The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1896-07-18

/
| plan which is suggested in the appended
| draft of treaty would give a country ap-
peal from the single voice OF the for' KIN
| Judge. aud its operation in ares,ins a
| faulty or doubtful Judgment would make
| u possible 10 refer great Issues to arhiira-
| ton without the risk of disastrous mis-
| carriage of justice. | am aware that 10
the warmer advocates VI arbitration ;his
| rlnn VIII seem unsatisfactory and ir,-
| perfect. But believe II Offers AN orpor-
| ;uiity of making a substantial ADJ. nce.
| which a more ambitious arrAns snl,,,it
| would he unable to secure and f. unlor
| is operations, experience should teach W
that our appiehensons as to the dang +
| OF renoslng an unlimited confidence N
\ this kind of tribunal are unfounled 4
VIII be easy By dropping precautions that
viii have become unnecessary. 10 accept
| and establish the iueh of arbitration IN
| its most developed form"
| The draft treaty spoken of in .he ahovo
IS COMPOSED of sin articles. The first
trl,ed states and Grat Britain OF two
permanent judicial officers. one OF whom
Is to bc designated 10y his own nation 10
act as arbitraeor. with one named 10y the
| other sitle on the appearance of any diff
fcmance between the two powers when
| second article provides for the selection
by the Two arbitiaiors OF an umpire to
iaCt between them. The remainder of the
| draft is as follows;
"S, Complaints male by the national
Of one power Against ihe officers of the
other; all pecuniary claims groups of
ella ms. amounting to aloi moro tnan ,iol-
ooe made on either power Ivy the nationals
of the other. whore based an an nlles
bright by treaty OF otherwise, AL clains
for DAMAGES or indemnity under the sasd
lan cunt: an questions affecting Diplomatic
lof fishery, access. navigation ar COM
mcrctl privilege. and all qucs, ons re-
ierncd by special asreeinenr letween tho
two parties. shall ho rcfcrred to aihitrl-
ton IN accordance with ms uclty. and
the award therenn shall h. final
- ANY difference A question of in
r. AZ pttu al ny
territorial rights. soyr' ign;y or iuiiStlc
tiou or.lihcr party. or oi any peouniary
Y wing "a larger sum thti tl~w" shhH
ne referred to arm ,1ation under ,hls
three months after the award has bon
lroported. either house protests that sich
f, award IS erroneous y, respect 70 gone =.
law. the award shall he reviewed by n
court composed of throc q. the iiaros of
the supreme court of the Unired statos
land three British supreme justices. aud
III he said ccqirt shall determine. altci'
| hearing the case. by majority of not less
than ! to | that the award is upi'ightly
determined. the aw'lrd shall stuud and be
fnal: hut in default Of such determine
ton II shall no, lie valid. If IA prpt.sl Is
crtcred by either power aga.ns, M awa'i
F.. wit hin he tune limited, IL shall hc final.
d. Any difference which IN lie JUDI
lis honor or The integrity of It's territory.
shall rot h. referred 10 arbitration under
th,s treaty ,sSScen' by snociai astnem i',r.,
mnnt htitwecn tlc two powers may DO
referred tor decision by arhi;ra IN as
nnless accepted by both. powers the de-
cis.'n snail not be valid"
Secretary Olnev begins hls response 10y
directing ai,enison Ia The fact ihas Lord
| Salisbury. in terms excludes from con-
] s.deraticAsthc Venezuelan boundary dis
| puie. but nevertheless declares that these
| iiyoposais h.sr ,ra i,-siy's prime minister
are welcomed by ne president with me
| ,.cncst arprec ,atior OF their vaine and OF
the onleh,encd aud prosnss;.vr. sp,rr
as hey NANTES, desire that the two
! 81. al English speaking peoples Of the
Two worlds shall remain m perpetual
| peace. he finally rerilrocat"s th"V d'
lie says that If Lord Salisbury had
stopped IN article no criticism could HAY"
| he, n mnde except thnt the subjects To -
! arbIfi.lted are so cautiously res, rioted us
! hardly 10 covor other than controversies
| which AZ between civilized StaN cuuid
almost never endanEor their fntDfr reln-
'ions BIT article 3 ~ wei a. art cir y
| is apparently qualified by article .. since
| the Natiouai honor may sometimes he IN
VOWED even IN CHIN for indemnity for
| nm indlv!dual Furhev. tho arbitration
| policy provided by article is open 70
serious objection as no securing an 'nd
| # th, controversy unless an award -
/ coneurred IN by at least five ont al ihe
! six apIr'lae arbitrator. Therefore. ny
! direction of the president s'ciffaiy o.
/ my proposes a substitute for Articles
/ ana !. tho change. being provisions that
| either congress or parliament. a any
iHmc before the arbitration tribunal shall
have convened, may by act wilhdraw any
part ocular subject matter from arh!ra-
! lion as involving the National honor or
| integrity or providing further vhat tho
I award shall be final If concurred fn by all
IN, ari.,trator. II assen,od TO 10y - ma
! lorfiy only. the award shall be final. nm
| less ore oc the parties within tir"e
| months from Its PRONUNCIATION shall pro-
test in writing tlia, tho award Is orron-
| eous I'm respect some Issue Of fact or
law. In such case the award snail be re-
viewed by a court composed of three
| British supreme justices. who shall, N
advance. agree upon three impartial iur-
Isis 20 he added 10 their body In case
thcy shall %" equally divided on an
! award The award Of this court, whether
unanimous or by majority vote. shall be
scfretarv onry points cut in SUPPORT Of
MS amendments thu, they make all dis
putcs rrima facie admirable ne shows
that the awards. II unanimous snoiild ne
final equally with those OF the appellate
| trihnna II IS hardly consistent with any
rensouahe theory of arbitration. he say"
that an award concm,r..i IN by ne app,"T
peaiahle by that country. Under IN"
amended scheme an award would ref-ni'
from each arh''raiion. 80 that the con-
| the Salisbury draft there would he an
| award only m the rare case in which SIX
Judges favored H. such an arrangement
| ing public feeling and not produc ne
peaceful outcome II Is also to be noted
] that the party defeated by the award oi
tho original tribunal, IN case whore the
| stake II large and the public feeling great
interest. IT might feel itself under tempia-
ton 10 make all subsequent PROCEEDINGS
purely farc)ral by making sure before their
selection of the sentiments of two nj
least of the anpcllate nrbitrators There
can he M arbitration in n true sonse
saws Secretary olnsy. without n final
inward. and 81 might he better 10 leave
controversies 10 the usual mode of set
Element than Ia enter upon proceedings
where arbitration Is only in name. ana
where II Is lkely to have no other re-
lie feeling in both countries
Secretary Olney points out that hts
amendment meets Lord Salfshu1,'s obiec- |
lions to the single foreign arbitrator. and |
adds that II bias on the part Of the for. |
eign jursis IL to be feared. tho Tinted |
States hcing without alliances with anv
countries Of Europa Is certainly moi ina |
party to expect any advantage from that |