The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-07-18

United States and Great Britain of two
permanent judicial officers, one Of
of whom is to be designated by each
nation, to act as an arbitrator. to act
with one named by the other side, on
the appearance of any difference be-
tween the two powers which cannot
be settled by negotiations.
TEXT OF TREATY.
The second article provides for the
selection by the two arbitrators of an
umpire to act between them. The re-
mainder of the draft is as follows:
Complaints made by one power against the
officers Of the other; all pecuniary claims or
group of claims amounting to not more
than 600 made either power by the
other, whether based on an alleged right by
treaty or agreement, or otherwise; all claims
for damages or indemnity under the said
amounts; all questions affecting diplomatic
or consular privileges; all alleged rights of
fishery, access, navigation or commercial
privileges, and all questions referred by spe-
cial agreement between the two parties, shall
be referred to arbitration in accordance with
this treaty, and the award thereon shall be
6nal
Any difference in respect to a question of
fact or of international law involving the ter
ritory, territorial rights, sovereignty or Jur-
isdiction of either power, or any pecunlary
claim or group of claims of any kind, In
volving a sum larger than 100000, shall be
referred to arbitration under this treaty But
in any such case, If within three months after
the award has been reported, either power
protests that such award is erroneous, the
award shall be reviewed by court composed
of three of the judges of the supreme court
of Great Britain and three OF the judges OF
the supreme court of the United States, ana
if the said court shall determine after hear
ing the case, by majority of not less than
five to one that the said issue has been
rightly determined, the award shall stand and
be final; but in default of such determin-
alton it shall not be valid. If no protest Is
entered by either power against tne award
within the time limited 1t shall be maj.
ANY difference which, in the judgment Oh
either power, materially affects It's honor or
the integrity of it's territory, shall not be re-
ferred to arbitration under this treaty, ex-
cept by special agreement
Any difference whatever, by agreement De-
tween the two powers, may be referred 1or
decision by arbitration, as herein proVioeu,
with the stipulation that, unless accepteo ny
both powers, the decision shall not De Vanu'
Secretary Olney begins his response
by directing attention to the fact tnat
! Lord Salisbury, in terms, excluded
from consideration the Venezuelan
boundary dispute, but, nevertheless, de-
! clares that these proposals OF ner
maiesty's prime minister are welcomed
by the president with the keenest ap-
probation of their value and OF the en-
! lightened and progressive spirit WHICH
animates them, and adds:
/
two great English-speaking people OF tne
world shall remain in perpetual peace ne
! fully reciprocates that desire.
| The secretary says that II Loro Sal
| isbury had stopped at Article three, no
! criticism could have been MADE, ex-
| cent that the subjects to be arbitrated
are so cautiously restricted as haroiy
to cover other than controversies Whlch,
as between civilized states, could al
most never endanger- their future rela-
tions. By direction Of the president,
Secretary O1ney proposes a SUBSTITUTE
for Articles four and five, the change
| being that either congress or parma
ment at any time before the arpltra-
tion tribunals shall have convened,
NAV by act withdraw particular SUD-
| iect matter from arbitration, as IN
volying national honor or integrity, and
! nroviding further that awards shall be
! final if concurred in by all the arpl-
traitors. If assented to by majority
| only, the award shall be f1nal unless
one of the parties within three months
from it's PRONUNCIATION, shall protest IN
writing that the award Is erroneous.
In such case the award shall be re-
viewed by court composed or three
! United States supreme justices and
three British supreme justices, who
shall. in advance, agree upon three I'M
partial iurists to be added to their
| body in case they shall be equally di-
vided on the award. The award OF
! this court, whether unanimous or by
majority vote, shall be final. In con-
cluding this note, Mr.. Olney says
ONLY HUMAN RESULTS EXPECTED.
To insist upon an arbitration scheme so
constructed that miscarriage of justice can
not ever occur, is to insist upon the unattaln-
| able and is equivalent to a REIMBURSEMENT
| altogether of the efforts in behalf OF general
system of International arbitration. An ap-
proximation to truth-results which, on the
average and in the long run, conform to right
and justice, is all that the lot of humanity
permits us to expect from any plan Not to
surround an arbitration plan with all rea-
sonably practicable safeguards against failure
! of Justice would undoubtedly be the height
of unwisdom. But beyond that human skill
and intelligence are without avail, while fol
actual results dependence must be placed
upon the patient hearing and deliberate de-
cision of tribunal whose proceedings will
attract the close attention and careful scrut-
my of the civilized world.
1t would seem to be the part of wisdom
/ to establish the principle of general arb1tra-
ton even at the risk of the development OF
defects in the scheme originally adopted. The
/ affirmation of the principle would or Itself
| tend to greatly diminish the chances OF
| resort to war; while the imperfections oi
the scheme. as disclosed by it's actual work
| ing would be remediable at any time by the
consent of the parties. That they would DC
| SO remedied in fact, it is difficult not to
l believe since a principle of such great value
being once established, 1t is wholly unlikely
that both parties would not desire to per-
| petuate it's operation, and would not, there
| FORE be prepared to consent to reasonable
changes in the necessary machinery. IL WouIo
/ tend to insure such consent II the treaty were
made terminal after short time or years,
| on notice by either party.
1t only remains to observe that, IL article
four as amended, should prove acceptable
no reason is perceived why the pending Ven-
ezuelan boundary dispute should not be
| brought within the treaty by express words
of inclusion. IT, however, no treaty for gen.
eral arbitration can be expected. it can
not be improper to add that the venezuelan
boundary dispute seems to offer good op-
portunity for one of those tentative expert
ments with arbitration which, Lord Sails
! bury Justly intimates, would be of decided
| advantage as tending to indicate the lines or
| which a scheme for general arbitration can
be judiciously drawn.
Under date of May 18, Lord Salisbury re-
/ piled to Secretary Olney's statement, through
Sir Julian Pauncefote. beginning with this ex-
1 preston of regret:
Some essential particulars, the opin-
ions of the two governments do not, as
! yet seem to be sufficiently in accord
to enable them to come TO a definite
agreement upon the whole of this i'm
portant subject. He adds that Secre.
tary Olney mistook his meaning in as
suming that he excluded the Venezue-
Ian boundary dispute. He wished to
state his views upon the question OF
general arbitration without touching
upon certain points in relation tc
| which the two questions do not cover
the same field Lord Salisbury adds
l was well aware that any settlement al
! which we might arrive must in It's general
principles be applicable to disputes, not only
between Great Britain and the United States
but between either of them and any other