The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-19
Tho Question Before the Geneva FRI
bunal-The Position OF Our Govern

Geneva, published to-day, III connection with
our interesting and important special
correspondence from Washington, place
before the people the very latest
news from the Court of Arbitration
occupied by our government in regard to the
new point raised by England before the
Geneva Tribunal. There was no meeting Of
the Court yesterday, but the agents and coun-
sci of England and America had long and
earnest conferences, and important dispatches
were supposed to have been received by
them from their respective govern
ments bearing upon the question
now occupying the attention of the arbitra-
tors 1t was supposed that further adjourn
ment may take place to-day, probably extend
ing over three or four days, in order to give
/ time for the receipt of official communications
from London and Washington, and rumor
prevailed that these delays will afford an OPP
portunty for certain notifications Of the posi-
ton which may serve to bring about an AMIGA
BILE result Meanwhile the utterances Of Presi-
dent Grant and Secretary Fish, which will be
read with intense interest will probably help
us to form a more intelligent opinion as to the
prospects of the Treaty Of Washington.
The first question to be decided is the one
raised by England as to the power OF the
Geneva Tribunal to extend the time for the
submission of the English argument. Upon
that hinges at present the fate of the treaty;
because, if the eight months adjournment
demanded by the British agent be not granted,
the English government Will then have to
decide whether they will remain before the
Court with the claims for indirect losses still
in the American case or will withdraw from
the arbitration and destroy the treaty. The
power of the Court in this respect can be
looked for only in the treaty which created
it. The Court is now sitting in compliance
with the fifth article of the treaty which it is
well to repeat here in order that our readers
may have clear view of the argument
ARTICLE Sit shall be the duty OF the agent of
each party within two months after the expiration
OF the time limited for the delivery OF the counter
on both sides, to deliver in duplicate to each
OF the said arbitraors and to the agent of the other
party written or printed argument showing the
government relies; and the arbitrator may, II they
desire further calculation with regard to any point,
ment, or oral argument by counsel upon 1t; but In
such case the other party shall be entitled to reply
either orally or In writing as the case may be.
This article, it will be seen, makes it the
duty of each government, through its agent,
to submit its argument to the Court and to the
other contracting party within two months
after the delivery of the counter cases on both
sides. The time for the performance Of this
duty has arrived. The American argument
has been delivered to the Court and presented
to the British agent in accordance with the
requirements of the treaty The English |
argument has not been delivered, but instead,
the demand for e;Slr months delay has been |
made to the Court. Without commenting on
the undue advantage England would
derive from an eight months study
Of the American argument, while withholding
her own from our knowledge, we confine our
inquiry to the single point Of the power of the
Court to accede to the British request. 1t is
clear that the time rthe submission of the
argument is definitely fixed in the treaty.
When we look into that instrument we are not |
left in doubt as to the intention Of the Court to
make the limitation binding, or as to the pur-
pose of SO doing. All through the treaty runs
the principle of bringing the arbitration
to close as speedily as consistent,
and of preventing the possibility of
procrastination on either side. The
powers and duties of the Court are for that
reason expressly set forth The first article
declares the object of the treaty to be ''to pro-
vide for the speedy settlement Of the Ameri-
can claims, and to that end provision is made
in that artice-first, that in case of the death,
absence or incapacity of any arbitrator, or of
his emitting or declining to serve, the govern
ment he represents may forthwith fill his
place and next, that if the government
whose representative the absentee is, omits or
refuses for two months to name his successor,
the King of Sweden and Norway shall be re-
quested to make the selection Thus we find
that so far as the construction of the Court IS
concerned longer delay than two months is
provided against The second article requires
the arbitrators to meet at Geneva sat the
earliest convenient day after they shall have
been named" The third article provides
that the written or printed case Of each Of the
two parties with the documents, correspond
ence and evidence, shall be delivered to the
Court and to the other party ''withn period
not exceeding six months from the date of the
exchange of the ratification of this treaty"
The fourth article has so important bearing
on the present question of the power of the
Court that we give its words:-
ARTICLE 4.-Wthin four months after the delivery
on both sides OF the written or printed case either
party may, in like manner, deliver in duplicate to
each OF the said arbrators and to the agent OF the
other party. counter case aAd additional docu-
ments correspondence and evidence in reply to
the case, documents correspondence and evidence
so presented by the other party.
The arbitrator may, however extend the time
for delivering such counter case, documents, cor
rcspondence and evidence when, In their judgment,
II becomes necessary in consequence OF the dis
lance of the place from which the evidence to be
presented IL to be procured