Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1896-07-23
Terms of International Arbitration
Not Yet Agreed Upon.
correspondence Between Secretary Olney
and Lord Salisbury Made Public-Re-
marks of the Latter In the
House of Lords.

by the state department. While they
constitute the first authoritative dis
closure upon these great questions
since President Cleveland's famous
Christmastide message to congress, it
will be found that previous reports in
these dispatches of the negotiations be-
tween the two governments, have &C.
curately outlined the course of events.
Little substantial progress toward
general arbitration treaty is disclosed
by the documents. An outline in part
of the proposed procedure is laid down.
and the views of the two governments
are so explicitly stated that future dis
cussion may be confined toward narrow
ing the few Emergencies of method. The
further fact is made apparent that the
United States has not relaxed its vigil
lance in demanding just settlement of
the Venezuelan boundary question, and
has rejected the British proposals for
arbitrating that dispute under terms
involving the surrender of any part Of
Venezula's claims. A synopsis OF the
correspondence follows:
salisbury's Draft Treaty.
The correspondence proper begins with
note dated February q last, from Mr.. Bay
ard to the marquis Of Salisbury. Within
four days Of the receipt of this note Lord
Salisbury made reply, readily concurring in
the suggestion to begin negotiations, and
noting the desire Of the British governm
to bring the differences between them
selves and Venezuela to an equitable set
t1ement.
This discussion was at length diverted
from the specific subject of the Venezuelan
do, To 6o o~hi
lion proposition. Lord Salisbury drafted
treaty which provides for the appointment
by the United States and Great Britain of
two or more permanent judicial officers,
:ne Of whom is to be designated by his own
nation, to act as an arbitrator with one
named by the other side on the appearance
If any difference between the two powers
which cannot be settled by negotia tons.
Complaints made by the nationals OF one
power against the officers Of the other:
all pecuniary claims or groups of claims
amounting to not more than s10O, 900, made
IN either power by the nationals of the
ether, whether based on an alleged right
~ treaty or agreement or otherwise; all
claims for damages or indemnity under
the said amount; all questions affecting
diplomatic or consular privileges; all al
ieged rights Of fishery, access, navigation
Dr. commercial privilege, and all questions
referred by special agreement between
the two parties, shall be referred to arbi-
tration, in accordance with this treaty, and
the award thereon shall be final.
Secretary Olney's Objections.
Secretary Olney begins his response by
directing attention to the fact that Lord
Salisbury in terms excludes from consid-
grafton the Venezuelan boundary dispute
but nevertheless declares that $50 far S he
n1anifests a desire that the two great Eng
disappearing peoples of the world shall
remain in perpetual peace, he fully recip-
cocates that DESIRE" The secretary points
cut an objection in that the draft does not
secure an end Of controversy unless an
award is concurred in by at least five out
IF the six appellate arbitrator. Therefore,
by direction of the president, Secretary Oh
ney proposes substitute for that portion.
The change contains provisions that
either congress or parliament at any time
before the arbitral tribunal shall have
convened may by act withdraw particular
subject matter from arbitration as inVolv-
ing the national honor or integrity, and
providing further that award shall be
final If concurred in by all the arbitrator
If assented to by a majority only, the
award shall be final, unless one of the
carties within three months from it's pro
mitigation shall protest in writing that the
award is erroneous in respect to some issue
cf fact or law. In such case the award
shall be reviewed by a court composed of
three United States supreme justices and
three British supreme justices, who shall.
jurists to be added to their body In case
they shall be equally divided on an award
The award of this court, whether unani-
nous or by majority. shall be final.
Lord Salisbury's Reply.
Under date Of May IS Lord Salisbury re-
Piled to Secretary Olney's statement
through Sir Julian Pauncefote, beginning
by an expression of regret: THAT in some
essential particulars the opinions of the
fyyn RI
come to a definite agreement upon the
whole of this important subject.
But says Lord Salisbury, Il was vel,
aware that any settlement to which we
might arrive must, in it's general princi-
pies, be applicable to disputes, not only
between Great Britain and the United
States, but between either of them and any
other government; and, therefore, with GER
tain adaptations OF detail, it would apply
TO q dispute between Great Britain and
Venezuela"
In concluding this note Lord Salisbury
expresses an apprehension that if Secretary
O!ney's plan were adopted nation whose
territory was claimed would avoid all risk
of an adverse arbitration BY refusing to
accept it on the ground that it involved
their honor and integrity.
Friend of Venezuela.
When the arbitration matter is again re-
sulned it is through the note from Sir
Julian to Secretary Olney, June 9, submit
ting in behalf CT his government proposals
for the settlement of the Venezuelan
boundary question in the form of a mem
crandurn from Lord Salisbury submitted
to the United States, as 'the friend of
Venezuela He says that from the first
his objection has been to submit to for
eigr arbitrator the rights of British col
onists who had settled in territory they
had every ground to believe British.
He was willing that the unsettled terri
tory should be subjected to arbitration,
even though some portion of it should be
found to fall within the Schomburgk line.
This tribunal, it is proposed, shall fix a line
binding upon both countries, provided that
It shall not have power to transfer to either