New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-03-11
THE ARBTTRATION TREATE.

fectly clear, and great victory for that high
moral sentiment which ought to show civilized
nations just and honorable way out Of every
dispute We can see only two criticisms that
can be made upon it, and for the defects to which
these refer Lord Salisbury is solely responsible
Both defects are bad one is vital.
The treaty, following somewhat closely after
that great model by which the Alabama arbitra-
ton was arranged in 1871, provides for the APP
pointment of the Judges and for their meetings
at Paris within six months and twenty days or
at most eight months and twenty days after
notifications have been exchanged 1t declares
that majority vote OF the seven judges shall
decide in all questions that the main case OF
| each side shall be handed in within three months
after the exchange of notifications, and the coun-
| ter-caSe three months later, with further al
owance of sixty days, if demanded in certain
contingencies that all evidence and all dOcu-
ments must be served by each party on the
| other: that the final arguments must be sub
mttcd within one month after the colnter-cases
are in that the award shall embrace distinct
! decision on the nature and extent Of the Amerl-
can Inheritance from RusSla-on the character OF
| Russia's claims and the extent to which Great
| Britain recognized them, and on the present
right of the United States in the seal as property
and TO jurisdiction over areas of the nigh sea
| for their protection II these questions are -
answered as to render Great Br;ans concurrence
necessary to the establishment Of regulations for
| the preservation of the seal the judges are to
or!ain the regulations, and both parties are TO
abide by them and cooperate to give them effect.
This is the treaty, and il certainly covers the
! nd fair l. M MI al
! Two things it does not do 1t fails to provide
for damages against the losing patty for those
injuries already inflicted. The Canadians have
been taking seal, several hundred thousand dol
lars worth annually which we claim to be ours.
We have been coniscating their vessels Now
| if our claims are sustained, England certainly
owes us for those seal while if orr claims are
unfounded, we as certainly owe England for
those ships. Lord Salisbury's position on this
mater of liability is to be justly described as
| contemplate. On December II, 1890, Mr..
Blaine proposed six questions to be submitted to
! the arbitrator. They contained no reference 10
| damages Lord Salisbury was quick 70 observe
the omission. aid in replying on February ~,
1891, he suggested that he was confident the
President would repair it by referring also the
question "What damages are due 10 the per-
sons who have been injured in case it shall be
determined that the action OF the United States
in selling British vessels has been without war
rant in international law?' Lord Salisbury con-
hdence was not misplaced. The President dd
not eyade this issue for a moment. Mr.. Blaine ;
next letter declared that - the President does net
object to the additional question respecting al
legged damages TO English ships" if, in case the
American contention prevails, all the seals
taken by Canadian vesses shall be paid for at
the ordinary price for which skins are sold. This
seems 10 the President TO be the complement OF
Lord Sasbmys proposition"
What could be farer than this? If we have
unlawfully taken Lord "a isbury ships OF course
we ought TO pay if he has unlawiully taken our
seal. Of course he ought to pay. But although
he insists on our liability, he denies his own, al
lecing that nations are not responsible for the
plivate acts of their people. In certain SitIn-
lions this is good law, but it cannot be pretend
ed TO apply to "A case where the unlawful and
injurious conduct complained of is aided justified
and defended BY the Government of the offender.
Lord Salisbury is willing to place the power and
prestige of England at the service of our dis
agreeable neghbors and to allow them, under
that protection, to plumber and annoy us. lie
|
if our pretensions are overmled But in the
same voice he coolly denies any pecuniary re-
snonsibility for them, though well knowing that
they would never dare to outrage us except Tor
his cncoma cement and his assurances Of defence.
The omission from the treaty OF proper la
bility clause is a serious defect, but far more
serious is the absence Of any guarantee for the
preservation of the seal until the albitrators have
"a
reached their decisions. Under the conditions
of the treaty, eighteen months, or two sealing
seasons may eapse before an award need be
rendered Ii is foolish to expect us meanwhile
20 allow the property in litigation to be de-
s,roycd or even used. lt is ours or it is not ;
| if omS the Canadians have no right to modest
IL IL not ius protection and increase can do them
NJ wrong Mr. Whartons letter OF March 3
expresses the argument this subject with
great force and lu,idity. The President is right
in declaring that at is not consistent with good
faith that either party to an arbitration should
pending a decision, in any degree diminish the
value of the subject OF albitadOn," and he is
equally right in holding that while a mOdus
vivend was, before arbitration had been agreed
upon A mere matter of comfy it now becomes
an obligation. We do not blame the President
for not insisting that the modus agreement should
be made part of the treaty though that is
where it belongs He and Mr. Blaine have been
three full years bringing Lord Salisbury to the
point Of agreeing to anything. The British
Premier has persstently, studiously and with
great ingenuity advanced retreated, counter
marched and then demanded new start under
a new set of conditions. lie has done all this
with an amazing disregard of his declared views
his admissions and his promises. The Admin
istration did well to secure an effectual agree
ment fairly referring the main question, and
Lord Salisbury's insincerity even in that agree
ment will be made CONSPICUOUS if he persists