The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1872-03-01
ARBITRATION AT GENEVA.

II is considerable time since the
Treaty of Washington was published; :;
hence it may be we'll enough to state
again how the Board of Arbitration
on the Alabama claims is constituted.
BY the first article of the Treaty Of
Washington the President of the
United States, the Queen of Eng
land, the King Of Italy, the Empe-
ror of Brazil and the President of
the Swiss Republic, we're each to
name one Arbitrator. The Board is
to consist of these five, and the
award of three Of them il TO be final.
The United States and England were
each to name agents or attorneys to
represent them before the Board
We are represented by WIN. M. Ev-
arts, England by Sir Roundell Pal
mer. These are to present the case
of each Government as they receiye
instructions. The Board of Arbitra-
tors are not 10 be governed by any
instructions save only such rules as
the treaty itself prescribes. It is
upon the Interpretation of the rules
SO prescribed that the difference of
opinion which threatens breaking
up of the Conference Court has aris-
en-. The Sacramento Union gives
these particulars:
The sixth article OF the treaty saws
the Board shall be governed by three
articles, which are appended, "and by
such principles of international law
as are not inconsistent Herewith as
the Arbitrators shall determine to
have been applicable to the case. -
The first rule binds neutral Powers
to use due diligence To prevent the
fitting out OF any vessel of war on
its territory to operate against bel
ligerent with whom the neutral is at
peace. The second forbids n neutral
Power TO allow belligerents to make
use Of its ports and waters for naval
operations, or for recruiting men or
Supplying itself with arms, etc. The
third obligates neutral Powers TO use
due diligence in their own ports and
waters to prevent all persons from
violating either of the two preceding
rules. To these three rules there is
added paragraph declaring that
while England cannot assent to for
eign rules as statement of the prin-
ciples of international law which
were in force at the time of the Ala
bama depredations," yet in order 'to
strengthen friendly relations between
the two countries, and provide for
the future" it is agreed that "the
arbitrators may assume that Her
Maiesty's Government had underta-
ken to act upon the principles put
forth in these rules, and the con-
tracing parties agree to be governed
by these rules in the future, TO bring
them to the knowledge of the other
maratime Powers and 10 invite them
to accede To them"
From this statement it is argued
that the assertion by England that
she "cannot consent to rules of in.
ternational law" is inconsistent. The
Union says further:
The majority, and not England
are to determine what is and what
was international law at the time oi
the fitting out OF the Alabama and
duricg the months in which she was
being harbored. aided and abetted
by England. The reasonable suppo
sition is that majority of the Board
have asserted this prerogative bott
under the stipulations of treaty ant
the international code, and that Ev
arts has thereupon, in specific case
insisted upon some Of those oblique
indirect or moral damages, which
) were SO ably stated by Sumner in hi
great Alabama speech.
Her Joint High Commissioner
were overreached by ours. and sub
scribed to and recommended the rat
itication of rules of arbitramen
, which appear fully to recognize Eng
lands accountability for all thos,
"moral damages" SO sententiousl,
and alarmingly set forth by Senate
3 Sumner. She can only extricate her
self from the difficulty by violation
of the treaty, which will leave it op
tional with the United States to pros
ecute her suit for damages, as tn
, New York Herald suggests. cat tn
{ point of the bayonet." The Domin
ion presents fair opening for bay
onet charge at our own good time
, We can afford to wait till Englan'
v gets into war-say with Greece 0
I Ireland.-Oregonian.