Columbia; Andrew D. White, formerly minister to Germany and to Russia; Frederic R. Coudert, one of the foremost lawyers of New York, and Daniel C. Gilman, president of Johns Hopkins University. A worthier company of men for the great task could scarcely have been selected. A number of competent experts were engaged to search the historical and diplomatic records of Spain, Holland, and other countries, for data bearing upon the matter in dispute.

In Great Britain the President's message was received with astonishment. It had not been supposed that the American government took the case so much to heart. Moreover, it was thought that Cleveland's language was needlessly harsh and provocative. There were some who resented it and retorted harshly. But the foremost public men and prints were moderate and conciliatory themselves and deprecated violence of tone in others. The Prince of Wales publicly expressed confidence that the crisis would be arranged in a manner satisfactory to both parties. Lord Rosebery, the foremost Liberal statesman, disbelieved the possibility of war over the matter, which, he said, would be the greatest crime on record, and Arthur J. Balfour, the Conservative leader, expressed himself in similar terms. It has also been confidently stated, by those who were in a position to know, that the venerable queen, then approaching the sixtieth anniversary of her accession to the throne, exerted her personal influence directly and effectively toward conciliation. With such authoritative utterances as the real voice of England, it was not surprising that the British government presently began to coöperate with the American commissioners. It gave access to all sources of information within its control and facilitated the investigation in all possible ways. The investigation was not, however, to be completed. Before it had proceeded far, though far enough to demonstrate the thoroughness, the impartiality, and the benevolent spirit of the American commissioners, the British government signified its willingness to accede to the former suggestion of the United States, and to submit the entire boundary question to the judgment of an international tribunal of arbitration. The United States government of course gladly assented to this, and the work of the commission was discontinued.

A treaty was accordingly signed at Washington on February 27, 1897, by the representatives of the British and Venezuelan governments, providing for such disposition of the controversy. Under it there was formed an international commission of five jurists, to serve as a court of arbitration. Two were appointed by the British government: Lord Russell of Killowen, the lord chief justice of England, and Sir Richard Collins, a lord justice of appeals; two by the United States government: Melville W. Fuller, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, and David J. Brewer, a justice of that court; and the fifth by the four members already designated, Frederic F. De Martens, a distinguished Russian jurist. This commission met at Paris in the summer of 1899. The Venezuelan case was presented to it by Benjamin Harrison, Ex-President of the United States; Benjamin F. Tracy, a former cabinet minister of the United States; Mr. Mallet-Prevost, and the Marquis De Rojas. The British case was presented by Sir Richard Webster, Sir Robert Reid, and other eminent counsel. Beginning in June, the trial continued until October 3, when a verdict was rendered, which was in the nature of a compromise, giving a large area of inland territory to Great Britain, but giving to Venezuela the entire mouth and delta of the Orinoco and thus complete possession of that great river.

Few incidents in the whole history of Anglo-American relations have been the subject of more controversy than this. While, as already stated, Cleveland received hearty support from men of both parties during the crisis, he was afterward severely criticized, and his secretary of state, Olney, was still more severely criticized and even condemned, for what was regarded even by some of their political friends as needless harshness in dealing with a great and friendly power, and by their political foes as unscrupulous "jingoism" and the wanton affronting of Great Britain in order to favor a turbulent and ungrateful country which could not make so good use of the disputed territory as Great Britain could and would have done. It may be that Cleveland's message might have been framed in language which while not less explicit and resolute would have been less likely to give offense. For the rest, the criticisms of his course have been provoked chiefly by factional enmity to

VOL. II-8.

the man, or by resentment at the later bad conduct of Venezuela in other matters. Some details of manner aside, Cleveland's course must stand approved, as practically necessary for the maintenance of American interests and principles. It is true that Great Britain might and would have made far better use of the disputed lands than Venezuela did or is likely ever to do. It may also be quite true that in itself that single act of aggression upon and spoliation of Venezuela would have caused no danger nor loss to the United States. On the contrary, it might have been commercially profitable to this country to have Great Britain supplant Venezuela in the control of the Orinoco. Nevertheless our neglect to take cognizance of the case would have involved a practical abandonment and consequent violation of the Monroe Doctrine, and thus would have established a precedent which might have proved almost infinitely mischievous. The prompt reversal of the British refusal to arbitrate, the unhesitating acceptance of the arbitral result, and the swift and complete disappearance of all traces of annoyance or irritation, are an agreeable vindication of the propriety of the American course in insisting upon arbitration of a dispute which was in every respect preeminently suited to such disposition.

There followed closely upon this animated and at times ominous controversy an important attempt to provide a permanent means of composing international disputes in a more prompt and systematic manner. Congress in 1890 had requested the PresiIdent to invite, from time to time, as fit occasions might arise, negotiations with any Government with which the United States had or might have diplomatic relations, to the end that any dif ferences or disputes arising between the two governments which could not be adjusted by ordinary diplomatic agency might be referred to arbitration and be peaceably adjusted by such means. The British House of Commons had, in 1893, adopted a resolution expressing satisfaction at this purpose of the American government, and a hope that the British government would coöperate for its fulfilment. Accordingly Olney and Sir Julian -afterward Lord-Pauncefote, the British ambassador at Washington, in 1896 negotiated a general arbitration treaty between the two countries, which was signed and laid before the Senate for ratification on January 11, 1897. This treaty provided for

the reference of pecuniary claims, and all other matters in difference, not involving title to territory, to arbitral tribunals in which the two governments should be equally represented and in which there should be an umpire mutually selected from some impartial power. The treaty was to be in force for five years, and further until terminated after a year's notice by either party. The Cleveland administration ended on March 4, 1897, before the treaty was acted upon by the Senate, but the McKinley administration, which succeeded, did not withdraw it, but earnestly desired its ratification. But the Senate, for reasons which were by no means convincing outside of its own body, first radically modified the instrument, and then, on May 5, declined to ratify it. In thus acting it was moved in some degree by factional animosities, in some degree by an unreasoning suspicion of or enmity toward Great Britain, and perhaps in chief measure by a timorous reluctance thus formally and specifically to commit the nation to a policy which had in fact been approved by it for more than a hundred years. The failure of these negotiations was much regretted, but caused no ill-will between the nations; nor was it for a moment accepted by the advocates of arbitration as a final defeat.

A noteworthy incident of both official and popular intercourse between Great Britain and America occurred in June, 1897, when the sixtieth anniversary of the accession of Queen Victoria was celebrated with unprecedented splendor. The United States government was represented on that occasion by a special ambassador, in the person of Whitelaw Reid, formerly minister to France and afterward ambassador to Great Britain, and his place in the august ceremonies conclusively indicated' the closeness and cordiality of relations between the two great Englishspeaking powers. The passionate words of two years before and the menace of war, over the Venezuela boundary, seemed to have passed from memory, and the United Kingdom and the United States appeared to be more closely drawn together than at any other time in the history of their separate existence.

T

XXVI

SOME DIPLOMATIC MISCELLANY

HE generation following the Civil War saw many changes

in American relations with Europe, and indeed with all the world, but these were in the main gradual rather than sudden, and were marked with few striking episodes. The construction of a successful and permanent telegraphic cable across the Atlantic Ocean, dating from July 28, 1866, conduced enormously to these changes, in a most beneficial way. Facilities for business communication and social intercourse were thus greatly increased. There was a similar expansion of public knowledge in each continent of current events in the other. It was also made possible to transact diplomatic business far more promptly and expeditiously than before. Indeed, this achievement probably did more than anything else in history, not excepting even the invention of steam navigation, to bring the two continents together in common understanding and sympathy, and its effects were soon perceptible in more than one gratifying direction. The first cable was between the United States and the British Isles. But three years later, on July 14, 1869, one was put into operation between this country and France. Since then the sumber of such lines of communication has steadily increased with the increasing demands of intercourse.

Intimacy of relations between the two continents was further promoted in 1867 by the holding of a great world's fair in Paris, at which the United States was largely represented, and which attracted great numbers of American visitors to the French capital and thence to other parts of Europe. In the half dozen years following our Civil War, in fact, there was an extraordinary and unprecedented increase of intercourse of all kinds between America and Europe, in both directions, and the two continents came to understand each other and to take in