Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - Arbitration
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has been proofread at least once.
(diff)
(history)
Denna sida har korrekturlästs minst en gång.
(skillnad)
(historik)
possession. To this assertion Lord Salisbury
answers, that where ruined fortresses are found
they only testify to fallen dominion. The
English Government could not recognise Portugal’s
construction of the contested question;
according to that construction the question would
virtually turn upon the possession of Shireland
and Mashonaland (the inland country north and
south of the Zambesi). It denied Portugal’s
claim to this territory as so entirely groundless
that it could not enter into such a question; but
has on the other hand made a peremptory
claim, arising from Portugal’s violence towards
the natives who are under England’s
protection, for dishonour to the English flag, and for
other international offences, etc.
The right of possession of the regions in
question can no longer be regarded as doubtful,
since Portugal had set aside the general
international axiom, that the claim for possession
according to colonial usage can only be held
valid when colonization is actually carried out
to the furtherance of civilization and public
safety. Portugal’s assertion that the signatories
of the Congo Act would be the right
adjudicators of the question was denied, upon the
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
