of arbitration as a means of settling the dispute. The Sian's comments it is needless to cite, as they are merely echoes of last year's bitterness.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.