1844-95] The Venezuelan dispute. 671 attracted little attention. But it came in time to assume a form in which it seemed to involve a traditional principle of American policy. In 184*4 Lord Aberdeen proposed to Venezuela a conventional line, be- ginning at the river Moroco. This proposal was declined ; and, chiefly in consequence of civil commotions in Venezuela, negotiations were practically suspended till 1876. Venezuela then offered to accept the Aberdeen line; but Lord Granville in return suggested a boundary further west. In subsequent negotiations the boundary of the district claimed by Great Britain was moved still further westward, and the exercise of jurisdiction followed the advance. Venezuela, representing that this apparent enlargement of British dominion constituted a pure aggression on her territorial rights, invoked the aid of the United States, on the ground of the Monroe Doctrine. This doctrine has been variously interpreted by statesmen and scholars ; but in its popular form, with which all Governments, including that of the United States, must reckon, it involves the principle that no European Power shall be permitted to acquire new possessions or to extend its dominions in the Western hemisphere. This meaning is conveyed in the phrase, "America for the Americans." Venezuela asked for arbitration, and in so doing included in her claim a large portion of British Guiana ; Great Britain at length declined to arbitrate unless Venezuela would first yield all territory within a line to the westward of that offered by Lord Aberdeen. It must be confessed that demands for the unrestricted submission of territorial claims have by no means been invariably conceded; but the reservation made by Great Britain embraced much territory her claim to which seemed questionable, in the light of the negotiations and in the absence of authentic information as to the merits of the British case. In these circumstances Olney, as Secretary of State, with the approval of the President, in July, 1895, categorically inquired whether the British Government would submit the whole controversy to arbi- tration. In making this inquiry, he reviewed the history of the dispute and the various efforts of the United States to bring about a settlement, and maintained that, as Venezuela was unable to establish her claims by any but peaceful methods, Great Britain's assertion of title, coupled with her refusal to allow its investigation, constituted in substance a forcible appropriation of the territory. Lord Salisbury's answer, refusing unrestricted arbitration, was made in two notes. In one of these he questioned the authority of the Monroe Doctrine, and also denied its applicability to the boundary question. In the other he maintained that the failure to agree was due to the baselessness of Venezuela's claims and her lack of stable government; and explained that Great Britain had adopted an irreducible boundary because Venezuela insisted on including in the arbitration a large tract of country which had long been settled by British subjects, and to which no effectual Spanish claim had ever been made. CH. XXI.
