164 



CONGRESS. (THE VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY CONTROVERSY.) 



A memorial to the President and Congress signed 

 by 354 members of the British House of Commons, 

 together with an accompanying letter, were read at 

 request of Mr. Chandler and Mr. Cockrell. The let- 

 ter and memorial follow : 



" [From W. Randal Cremer, M. P., St. Paul's Cham- 

 Ws, 23 Bedford Street, Strand, London, W. C.] 

 " LONDON, Jan. 1, 1895. 



" DEAR SIR : I have the honor to forward you a 

 copy of a memorial signed by 354 members of the 

 British House of Commons. As the object of the 

 memorial is of the highest importance, and the sig- 

 natures represent all shades of political opinion in 

 the British Parliament, I venture to ask for the 

 prayer of the memorialists your earnest considera- 

 tion. Respectfully yours, 



"W. RANDAL CREMER. 

 " Hon. JOHN SHERMAN." 



" To the President and Congress of the United 

 States of America : 



" In response to the resolution adopted by Con- 

 gress on April 4, 1890, the British House of Com- 

 mons, supported in its decision by Mr. Gladstone on 

 June 16, 1893, unanimously affirmed its willingness 

 to co-operate with the Government of the United 

 States in settling disputes between the two countries 

 by means of arbitration. The undersigned members 

 of the British Parliament, while cordially thanking 

 Congress for having, by its resolution, given such 

 an impetus to the movement and called forth such 

 a response from our Government, earnestly hope 

 that Congress will follow up its resolution, and 

 crown its desire by inviting our Government to join 

 in framing a treaty which shall bind the two na- 

 tions to refer to arbitration disputes which diplo- 

 macy fails to adjust. Should such a proposal be 

 made, our heartiest efforts would be used in its 

 support, and we shall rejoice that the United States 

 of America and the United Kingdom of Great Brit- 

 ain and Ireland have resolved to set such a splendid 

 example to the other nations of the world." 



Senator Teller, of Colorado, spoke in favor of re- 

 ferring, and cited instances to show that the Ameri- 

 can Government has always stood by the principle 

 known as the Monroe doctrine. 



The bill was read a second time Dec. 20. Senator 

 Morgan presented some amendments in the form of 

 a substitute for the House bill, which were offered 

 by the Committee on Foreign Relations, which had 

 had the matter under consideration, anticipating 

 that it would be acted upon within a day or two. 

 The amendment was to strike out all after the en- 

 acting clause, and insert : 



"That the sum of $100,000, or so much thereof as 

 may be necessary, be, and the same is hereby ap- 

 propriated for the expenses of a commission to con- 

 sist of three members, to be appointed by the Presi- 

 dent, by and with the advice and consent of the 

 Senate, to investigate and report to him the facts in 

 regard to the divisional line between the republic 

 of Venezuela and British Guiana: Provided. That 

 section 2 of the act approved July 31, 1894, making 

 appropriations for the legislative, executive, and 

 judicial expenses of the Government, and for other 

 purposes, shall not apply to any commissioners ap- 

 pointed under this act." 



In explanation of the proviso Mr. Morgan said : 



"The proviso is intended to exempt the three 

 commissioners who are suggested in the substitute 

 from the operation of an act passed in 1894, the 

 general legislative, executive, and judicial appro- 

 priation act of that year, which in section 2 pre- 

 scribes that any officer receiving $2,500 a year 

 salary shall not be permitted, under that act, to re- 

 ceive any addition to his salary, although he may 



be appointed to some additional duties or to some 

 other or different office. In the event that we pro- 

 vide for the three commissioners, it is suggested by 

 the Secretary of State, in a note to the committee, 

 that we ought to exempt them from the operation 

 of that statute. That is the object of the commit- 

 tee in putting the proviso in the substitute. If we 

 do not amend the House bill of course it is irrele- 

 vant and unnecessary." 



Senator Platt, of Connecticut, objected to the 

 amendments, as not essential. He said : 



" I desire to remark that any amendment made 

 in the Senate will be construed in England as a 

 hesitation on the part of the Senate to sustain the 

 President in the position he has taken. Unless it 

 becomes absolutely necessary, then, to make amend- 

 ments I should refrain from making them, that our 

 attitude may not be misunderstood in England. 



" There seems to be an opinion on the other side 

 of the water that the assertion of American rights 

 and of the American determination to sustain those 

 rights is a campaigning idea, and is put forth at 

 this time for political effect. England must be dis- 

 abused of any such opinion or belief. The Ameri- 

 can people were never more in earnest from the 

 breaking out of the Revolution to this day than in 

 their determination to assert and maintain what 

 they believe is essential to the safety of the repub- 

 lic of the United States, namely, that no foreign 

 power shall establish governmental institutions 

 upon this continent, or unfairly or unrighteously 

 extend such institutions now existing upon this 

 continent. We must be careful, then, to do noth- 

 ing here which will give plausibility to the already 

 prevalent idea in England that the United States 

 are not united and in earnest upon this matter." 



Senator Sherman spoke in favor of the amend- 

 ments, and deprecated hasty action in the matter. 



Senator Mills, of Texas, spoke in part as follows : 



" The question for the people and the Govern- 

 ment to consider, when about to embark in war 

 with confessedly the first nation of the globe on the 

 ocean, is, where are the revenues to be obtained to 

 come into the pockets of the Government 1 ? How 

 are we to get money enough to carry on this war, 

 and carry it on successfully ? 



" Mr. President, during the great civil conflict in 

 the United States the Government was not bur- 

 dened with vast expenditures as it is to-day. We 

 did not have from $140,000,000 to $150,000,000 of 

 annual pensions to meet. We did not have from 

 $30,000,000 to $40,000,000 of annual revenues to he 

 expended in the payment of interest on the public 

 debt. We had an income tax unquestioned. We 

 had a tax on domestic manufactures that brought 

 in one year $127,000,000. The income tax brought 

 to the coffers of the Government one year $72,000,- 

 000. All this, sir, is gone. The Constitution de- 

 clares that you shall not tax real estate except in 

 proportion to population. The Supreme Court has 

 stretched the authority of the Constitution and de- 

 clared that you shall not tax personal property ex- 

 cept in proportion to population. The tax you 

 have got to-day on whisky and on beer and on to- 

 bacco is a tax declared unconstitutional by the 

 highest court in the land. It is a tax that exists 

 simply by sufferance. 



" Then, what are we to depend upon for revenues 

 to carry on this gigantic struggle ? Duties on im- 

 ports? Where are your imports to come from when 

 you are in a death grapple with the greatest naval 

 power in the world? When privateers are swarm- 

 ing out from all the ports of all Christendom on 

 both sides, making the heavens lurid with the flames 

 of burning cargoes in every direction, as they did 

 in 1812, how much imports are going to come into 

 the United States to get you revenues ? The amount 



