Chapter CXIX: Section 38: abolishes the so-called "Army Canteen," in (2)

"But even if the interests of Venezuela were so far linked to
those of the United States as to give to the latter a 'locus
standi' in this controversy, their Government apparently have
not formed, and certainly do not express, any opinion upon the
actual merits of the dispute. The Government of the United States
do not say that Great Britain, or that Venezuela, is in the
right in the matters that are in issue. But they lay down that
the doctrine of President Monroe, when he opposed the
imposition of European systems, or the renewal of European
colonization, confers upon them the right of demanding that
when a European Power has a frontier difference with a South
American community, the European Power shall consent to refer
that controversy to arbitration; and Mr. Olney states that
unless Her Majesty's Government accede to this demand, it will
'greatly embarrass the future relations between Great Britain
and the United States.' Whatever may be the authority of the
doctrine laid down by President Monroe, there is nothing in
his language to show that he ever thought of claiming this
novel prerogative for the United States. … I will not now
enter into a discussion of the merits of this method of
terminating international differences. It has proved itself
valuable in many cases; but it is not free from defects, which
often operate as a serious drawback on its value. It is not
always easy to find an Arbitrator who is competent, and who,
at the same time, is wholly free from bias; and the task of
insuring compliance with the Award when it is made is not
exempt from difficulty. …

"In the remarks which I have made, I have argued on the theory
that the Monroe doctrine in itself is sound. I must not,
however, be understood as expressing any acceptance of it on
the part of Her Majesty's Government. It must always be
mentioned with respect, on account of the distinguished
statesman to whom it is due, and the great nation who have
generally adopted it. But international law is founded on the
general consent of nations; and no statesman, however eminent,
and no nation, however powerful, are competent to insert into
the code of international law a novel principle which was
never recognized before, and which has not since been accepted
by the Government of any other country. … Though the language
of President Monroe is directed to the attainment of objects
which most Englishmen would agree to be salutary, it is
impossible to admit that they have been inscribed by any
adequate authority in the code of international law; and the
danger which such admission would involve is sufficiently
exhibited both by the strange development which the doctrine
has received at Mr. Olney's hands, and the arguments by which
it is supported, in the despatch under reply. In defence of it
he says: 'That distance and 3,000 miles of intervening ocean
make any permanent political union between a European and an
American State unnatural and inexpedient will hardly be
denied. But physical and geographical considerations are the
least of the objections to such a union. Europe has a set of
primary interests which are peculiar to herself; America is
not interested in them, and ought not to be vexed or
complicated with them.' … The necessary meaning of these words
is that the union between Great Britain and Canada; between
Great Britain and Jamaica and Trinidad; between Great Britain
and British Honduras or British Guiana are 'inexpedient and
unnatural.' President Monroe disclaims any such inference from
his doctrine; but in this, as in other respects, Mr. Olney
develops it. He lays down that the inexpedient and unnatural
character of the union between a European and American State
is so obvious that it 'will hardly be denied.' Her Majesty's
Government are prepared emphatically to deny it on behalf of
both the British and American people who are subject to her
Crown."

In his second despatch, Lord Salisbury drew the conclusions of
his government from the facts as seen on the English side, and
announced its decision, in the following terms: "It will be
seen … that the Government of Great Britain have from the
first held the same view as to the extent of territory which
they are entitled to claim as a matter of right. It comprised
the coast-line up to the River Amacura, and the whole basin of
the Essequibo River and its tributaries. A portion of that
claim, however, they have always been willing to waive
altogether; in regard to another portion, they have been and
continue to be perfectly ready to submit the question of their
title to arbitration. As regards the rest, that which lies
within the so-called Schomburgk line, they do not consider
that the rights of Great Britain are open to question. Even
within that line they have, on various occasions, offered to
Venezuela considerable concessions as a matter of friendship
and conciliation, and for the purpose of securing an amicable
settlement of the dispute. If as time has gone on the
concessions thus offered diminished in extent, and have now
been withdrawn, this has been the necessary consequence of the
gradual spread over the country of British settlements, which
Her Majesty's Government cannot in justice to the inhabitants
offer to surrender to foreign rule, and the justice of such
withdrawal is amply borne out by the researches in the
national archives of Holland and Spain, which have furnished
further and more convincing evidence in support of the British
claims.

"Her Majesty's Government are sincerely desirous of being in
friendly relations with Venezuela, and certainly have no
design to seize territory that properly belongs to her, or
forcibly to extend sovereignty over any portion of her
population. They have, on the contrary, repeatedly expressed
their readiness to submit to arbitration the conflicting
claims of Great Britain and Venezuela to large tracts of
territory which from their auriferous nature are known to be
of almost untold value. But they cannot consent to entertain,
or to submit to the arbitration of another Power or of foreign
jurists, however eminent, claims based on the extravagant
pretensions of Spanish officials in the last century, and
involving the transfer of large numbers of British subjects,
who have for many years enjoyed the settled rule of a British
Colony, to a nation of different race and language, whose
political system is subject to frequent disturbance, and whose
institutions as yet too often afford very inadequate
protection to life and property. No issue of this description
has ever been involved in the questions which Great Britain
and the United States have consented to submit to arbitration,
and Her Majesty's Government are convinced that in similar
circumstances the Government of the United States would be
equally firm in declining to entertain proposals of such a
nature."

_Great Britain, Papers by Command:
United States Number 1, 1896, pages 23-31._

{689}

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895 (December).
Message of President Cleveland to the United States Congress
on the Guiana boundary dispute.

As the replies given by Lord Salisbury showed no disposition
on the part of the British government to submit its dispute
with Venezuela to arbitration, President Cleveland took the
subject in hand, and addressed to Congress, on the 17th of
December, 1895, a special Message which startled the world by
the peremptoriness of its tone.

"In my annual message addressed to the Congress on the 3d
instant," he said, "I called attention to the pending boundary
controversy between Great Britain and the Republic of
Venezuela and recited the substance of a representation made
by this Government to Her Britannic Majesty's Government
suggesting reasons why such dispute should be submitted to
arbitration for settlement and inquiring whether it would be
so submitted. The answer of the British Government, which was
then awaited, has since been received, and, together with the
dispatch to which it is a reply, is hereto appended. Such
reply is embodied in two communications addressed by the
British prime minister to Sir Julian Pauncefote, the British
ambassador at this capital. It will be seen that one of these
communications is devoted exclusively to observations upon the
Monroe doctrine, and claims that in the present instance a new
and strange extension and development of this doctrine is
insisted on by the United States; that the reasons justifying
an appeal to the doctrine enunciated by President Monroe are
generally inapplicable 'to the state of things in which we
live at the present day,' and especially inapplicable to a
controversy involving the boundary line between Great Britain
and Venezuela.

"Without attempting extended argument in reply to these
positions, it may not be amiss to suggest that the doctrine
upon which we stand is strong and sound, because its
enforcement is important to our peace and safety as a nation
and is essential to the integrity of our free institutions and
the tranquil maintenance of our distinctive form of
government. It was intended to apply to every stage of our
national life and can not become obsolete while our Republic
endures. If the balance of power is justly a cause for jealous
anxiety among the Governments of the Old World and a subject
for our absolute non-interference, none the less is an
observance of the Monroe doctrine of vital concern to our
people and their Government. Assuming, therefore, that we may
properly insist upon this doctrine without regard to 'the
state of things in which we live' or any changed conditions
here or elsewhere, it is not apparent why its application may
not be invoked in the present controversy. If a European power
by an extension of its boundaries takes possession of the
territory of one of our neighboring Republics against its will
and in derogation of its rights, it is difficult to see why to
that extent such European power does not thereby attempt to
extend its system of government to that portion of this
continent which is thus taken. This is the precise action
which President Monroe declared to be 'dangerous to our peace
and safety,' and it can make no difference whether the
European system is extended by an advance of frontier or
otherwise.

"It is also suggested in the British reply that we should not
seek to apply the Monroe doctrine to the pending dispute
because it does not embody any principle of international law
which 'is founded on the general consent of nations,' and that
'no statesman, however eminent, and no nation, however
powerful, are competent to insert into the code of
international law a novel principle which was never recognized
before and which has not since been accepted by the government
of any other country.' Practically the principle for which we
contend has peculiar, if not exclusive, relation to the United
States. It may not have been admitted in so many words to the
code of international law, but since in international councils
every nation is entitled to the rights belonging to it, if the
enforcement of the Monroe doctrine is something we may justly
claim, it has its place in the code of international law as
certainly and as securely as if it were specifically
mentioned; and when the United States is a suitor before the
high tribunal that administers international law the question
to be determined is whether or not we present claims which the
justice of that code of law can find to be right and valid.

"The Monroe doctrine finds its recognition in those principles
of international law which are based upon the theory that
every nation shall have its rights protected and its just
claims enforced. Of course this government is entirely
confident that under the sanction of this doctrine we have
clear rights and undoubted claims. Nor is this ignored in the
British reply. The prime minister, while not admitting that
the Monroe doctrine is applicable to present conditions,
states: 'In declaring that the United States would resist any
such enterprise if it was contemplated, President Monroe
adopted a policy which received the entire sympathy of the
English Government of that date.'

"He further declares: 'Though the language of President Monroe
is directed to the attainment of objects which most Englishmen
would agree to be salutary, it is impossible to admit that
they have been inscribed by any adequate authority in the code
of international law.'

"Again he says: 'They [Her Majesty's Government] fully concur
with the view which President Monroe apparently entertained,
that any disturbance of the existing territorial distribution
in that hemisphere by any fresh acquisitions on the part of
any European State would be a highly inexpedient change.'

"In the belief that the doctrine for which we contend was
clear and definite, that it was founded upon substantial
considerations, and involved our safety and welfare, that it
was fully applicable to our present conditions and to the
state of the world's progress, and that it was directly
related to the pending controversy, and without any conviction
as to the final merits of the dispute, 'but anxious to learn
in a satisfactory and conclusive manner whether Great Britain
sought under a claim of boundary to extend her possessions on
this continent without right, or whether she merely sought
possession of territory fairly included within her lines of
ownership, this Government proposed to the Government of Great
Britain a resort to arbitration as the proper means of
settling the question, to the end that a vexatious boundary
dispute between the two contestants might be determined and
our exact standing and relation in respect to the controversy
might be made clear.
{690}
It will be seen from the correspondence herewith submitted
that this proposition has been declined by the British
Government upon grounds which in the circumstances seem to me
to be far from satisfactory. It is deeply disappointing that
such an appeal, actuated by the most friendly feelings toward
both nations directly concerned, addressed to the sense of
justice and to the magnanimity of one of the great powers of
the world, and touching its relations to one comparatively
weak and small, should have produced no better results.

"The course to be pursued by this Government in view of the
present condition does not appear to admit of serious doubt.
Having labored faithfully for many years to induce Great
Britain to submit this dispute to impartial arbitration, and
having been now finally apprised of her refusal to do so,
nothing remains but to accept the situation, to recognize its
plain requirements, and deal with it accordingly. Great
Britain's present proposition has never thus far been regarded
as admissible by Venezuela, though any adjustment of the
boundary which that country may deem for her advantage and may
enter into of her own free will can not of course be objected
to by the United States. Assuming, however, that the attitude
of Venezuela will remain unchanged, the dispute has reached
such a stage as to make it now incumbent upon the United
States to take measures to determine with sufficient certainty
for its justification what is the true divisional line between
the Republic of Venezuela and British Guiana. The inquiry to
that end should of course be conducted carefully and
judicially, and due weight should be given to all available
evidence, records, and facts in support of the claims of both
parties. In order that such an examination should be
prosecuted in a thorough and satisfactory manner, I suggest
that the Congress make an adequate appropriation for the
expenses of a commission, to be appointed by the Executive,
who shall make the necessary investigation and report upon the
matter with the least possible delay. When such report is made
and accepted it will, in my opinion, be the duty of the United
States to resist by every means in its power, as a willful
aggression upon its rights and interests, the appropriation by
Great Britain of any lands or the exercise of governmental
jurisdiction over any territory which after investigation we
have determined of right belongs to Venezuela.

"In making these recommendations I am fully alive to the
responsibility incurred and keenly realize all the
consequences that May follow. I am, nevertheless, firm in my
conviction that while it is a grievous thing to contemplate
the two great English-speaking peoples of the world as being
otherwise than friendly competitors in the onward march of
civilization and strenuous and worthy rivals in all the arts
of peace, there is no calamity which a great nation can invite
which equals that which follows a supine submission to wrong and
injustice and the consequent loss of national self-respect and
honor, beneath which are shielded and defended a people's
safety and greatness."

_United States, Message and Documents
(Abridgment, 1895-1896)._

The recommendations of the President were acted upon with
remarkable unanimity and promptitude in Congress, a bill
authorizing the appointment of the proposed commission, and
appropriating $100,000 for the necessary expenditure, being
passed by the House on the day following the Message (December
17), and by the Senate on the 20th.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1895 (DECEMBER).

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1895-1896 (December-January).
Feeling in England and the United States
over the boundary dispute.

See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1895-1896 (DECEMBER-JANUARY).

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1896-1899.
Appointment of the United States Commission to investigate
the boundary question.
Reopening of negotiations between the United States
and Great Britain.
The solution of the main difficulty found.
Arbitration and its result.

The Commission authorized by the Congress of the United States
to investigate and report on the true divisional line between
British Guiana and Venezuela was named by the President of the
United States, on the 1st of January, as follows:

David J. Brewer, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
of the United States;
Richard H. Alvey, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals in
the District of Columbia;
Andrew D. White, ex-President of Cornell University,
and ex-Minister to Germany and Russia;
Daniel C. Gilman, President of Johns Hopkins University;
Frederick H. Coudert, of New York.

The Commission was organized on the 4th by the election of
Justice Brewer to be its President. Mr. S. Mallet Prevost was
subsequently appointed Secretary. One of the first proceedings
of the Commission was to address a letter to the Secretary of
State, suggesting a friendly intimation to the governments of
Great Britain and Venezuela that their assistance to it, in
procuring unpublished archives and the like evidence, would be
highly acceptable, and that "if either should deem it
appropriate to designate an agent or attorney, whose duty it
would be to see that no such proofs were omitted or
overlooked, the Commission would be grateful for such evidence
of good will." This overture was well received in England, and
had an excellent effect. It was responded to by Lord
Salisbury, with an assurance that Her Majesty's government
would readily place at the disposal of the President of the
United States any information at their command, and would
communicate advance copies of documents soon to be published
on the subject of the boundary line. Before the close of
January the Commission had organized its work, with several
experts engaged to assist on special lines. Professor Justin
Winsor, Librarian of Harvard University, had undertaken to
report on the early maps of the Guiana-Venezuela country.
Professor George L. Burr, of Cornell University, was making
ready to examine the Dutch archives in Holland, and Professor
J. Franklin Jameson, of Brown University, was enlisted for
other investigations.

Before these labors had gone far, however, the two
governments, of Great Britain and the United States, were
induced to reopen a discussion of the possibility of an
arbitration of the dispute. On the 27th of February, Mr.
Bayard, the Ambassador of the United States at London,
conveyed to Lord Salisbury a proposal from his government
"that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington should be
empowered to discuss the question at that capital with the
Secretary of State," and that "a clear definition of the
'settlements' by individuals in the territory in dispute,
which it is understood Her Majesty's Government desire should
be excluded from the proposed submission to arbitration,
should be propounded."
{691}
Lord Salisbury assented so far as to telegraph, on the same
day, to Sir Julian Pauncefote: "I have agreed with the United
States' Ambassador that, in principle, the matter may be
discussed between the United States Government (acting as the
friend of Venezuela) and your Excellency." But, a few days
later (March 5), the British Premier and Foreign Secretary
gave a broader range to the discussion, by recalling a
correspondence that had taken place in the spring of 1895
between the then American Secretary of State, Mr. Gresham, and
the British Ambassador, in contemplation of a general system
of international arbitration for the adjustment of disputes
between the two governments. Reviving that project, Lord
Salisbury submitted the heads of a general arbitration treaty
between the United States and Great Britain, which became a
subject of discussion for some weeks, without offering much
promise of providing for the settlement of the Venezuela
dispute. In May, the correspondence returned to the latter
subject more definitely, Lord Salisbury writing (May 22):

"From the first our objection has been to subject to the
decision of an Arbiter, who, in the last resort, must, of
necessity, be a foreigner, the rights of British colonists who
have settled in territory which they had every ground for
believing to be British, and whose careers would be broken,
and their fortunes possibly ruined, by a decision that the
territory on which they have settled was subject to the
Venezuelan Republic. At the same time, we are very conscious
that the dispute between ourselves and the Republic of
Venezuela affects a large portion of land which is not under
settlement, and which could be disposed of without any
injustice to any portion of the colonial population. We are
very willing that the territory which is comprised within this
definition should be subjected to the results of an
arbitration, even though some portion of it should be found to
fall within the Schomburgk line." He proposed, accordingly,
the creation of a commission of four persons, for the
determination of the questions of fact involved, on whose
report the two governments of Great Britain and Venezuela
should endeavor to agree on a boundary line; failing which
agreement, a tribunal of arbitration should fix the line, on
the basis of facts reported by the Commission. "Provided
always that in fixing such line the Tribunal shall not have
power to include as the territory of Venezuela any territory
which was bona fide occupied by subjects of Great Britain on
the 1st January, 1887, or as the territory of Great Britain
any territory bona fide occupied by Venezuelans at the same
date."

Objections to this proposal, especially to its final
stipulation, were raised by the government of the United
States, and the negotiation looked unpromising again for a
time; but at length, on the 13th of July, Mr. Olney made a
suggestion which happily solved the one difficulty that had
been, from the beginning, a bar to agreement between the two
governments. "Can it be assumed," he asked, in a letter of
that date, "that Her Majesty's Government would submit to
unrestricted arbitration the whole of the territory in
dispute, provided it be a rule of the arbitration, embodied in
the arbitral agreement, that territory which has been in the
exclusive, notorious, and actual use and occupation of either
party for even two generations, or say for sixty years, shall
be held by the arbitrators to be the territory of such party?
In other words, will Her Majesty's Government assent to
unrestricted arbitration of all the territory in controversy,
with the period for the acquisition of title by prescription
fixed by agreement of the parties in advance at sixty years?"
Lord Salisbury assented to the principle thus suggested, but
proposed a shorter term of occupation than sixty years.
Finally the term of fifty years was accepted on both sides,
and from that point the arrangement of a Treaty of Arbitration
between Great Britain and Venezuela went smoothly on. The good
news that England and America were practically at the end of
their dispute was proclaimed by Lord Salisbury, on the 9th of
November, in a speech at the Lord Mayor's banquet, in London,
when he said: "You are aware that in the discussion had with
the United States on behalf of their friends in Venezuela, our
question has not been whether there should be arbitration, but
whether arbitration should have unrestricted application; and
we have always claimed that those who, apart from historic
right, had the right which attaches to established
settlements, should be excluded from arbitration. Our
difficulty for months has been to define the settled
districts; and the solution has, I think, come from the
suggestion of the government of the United States, that we
should treat our colonial empire as we treat individuals; that
the same lapse of time which protects the latter in civic life
from having their title questioned, should similarly protect
an English colony; but, beyond that, when a lapse could not be
claimed, there should be an examination of title, and all the
equity demanded in regard thereto should be granted. I do not
believe I am using unduly sanguine words when I declare my
belief that this has brought the controversy to an end."

On the 10th of November, the Secretary of the United States
Commission appointed to investigate the disputed boundary
published the following: "The statements of Lord Salisbury, as
reported in the morning papers, make it probable that the
boundary dispute now pending between Great Britain and Venezuela
will be sewed by arbitration at an early day. Under the
circumstances the Commission, while continuing its deliberations
in the preparation and orderly arrangement of many valuable maps,
reports, and documents, which have been procured and used in the
course of its labors, does not propose to formulate any decision
for the present of the matters subject to its examination. It
will continue its sessions from time to time, but with the hope
and expectation that a friendly and just settlement of all
pending differences between the nations interested will make
any final decision on its part unnecessary." This hope was
substantially realized a few days later, when a convention
embodying the agreement of the United States and Great Britain
was signed by Secretary Olney and the British Ambassador, Sir
Julian Pauncefote. The agreement was carried to its next stage on
the 2d of February, 1897, when a treaty between Great Britain and
the United States of Venezuela was signed at Washington, which
provided as follows:

{692}

"Article I.
An Arbitral Tribunal shall be immediately appointed to
determine the boundary-line between the Colony of British
Guiana and the United States of Venezuela.

"Article II.
The Tribunal shall consist of five Jurists: two on the part of
Great Britain, nominated by the Members of the Judicial
Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council, namely, the Right
Honourable Baron Herschell, Knight Grand Cross of the Most
Honourable Order of the Bath, and the Honourable Sir Richard
Henn Collins, Knight, one of the Justices of Her Britannic
Majesty's Supreme Court of Judicature; two on the part of
Venezuela, nominated, one by the President of the United
States of Venezuela, namely, the Honourable Melville Weston
Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States of America, and one
nominated by the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United
States of America, namely, the Honourable David Josiah Brewer,
a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of
America; and of a fifth Jurist to be selected by the four
persons so nominated, or in the event of their failure to
agree within three months from the date of the exchange of
ratifications of the present Treaty, to be selected by His
Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway. The Jurist so selected
shall be President of the Tribunal. In case of the death,
absence, or incapacity to serve of any of the four Arbitrators
above named, or in the event of any such Arbitrator omitting
or declining or ceasing to act as such, another Jurist of
repute shall be forthwith substituted in his place. If such
vacancy shall occur among those nominated on the part of Great
Britain, the substitute shall be appointed by the members for
the time being of the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's
Privy Council, acting by a majority, and if among those
nominated on the part of Venezuela, he shall be appointed by
the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, acting
by a majority. If such vacancy shall occur in the case of the
fifth Arbitrator, a substitute shall be selected in the manner
herein provided for with regard to the original appointment.

"Article III.
The Tribunal shall investigate and ascertain the extent of the
territories belonging to, or that might lawfully be claimed
by, the United Netherlands or by the Kingdom of Spain
respectively at the time of the acquisition by Great Britain
of the Colony of British Guiana, and shall determine the
boundary-line between the Colony of British Guiana and the
United States of Venezuela.

"Article IV.
In deciding the matters submitted, the Arbitrators shall
ascertain all facts which they deem necessary to a decision of
the controversy, and shall be governed by the following Rules,
which are agreed upon by the High Contracting Parties as Rules
to be taken as applicable to the case, and by such principles
of international law not inconsistent therewith as the
Arbitrators shall determine to be applicable to the
case:—

Rules.
(a.) Adverse holding or prescription during a period of fifty
years shall make a good title. The Arbitrators may deem
exclusive political control of a district, as well as actual
settlement thereof, sufficient to constitute adverse holding
or to make title by prescription.

(b.) The Arbitrators may recognize and give effect to rights
and claims resting on any other ground whatever valid
according to international law, and on any principles of
international law which the Arbitrators may deem to be
applicable to the case, and which are not in contravention of
the foregoing rule.

(c.) In determining the boundary-line, if territory of one
Party be found by the Tribunal to have been at the date of
this Treaty in the occupation of the subjects or citizens of
the other Party, such effect shall be given to such occupation
as reason, justice, the principles of international law, and
the equities of the case shall, in the opinion of the
Tribunal, require. …

Article XIII.
The High Contracting Parties engage to consider the result of
the proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration as a full,
perfect, and final settlement of all the questions referred to
the Arbitrators:"

_Great Britain, Papers by Command:
Treaty Series Number 5, 1897._

Before the Arbitrators named in the treaty had entered on
their duties, a vacancy in the tribunal was created by the
death of Baron Herschell, and the Lord Chief Justice of
England, Lord Russell of Killowen, was appointed in his place.
His Excellency, Frederic de Martens, Privy Councillor and
Permanent Member of the Council of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs in Russia, was selected to be the fifth Arbitrator. As
thus constituted, the Arbitral Tribunal met in Paris on the
15th of June, 1899. In the hearings before it, Venezuela was
represented by Benjamin Harrison, ex-President of the United
States, and other counsel; the British government by Sir
Richard Webster, Attorney-General of Great Britain, and
others. The decision of the Tribunal, which is said to have
been rendered with unanimity, was announced on the 3d of
October, 1899, as follows:

"We the undersigned Arbitrators do hereby make and publish our
decision, determination, and Award of, upon, and concerning
the questions submitted to us by the said Treaty of
Arbitration, and do hereby, conformably to the said Treaty of
Arbitration, finally decide, award, and determine that the
boundary-line between the Colony of British Guiana and the
United States of Venezuela is as follows:

Starting from the coast at Point Playa, the line of boundary
shall run in a straight line to the River Barima at its
junction with the River Mururuma, and thence along the
mid-stream of the latter river to its source, and from that
point to the junction of the River Haiowa with the Amakuru,
and thence along the mid-stream of the Amakuru to its source
in the Imataka Ridge, and thence in a south-westerly direction
along the highest ridge of the spur of the Imataka Mountains
to the highest point of the main range of such Imataka
Mountains opposite to the source of the Barima, and thence
along the summit of the main ridge in a south-easterly
direction of the Imataka Mountains to the source of the
Acarabisi, and thence along the mid-stream of the Acarabisi to
the Cuyuni, and thence along the northern bank of the River
Cuyuni westward to its junction with the Wenamu, and thence
following the mid-stream of the Wenamu to its westernmost
source, and thence in a direct line to the summit of Mount
Roraima, and from Mount Roraima to the source of the Cotinga,
and along the mid-stream of that river to its junction with
the Takutu, and thence along the mid-stream of the Takutu to
its source, thence in a straight line to the westernmost point
of the Akarai Mountains, and thence along the ridge of the
Akarai Mountains to the source of the Corentin called the
Cutari River.
{693}
Provided always that the line of delimitation fixed by this
Award shall be subject and without prejudice to any questions
now existing, or which may arise, to be determined between the
Government of her Britannic Majesty and the Republic of
Brazil, or between the latter Republic and the United States
of Venezuela.

"In fixing the above delimitation the Arbitrators consider and
decide that in times of peace the Rivers Amakuru and Barima
shall be open to navigation by the merchant-ships of all
nations, subject to all just regulations and to the payment of
light or other like dues: Provided that the dues charged by
the Republic of Venezuela and the Government of the Colony of
British Guiana in respect of the passage of vessels along the
portions of such rivers respectively owned by them shall be
charged at the same rates upon the vessels of Venezuela and
Great Britain, such rates being no higher than those charged
to any other nation: Provided also that no customs duties
shall be chargeable either by the Republic of Venezuela or by
the Colony of British Guiana in respect of goods carried on
board ships, vessels, or boats passing along the said rivers,
but customs duties shall only be chargeable in respect of
goods landed in the territory of Venezuela or Great Britain
respectively."

_Great Britain, Papers by Command:
Venezuela Number 7, 1899, pages 6-7._

VENEZUELA: A. D. 1898-1900.
Change in the Presidency.
Death of ex-President Crespo.
Revolution.
Rebellion.

General Joaquin Crespo retired from the presidency and was
succeeded by General Ignacio Andrade on the 1st of March,
1898. A revolutionary movement was soon started, with General
Hernandez at its head, and ex-President Crespo, who led the
forces of the government against it, was killed in a charge,
on the 16th of April. Hernandez was surprised and captured a
few weeks later, and the rebellion then subsided for a time.
In the spring of 1899 Hernandez was set at liberty by Andrade,
who, meantime, had crushed a minor revolt, undertaken by one
General Guerra. August found the harassed President assailed
by a fresh rising, started by General Cipriano Castro, and the
restless revolutionist, Hernandez, was soon in league with it.
This proved to be a revolution in earnest, and, after hard
fighting, President Andrade fled from the capital and the
country in October; Puerto Cabello, the last town to hold out
for him, was bombarded and stormed the following month, and a
new government was established, nominally under the Vice
President, Rodriguez, but with Castro for its actual head.
Before this had been fully accomplished, however, Hernandez
was in arms against Castro, with his accustomed ill-success.
Before the year closed he had fled the country; but early in
1900 he was once more in the field, maintaining a troublesome
war until May, when he was defeated, and again a prisoner in
his opponents' hands.

VICTORIA, Queen:
The Diamond Jubilee celebration of her accession to the throne.

See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1897 (JUNE).

VICTORIA, Queen:
Her death and funeral.
Tributes to her character.

See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (JANUARY).

VICTORIA.

See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA; and CONSTITUTION OF AUSTRALIA.

VICTORIAN ORDER, The.

A new order of knighthood, to be known as the Victorian Order,
and to be conferred as a mark of high distinction, was
instituted by Queen Victoria on the 21st of April, 1896.

VIENNA: A. D. 1895-1896.
Anti-Semitic agitation.

See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1895-1896.

VIENNA: A. D. 1897.
Scenes in the Reichsrath.

See (in this volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1897 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

VIENNA: A. D. 1900.
Census.

According to a report from the United States Consul at Vienna,
the census taken December 31, 1900, shows a population of
1,635,647, or nearly 63,000 less than that of Chicago, when
the recent census of that city was taken. These figures show
Vienna to rank next after London, Paris and Berlin among the
European capitals, while in this country only New York and
Chicago are larger. In the last ten years Vienna has increased
21.9 per cent, or slightly faster than the average for the
whole United States. Of the two American cities larger than
Vienna New York increased in ten years 37.8 per cent. and
Chicago 54.4 per cent.

VIEQUEZ.

See (in this volume)
PORTO RICO: AREA AND POPULATION.

VILLIERS, Sir J. H. de:
Advice to President Kruger.

See (in this volume)
SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL): A. D. 1899 (MAY-AUGUST).

VIRDEN, Conflict with striking miners at.

See (in this volume)
INDUSTRIAL DISTURBANCES: A. D. 1898.

VIRGINIUS AFFAIR, The.

See (in this volume)
CUBA: A. D. 1868-1885.

VISAYAN ISLANDS, American occupation of the.

See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1899 (JANUARY-NOVEMBER).

VISAYANS, The.

See (in this volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: THE NATIVE INHABITANTS.

VOLKSRAAD, South African.

See (in this volume)
CONSTITUTION (GRONDWET) OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC.

VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS, English.

See (in this volume)
ENGLAND: A. D. 1896-1897.

VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, The.

See (in this volume)
SALVATION ARMY.

VOTING, Plural or Cumulative, and Compulsory.

See (in this volume)
BELGIUM: A. D. 1894-1895.

{694}

WADAI.

See (in this volume)
NIGERIA, A. D. 1882-1899.

WALDECK-ROUSSEAU, M.:
The Ministry of.

See (in this volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1899 (FEBRUARY-JUNE), and after.

WALES, The Prince or.

It has been announced that Prince George, Duke of Cornwall and
York, the only living son of King Edward VII., of England, and
heir to the British throne, will be created Prince of Wales,
by royal patent, after his return from Australia.

See (in this volume)
AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1901 (MAY).

WANA:
Inclusion in a new British Indian province.

See (in this volume)
INDIA: A. D. 1901 (FEBRUARY).

WAR:
Measures to prevent its occurrence and to mitigate its
barbarities.

See (in this volume)
PEACE CONFERENCE.

WAR BUDGETS:
Military and naval expenditures of the great Powers.

The following compilation of statistics of the military and
naval expenditure of the leading Powers (Great Britain
excepted) was submitted to the House of Representatives at
Washington by the Honorable George B. McClellan of New York,
in a speech, February 12, 1901, on the bill then pending in
Congress, to make appropriations for the support of the Army
of the United States. The tabulated statements were introduced
with explanations and comments as follows:

"For purposes of comparison, I have taken the armies and
navies of Austria-Hungary, France, the German Empire, Italy,
and Russia. I have not included Great Britain, for its
conditions have been abnormal for nearly two years. I have
based my estimates on the enlisted strength of the armies
referred to, excluding commissioned officers. The figures are
the most recent obtainable without direct communication with
foreign authorities and are for the most part for the last
fiscal year of the several countries, although in some cases
they are for 1898-99. The German naval budget does not include
the extraordinary expenditures for the new navy authorized by
the recent enactment of the Reichstag. This does not begin to
be effective until the next fiscal year. In estimating the
equivalent in dollars of the Italian budget I have allowed 6
per cent for the depreciation of the present paper currency—a
very moderate estimate. The Russian budget will appear
abnormally low, for I have recently seen it stated at
$159,000,000. This is because the ruble has been assumed to be
the gold ruble, worth 52 cents, but the budget is expressed in
paper rubles, and is now, under a recent order of M. Witte,
uniformly reckoned at two-thirds of the gold ruble. I have
therefore called it 34.6 cents."

As to the military expenditure of the United States, "the
House has during the present session appropriated, or is about
to appropriate, for the support of what may be called the
active Army, $152,068,100.84. The appropriations growing out
of past wars amount to a total of $154,694,292. I have charged
to this account every item that could by any possible
construction be assumed to refer to past wars and not to the
maintenance of the present Army. The pension appropriation
bill carried $145,245,230. The cost of administering the
Pension Bureau will amount to $3,352,790. The Record and
Pension Office costs $585,170. I have further included
appropriations for National and State Homes, back pay, etc.,
cemeteries, and $712,580 for extra clerks due to the Spanish
war. Adding the appropriations due to past wars to the
appropriation for the active Army, we find a total of
$306,762,392.84, which represents the total of our Army
budget. Taking the total cost of our active Army, and assuming
the enlisted strength of the Army to be 100,000, we find the
cost per annum of each enlisted man to be $l,520. Taking the
total Army budget, including appropriations arising from past
wars, we find the cost per annum of each enlisted man $3,067.

"Without including appropriations arising from past wars, we
find the cost of the Army per capita of population to be
$1.99. Including appropriations arising from past wars, we
find the cost of the Army per capita of population to be
$4.02. The army budget of Austria-Hungary is $67,564,446, the
cost of maintaining 1 enlisted man for one year being $183.86,
and the cost of the army per capita of population $1.50. The
army budget of France is $128,959,064, the cost of maintaining
1 enlisted man is $218.74, and the cost per capita of
population is $3.34. The army budget of the German Empire is
$156,127,743, the cost per annum of 1 enlisted man is $277.85,
the cost per capita of population is $2.98. The army budget of
Italy is $43,920,132, the cost of maintaining 1 enlisted man
per annum is $202.65, the cost per capita of population is
$1.39. The army budget of Russia is $99,927,997, the cost of
maintaining 1 enlisted man is $119.65, the cost per capita of
population is 77 cents.

"The appropriations for the support of the naval establishment
are by no means so widely distributed as are those for the
Army. The naval bill carries $77,016,635.60. In the
legislative, executive, and judicial bill there are carried
appropriations directly chargeable to the support of the Navy,
including pay of the clerical force in the Auditor's office,
the office of the Secretary, the office of the heads of the
bureaus, maintenance of building, and contingent expenses,
amounting to $399,150. In the sundry civil bill there are
carried, for printing and binding, appropriations amounting to
$127,000. Up to the present time the Secretary of the Treasury
has submitted to the House a statement of deficiencies for the
support of the naval establishment amounting to $2,491,549.64,
making a total of $80,034,335.24 that the House has
appropriated or is about to appropriate during the present
session for the support of the naval establishment. In
addition to this the legislative, executive, and judicial bill
carries an appropriation of $21,800 for the payment of extra
clerks whose employment is necessitated by the Spanish war,
making a total naval budget of $80,056,135.24.

"The naval budget of Austria-Hungary is $7,028,167, a cost per
capita of population of 15 cents. The naval budget of France
is $61,238,478, a cost per capita of population of $1.58. The
naval budget of the German Empire is $32,419,602, a cost per
capita of population of 62 cents. The naval budget of Italy is
$18,455,111, a cost per capita of population of 58 cents. The
naval budget of Russia is $48,132,220, a cost per capita of
population of 37 cents.

{695}

"The combined appropriations for the Army and Navy represent
the total war budget, or, as some European countries prefer to
call it, the 'defense budget.' The total war budget of the
United States, excluding appropriations due to past wars,
amounts to $233,102,435, or a cost per capita of population of
$3.03. Our total war budget, including appropriations due to
past wars, amounts to $386,818,527, a cost per capita of
population of $5.06. The total war budget of Austria-Hungary
is $74,592,613, a cost per capita of population of $1.66. The
total war budget of France is $190,197,542, a cost per capita
of population of $4.92. The total war budget of the German
Empire is $188,547,345, a cost per capita of population of
$3.60. The total war budget of Italy is $62,375,243, a cost
per capita of population of $1.97. The total war budget of
Russia is $148,060,017, a cost per capita of population of
$1.14. The combined total war budgets of France and of the
German Empire amount to $378,744,887, or $8,073,640 less than
that of the United States.

"The criticism has been made that there can be no comparison
between the cost of maintaining our Army and the cost of
maintaining those of Europe, for the reason that the European
private receives 'no pay' and ours receives $156 a year. As a
matter of fact, while service is compulsory on the Continent,
the continental private is paid a small sum, amounting on the
average to about $56 a year. In other words, our private
receives about $100 more than his comrade of Europe. This
criticism does not affect comparisons, as will be seen on the
consideration of a few figures. The war budget of the German
Empire is the largest in Europe. Were the Prussian private to
receive the same pay as our private the Prussian army budget
would be swelled to $212,354,343. Were the Russian private to
receive the same pay as our private the Russian budget would
be swelled to about $190,000,000 per annum. The difference in
pay does not account for the proportionate difference in the
size of the budgets, for were our Army to be increased to the
size of that of the German Empire our budget would be
increased by $702,644,320, making a total of $854,712,420,
without including expenses due to past wars, or, including
such expenses, making an Army budget of $1,009,406,712. Were
our Army to be increased to the size of Russia's, our budget
would be increased by $1,132,120,220, making a total Army
budget, without including appropriations due to past wars, of
81,284,188,320, or, including appropriations due to past wars,
making a total budget of $1,438,882,612.

"I submit these figures to the consideration of the House
without any comment whatsoever. Comment is unnecessary.

"TABLE A.
Analysis of the war budget of the United States as agreed to,
or about to be agreed to, by the House of Representatives,
first session Fifty-sixth Congress.

1. ARMY.

Appropriations for the active Army.

Army bill $117,994,649.10
Military Academy bill 700,151.88
Fortification bill 7,227,461.00

Legislative, executive, and judicial bill:

Office of the Secretary of War $104,150
Office of the Auditor for the War Department 318,300
Offices of heads of so-called "staff" departments 653,826
Maintenance of three-eighths of Department building 45,990
Rent 13,500
Stationery 32,500
Postage 1,000
Contingent expenses 58,000
Total 1,227,266.00

Sundry civil bill:
Arsenals and armories 281,550
Military posts 1,008,960
Bringing home dead 150,000
Maps, etc. 5,100
Printing and binding 241,000
Repairs, three-eighths Department building 31,500
Total 1,721,110.00

Deficiencies submitted:
December 11, 1900 12,062,223.36
January 21, 1901 5,835,239.50
January 26, 1001 5,300,000.00
Total 23,197,462.36

Total, active Army 152,068,100.84

Appropriations growing out of past wars.

Pensions $145,245,230.00
Salaries, Pension Bureau, etc. 3,352,700.00
Record and Pension Office 585,170.00
National Homes for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers 3,074,142.00
State Homes for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers 950,000.00
Back pay and bounty (civil war) 325,000.00
Arrears of pay (Spanish war) 200,000.00
National cemeteries 191,880.00
Artificial limbs and appliances 27,000.00
Headstones and burials 28,000.00
Apache prisoners 2,500.00
Secretary of War, extra clerks (Spanish war) 600,000.00
Auditor for War Department,
extra clerks(Spanish war) 112,580.00

Total. 154,694,292.00

Appropriations for the active Army 152,068,100.84

Total Army budget. 300,762,392.81

2. NAVY.

Naval bill $77,016,635.60
Legislative, executive, and judicial bill:
Office of the Secretary of the Navy $47,900.00
Office of the Auditor for the Navy Department 68,080.00
Offices of heads of bureaus, etc. 224,430.00
Maintenance of three-eighths
of Department building 45,990.00
Contingent expenses 12,750.00
Total $399,150.00

Sundry civil bill:
Printing and binding 127,000.00

Deficiencies submitted:
December 11, 1900 74,481.09
December 17, 1900 20,000.00
January 21, 1901 2,267,068.55
January 25, 1901 130,000.00
Total 2,491,549.64

Total, active Navy 80,034,335.24
Auditor for Navy Department,
extra clerks (Spanish war) 21,800.00

Total Navy budget 80,056,135.24

3. RECAPITULATION.

Active Army $152,068,100.84
Active Navy 80,034,335.24
Total $232,102,436.08

Army (past wars) 154,694,292.00
Navy (past wars) 21,800.00
Total War Budget 154,716,092.00

Total war budget 386,818,528.08

{696}

TABLE B. Analysis of war budgets of various armies.

Country Population Latest Total Cost of Cost of Latest Cost of Total war
by last Obtainable enlisted maintaining army per obtainable navy per budget Cost of army and
census Army Budget strength, one enlisted capita of naval capita of combined
peace man for population budget population per capita of
footing one year. population.

Austria-Hungary 44,901,036 $67,564,446 368,002 $183.86 $1.50 $7,028,167 $0.15 $74,502,613 $1.66 France 38,517,975 128,959,064 589,541 218.74 3.34 61,238,478 1.58 190,197,542 4.92 German Empire 52,246,589 156,127,743 562,266 277.85 2.98 32,419,602 .62 188,547,345 3.60 Italy 31,479,217 43,020,132 216,720 202.65 1.39 18,455,111 .58 62,375,243 1.97 Russia 129,211,113 99,927,797 835,143 119.85 .77 48,132,220 .37 148,060,017 1.14 United States, not including cost of past wars 76,295,220 152,068,100 100,000 1,520.00 1.99 80,034,335 1.04 233,102,435 3.03 United States, including cost of past wars 76,295,220 306,762,392 100,000 3,067.00 4.02 80,056,135 1.04 380,818,527 5.06

_Congressional Record,
February 15, 1901, pages 2707-2709._

The following is an abstract of the British Army estimates for
1901-1902, submitted to Parliament in March, 1901, compared
with those of the previous year. They cover, of course, the
extraordinary expenditure incident to the South African war:

NET ESTIMATES.

1901-1002. 1900-1901.

I. NUMBERS. Total Total Numbers. Numbers. Number of men on the Home and Colonial Establishments of the Army, exclusive of those serving 111 India. 450,000 430,000

II. EFFECTIVE SERVICES. £ £

Pay, &c., of Army (General Staff, Regiments, Reserve, and Departments). 21,657,500 18,450,000 Medical Establishment: Pay,&c. 1,083,600 908,000 Militia: Pay, Bounty, &c. 2,662,000 2,288,000 Yeomanry Cavalry: Pay and Allowances. 375,000 141,000 Volunteer Corps: Pay and Allowances. 1,230,000 1,730,000 Transport and Remounts. 15,977,000 19,800,000 Provisions, Forage and other Supplies. 18,782,000 18,200,000 Clothing Establishments and Services. 4,825,000 5,530,000 Warlike and other Stores: Supply and Repair. 13,450,000 13,200,000 Works, Buildings, and Repairs: Engineer Services. 3,281,000 4,730,700 Establishments for Military Education. 119,200 113,800 Miscellaneous Effective Services 218,200 200,900 War Office: Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges. 305,000 275,000

Total Effective Services. 83,970,500 85,573,400

III. NON-EFFECTIVE SERVICES.

Non-Effective Charges for Officers, &c. 2,271,000 1,861,000 Non-Effective Charges for Men, &c. 1,485,000 l,379,000 Superannuation, Compensation, and Compassionate Allowances. 188,500 186,000

Total Non-Effective Services. 3,944,500 3,426,000

Total Effective and Non-Effective Services. 87,915,000 88,999,400

NOTE. The provision for Ordinary and War Services is as follows:

1901-02. 1900-01.

£ £ For War Services: South Africa 56,070,000 61,286,700 China 2,160,000 3,450,000

Total 58,230,000 64,736,700

For Ordinary Services 29,685,000 24,262,700

Total 87,915,000 88,999,400

The British navy estimates for 1901-1902 amount to a net total
of £30,875,500, being an increase of £2,083,600 beyond the
amount of £28,791,900 voted for the year 1900-1901. The total
number of Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coastguard, and Royal
Marines, proposed for the year 1901-1902 is 118,635, being an
increase of 3,745.

The following statistics of the numerical strength and ratio
to population of the armies of twenty-two nations, compiled in
the War Department of the United States, were cited in the
debate in the United States Senate on the bill to increase the
strength of the United States Army, January 15, 1901. They
differ in some particulars, but not greatly, from the
corresponding figures given by Mr. McClellan:

"War Department, Adjutant-General's office, Washington, August
28, 1900. According to the latest available sources, which are
considered fairly reliable, the peace and war strength of the
armies of the nations mentioned below is stated to be as
follows:

NATION. PEACE STRENGTH. WAR STRENGTH.
Officers. Men.

Austria-Hungary, 1899. 26,454 335,239 1,872,178 Belgium, 1899 3,472 48,030 163,000 Brazil, 1897 2,300 25,860 China 300,000 1,000,000 (a) France, 1900 29,740 586,735 2,500,000 (b)

(a) Estimated. (b) Available men liable to military service.

{697}

NATION. PEACE STRENGTH. WAR STRENGTH.
Officers. Men.

Germany, 1899 23,230 562,266 3,000,000 (c) Great Britain, 1900 11,904 241,237 (d) 503,484 Italy, 1898 14,084 310,602 1,304,854 Japan, 1898 6,356 115,673 407,963 Mexico, 1898 2,068 30,075 151,500 Persia 24,500 105,500 Portugal, 1899 1,804 30,000 157,126 (e) Roumania 3,280 60,000 171,948 Russia, 1900 36,000 860,000 3,500,000 (f) Servia, 1897 160,751 353,366 Spain, 1899 98,140 183,972 Sweden, 1899 2,513 37,639 327,000 Switzerland, 1899 (g) 509,707 Turkey, 1898 700,620 900,000 United States, 1900. 2,587 65,000 100,000