[-184-]
CHAPTER XVIII
THE VENEZUELA CONTROVERSY-CONTINUED
THE effect produced by the special message in England was remarkable.
With all the contention over the Behring sea question, the bickering and
recriminations of the press on both sides of the Atlantic, it had not been
believed that there was really any serious ill-will between the twp nations. The
English press had criticized the United States without reserve, inveighing with
sufficiently evident cause against its disreputable political methods;
condemning its judiciary, made a part and parcel of political spoils; attacking
its protective tariff, which operated to the disadvantage of British commerce.
The American people were taken to task individually and collectively for
countless sins of omission and commission; for the rudeness and vulgarity of a
certain class of American tourists; the tendency to national hysteria. The
universal greed and money worship all came in for the most unsparing criticism.
The American press, in replying, had dwelt upon what it termed the land-grabbing
propensities of Great Britain; its disposition to make war upon nations weaker
than itself, both in numbers and armament; dilating upon the scandals that were
rife among the aristocracy-a counter- arraignment quite as bitter and abusive as
that by which it was provoked, and which was partially directed by hundreds of
Irishmen, uncompromising Home Rulers, employed as editors upon American
newspapers from Boston to San Francisco. The British change of attitude from
time to time was noted with much sarcasm and vindictive-[-185-]ness;
England was reminded that when self-interest prompted her to extraordinary
friendliness toward the United States she posed as the "Mother
Country;" but when a display of authority was politic, we were reminded
that she was the British Empire. Controversy of this sort had continued for some
time with little variation. It was read, indorsed and accepted in both countries
by the masses who rely upon the newspapers for their opinions, and it had
produced the usual results; the judgment of the people was warped, and excitable
Americans and the less rational among the English were ready for any
extravagance of folly which seemed to wear the guise of justifiable retaliation.
The news of President Cleveland's pronunciamento was received
in London on Wednesday morning, December i8th. The great morning papers
announced the crisis in headlines, which, for England, were startling; and the
situation was discussed at great length and with remarkable variety of comment.
The general tone, however, was moderate and was characterized by strong good
sense; petty differences and the trifling faults that had been condemned in the
American character were forgotten. The war-like spirit of the United States was
amazing; it had never been supposed that the wordy petulance and ill-temper that
had prevailed were anything more serious than the ordinary outburst of a family
quarrel. But when it was realized that the people were actually ready to rush
into war without reflection and without preparation at the instigation of
conscienceless agitators, who were behind the President, England let it be
distinctly understood that there would be, on her part, at least, neither a
sacrifice of national honor nor an unjustifiable appeal to arms. The excitement
throughout London was intense; the news was cried through the streets by news
boys, who, for once, emulated those of New York and Chicago in the [-186-]
stridency of their tones. It was set forth in the biggest and blackest of
letters upon the posters held in place by stones along the sidewalks in
Piccadilly, Trafalgar Square and the Strand. It was discussed with un-English
vehemence by passengers in omnibuses and railway trains, at the clubs, in
drawing-rooms, over South Kensington tea tables and at dinner tables in
Belgravia and Park Lane. There was very little anger in all the talk, and
certainly not a hint that the belligerent spirit of the United States had
awakened a kindred feeling in England. There was an impersonal and dispassionate
comparison of the respective strength of the two nations - the great English
navy, and its army, which, insignificant compared to the standing armies of
Europe, was more than a match for the handful of soldiers then stationed along
our Western frontier and scattered at wide intervals, a few companies each,
among the garrisons of the Middle and Eastern, States. With the recognition of
our inferiority in the matter of men disciplined and equipped, immediately
available to take the field, our readiness in emergency, our fertility in
resource, our inventiveness, the ability to think, plan and execute with
incredible swiftness and accuracy, were taken fully into account, and the
general estimate, which was the correct estimate of our race characteristics,
was both just and generous.
The English press and people almost unanimously advocated a
peaceful adjustment of the dispute. There were exceptions, as a matter of
course, the few ultra anti-American papers commenting with severity upon the
servility of England under unprovoked insult, just as our anti-English papers in
the United States urged immediate hostilities.
The English, who strenuously counseled the preservation of
peace, based their hope of continued friendly relations upon what they termed
the kinship of the two great [-187-] branches of
the English speaking people; unaware that the Anglo-Saxon strain had been
diluted in the past half century with the blood of almost every nation in
Europe; that so-called American cities were, in reality, quite as much
Scandinavian, Celt and German as Anglo-Saxon, as in Chicago where Americans are
the merest handful, compared to the foreign population. English had remained the
common vernacular, and a modification of the English law, pronouncedly
un-English in its administration, had survived, but very little else.
Great reliance was placed upon the fact that President
Cleveland's message had met with a vigorous protest from the religious element
in the United States, which, in the Armenian controversy and afterwards in the
rupture with Spain, had shown itself surprisingly ready to appeal to the sword.
There had been a little uneasiness following Mr. Cleveland's
annual message to Congress, when it assembled the first of December, and some
doubt expressed as to his real friendliness toward England, which, up to that
time, had never been questioned. He had been extravagantly praised, dividing
honors with the late Mr. Bayard in his popularity - a popularity throughout
Great Britain which, also like that of Mr. Bayard, was based in no small degree
upon his partisan opposition to the protective tariff. Therefore, when the
moderate demands of the general message were repeated and emphasized still more
definitely in the special message, with hints of a resort to forcible measures,
there was general consternation. Men at first were disposed to consider the
President's change of attitude as something in the nature of a joke, and on
December 20th the following humorous cablegram was sent to the New York Stock
Exchange from the Stock Exchange in London:
"To the President of the New York Stock Exchange: [-188-]
The members of the London Stock Exchange trust that, in the event of
hostilities supervening between the two countries, special pains will be taken
so that the excursion steamers will not hamper the operations of the British
men-of-war."
The New York Stock Exchange replied:
"We hope your warships are better than your
yachts." - an allusion to the unfortunate contention of Lord Dunraven over
the "Valkyrie" a few months before.
Mr. Bayard, the American Ambassador, refused to take the
warlike attitude of the United States seriously. On the evening of the 15th a
dinner was given at the Hotel Metropole for the Actor's Benevolent Fund, at
which the Ambassador was present, and where he had consented to respond to a
toast. Much curiosity was felt as to his conduct on the occasion, but he
manifested the utmost good feeling. In proposing the toast, "The Actors'
Benevolent Fund," Sir Francis Jeune who presided referred to the strained
relations between the two countries, expressing a hope that the only war
possible between them might be a histrionic war. This sentiment was
greeted with tremendous applause, and when Mr. Bayard was introduced the
enthusiasm reached the highest pitch. He said that England and the United States
on that occasion stood on common ground, and he recalled the Biblical story in
which two women had claimed the same child. It was proposed that the infant be
dismembered and divided between the two women, when, rather than sacrifice its
life, the real mother expressed her willingness to surrender the child to the
other claimant. "Our interests," he declared, "could not be
divided; they were the children of the brain and of the heart, and of a common
ancestry. I do not think that they will ever be permitted to die." He
added, "I will answer for my kindred and your kindred beyond the sea,"
and this sentiment was greeted with prolonged cheers. [-189-]
He then said in conclusion: "The time is seasonable to invite you to
name my country and to join hands across the swelling main."
The toast was drunk with increased enthusiasm and the
cheering continued for some minutes after the Ambassador resumed his seat.
The speech was cabled to the American newspapers and
published throughout the country the following morning, and it added fuel to the
flame. Congress was so indignant that many of the members urged the Ambassador's
immediate recall.
While this state of affairs prevailed in the United States,
there was not at any time much disposition to brag or bluster on the part of
even the most Conservative members of Parliament. The newspapers, except a few
of the more excitable Radical organs, and one weekly publication whose hatred of
the United States has always resembled a type of political rabies, were equally
forbearing. Liberals and Conservatives alike insisted that the United States had
taken an erroneous view of the claims of England, which could not be construed
by any rational mind as a menace to her rights and dignity. It was declared that
England would stand her ground, but intemperate threats of war were deprecated,
which, it was declared, would be a disaster to civilization and retard its
progress for centuries. There was nothing that approached the anger and
resentment which was instantly roused when the German Emperor congratulated
President Kruger, a little later, on the success of the Boers in their conflict
with Dr. Jameson's forces in the Transvaal. Then there was an immediate movement
to place the British army and navy upon ·a war footing; extensive preparations
were made and work was hurriedly carried on, day and night, in every ship-yard
in the Kingdom. The flying squadron [-190-] was
ordered home and troops from India were dispatched to the Cape.
What had been known always to unprejudiced Americans who
possessed any personal knowledge of the English people-that there was no real
animosity on the part of England toward the United States-became more than ever
apparent. It was charged by certain classes in America that England, feeling her
isolation - an easy term coined for the unthinking and unobserving-felt the need
of an alliance with the United States in the furtherance of her schemes in the
Far East. It was forgotten that England had already held her own in her
negotiations with the Powers, and had extended and firmly established her
colonies in every continent on the globe without our assistance or countenance,
and that the benefits of an American alliance were not more necessary or
apparent to her at that crisis than they had been in any of the phases of her
previous development.
But, while this was true, and England did not desire war with
the United States, there were undoubtedly prudential motives that made any
prospect of hostilities between the two countries unpopular. There was in
England then, as now, a great army of the unemployed who were largely dependent
upon public charity, with another and even greater class, who, while upon the
verge of pauperism continued to live, unaided, upon their scanty earnings.
Bitterness, hopelessness and dangerous discontent were rife amongst them-a
spirit which had its counterpart, both in extent and virulence, amongst the same
classes in the United States.
War with this government threatened the bread supply, the one
staple which is cheap in England. The extension of territory, success in a
controversy over a remote boundary line, whatever it meant in the
interpretation of diplo-[-191-]macy, conveyed to
the minds of the masses but one possibility - it meant the stoppage of their
rations.
"Bread would go up to a shilling a loaf," a decent
laboring man exclaimed, "which would mean a revolution as savage as that of
the Commune."
The misery of the Manchester cotton famine was recalled-the
outcome of an industrial disturbance, the reflex effects of our Civil War, in
which England had maintained her neutrality and had not been immediately
involved. The progress that the British working classes had made in pressing
their claims since that time was pointed out, their restlessness under
restraint, their privation, which had apparently increased; and a repetition of
the Manchester disturbance at this juncture was contemplated with outspoken
foreboding.
The immediate invasion of Canada, which was suggested by Mr.
Chauncey Depew, or attributed to him, was accepted as one of those mild
pleasantries with which he intersperses his public utterances. A few, however,
professed to perceive in this extravagant proposition a premature betrayal of
our design to seize the British possessions beyond our northern borders, when a
fitting opportunity should present itself. At that time the acquisition of
territory, except in the case of Hawaii, which had been virtually an American
colony for fifty years, was opposed by the majority in the United States. It was
asserted by the intelligent that we had not the genius for colonization, and had
more than enough to tax our energies and resources in correcting abuses existing
within our borders; in averting disaster at the hands of native and naturalized
demagogues whom we had invested with dangerous authority.
On Sunday, after the news of President Cleveland's message
had been received, prayers for the preservation of peace were offered in many of
the churches and [-192-] the sermons of the day
carefully reviewed the existing differences. All the leading clergy approved the
desire expressed by the press and people that the matter be decided by
arbitration, advocating a permanent international commission for the adjustment
of disputes between the two nations, similar to that which was proposed and was
afterwards rejected by the United States.
At St. James, Piccadilly, Canon Wilberforce spoke with
profound feeling, deploring fratricidal strife among Christian nations upon the
eve of that season especially dedicated to peace and good will. He made an
earnest appeal for self-control, and counseled a careful effort on the part of
law-abiding people to restrain from inciting bitterness and alienation by word
or deed, and declared that the interest of the United States and England in
widening the boundaries of Christendom were identical; they were tacitly pledged
to uphold civilization and carry its blessings, virtually acting in harmony, to
the uttermost region's of the globe. The civil war between North and South was
condemned as evil and useless, the end gained having been possible through
peaceable and wiser means.
The congregation were in a peculiarly receptive frame of
mind, and his words produced a marked impression; he was heard with the closest
attention, and, as a last proof of emotions deeply stirred, many were even moved
to tears.
This was the attitude of the English clergy, both the
non-Conformists and those of the Established church everywhere, and it carried
immense weight. The influence of the Established church, an integral and vital
part of the actual government, was especially of the greatest importance, and it
was the realization of this great ecclesiastical authority in England which had
led to a very natural exaggeration of the advantages of clerical advocacy of
peace in the United States, where it was not realized that Chris-[-193-]tians
are divided into innumerable sects; where there is no office that corresponds to
the head of the English hierarchy, and where any institution approaching a state
religion, or any semblance of religious interference in political affairs, meets
instant and violent opposition. There was, however, much truth in the statement
of the Standard on Monday morning that "the exhortation and the
prayers which were heard by so many congregations on the other side of the
Atlantic were only parallel expressions of the profound feeling which pervaded
our English churches.
Lord Salisbury showed a dignified readiness to consider any
reasonable propositions on the part of the United States and the government
readily acceded to the popular demand that the question be referred to an
arbitration committee. While the formalities necessary to accomplish this were
in progress, the excitement in England had time to cool, as occurred in the
United States, and in the deliberations that followed reason fortunately
prevailed.
As a final outcome of the agitation, the violent
demonstrations in America, the gloom and depression which were prevalent in
England, a treaty for determining the boundary between British Guiana was signed
at Washington on February 2nd. The whole matter was referred to a commission, in
which England was represented by Lord Herschell and Mr. Justice Henn Collins,
and Venezuela by Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Brewer of the Supreme Court of
the United States, with a fifth, Prof. F. von Mertens of St. Petersburg, whom
the King of Sweden was empowered to select to cast the decisive vote in the
event of disagreement. The commission entered at once upon its labors, the
Schomburgk survey was scrupulously investigated by commissioners dispatched to
the Hague, where it is believed important data concerning it had been preserved.
In her speech from the throne at the opening of Parlia[-194-]ment
in February, 1897, the Queen discussed the attitude of the United States in the
controversy, "acting as the friend of Venezuela, the terms under which the
pending questions of disputed frontier between that republic and my colony of
British Guiana may be equitably submitted to arbitration". She said:
"It is with much gratification that I have concluded a treaty for general
arbitration with the President of the United States, by which I trust that all
differences that may arise between us will be peacefully adjusted. I hope that
this arrangement may have further value in commending to other powers the
consideration of a principle by which the danger of war may be notably abated.
Justin McCarthy with much audacity criticizes the English in
which this pacific sentiment is expressed, but in his comment upon it remarks,
in English which seems hardly more lucid than that of the speech: "No event
of the Queen's long reign could be more happy or more auspicious than were the
mere preliminary arrangements between England and the United States; and,
undoubtedly, one of the great benefits of such a treaty would be that it might,
and indeed must, commend to other nations the consideration of a principle by
which the danger of war might be made, indeed, the last resource, the very last
resource, of an international controversy."
After the commission was formed, a radical change of opinion
occurred toward England in the United States. In the war with Spain, which was
declared April 25, 1898, Great Britain promptly made known her neutrality
and ordered the war vessels of both belligerents to quit her ports, after
securing fuel and provisions sufficient to enable them to reach the nearest port
in their respective countries. She rendered the United States invaluable
service, however, in declaring coal contraband of war, an edict that was
disastrous to Spain and of comparatively [-195-]
little consequence to the United States, whose ships were readily supplied, even
in the Philippines, by transports loaded from American mines. Even the most
persistent enemies of Great Britain in the United States were forced to
acknowledge that the attitude of England had immense influence in averting
intervention on the part of the other foreign powers, especially France, which
had invested large sums in Spanish bonds, and which indignantly opposed the
willingness of England to arbitrate the Venezuela dispute upon the demand of the
United State's, which it plainly termed a precedent establishing the recognition
of the Monroe doctrine by other nations as a principle of international law.
Many now readily admit, in the light of recent events, that
the breach which threatened in 1895 was providentially healed, and that a
conflict with England followed by war with Spain would have been disastrous, if
not fatal, and it is quite probable that this timely friendliness may simplify
the task of the arbitration committee.