The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-07-23


arrive at n common ground of agree
ment."
This diverted the subject at once from
the specific subject of the Venezuelan
boundary dispute to the general arbitra-
ton proposition and upon the latter Lord
Salisbury proceeded to discourse in very
interesting fashion.
Says Lord Salisbury in conclusion:
"The plan which is suggested in the ap-
pended draft treaty would give court
of appeal from the single voice of the
foreign judge, its operation in arresting
faulty or doubtful judgment would make
it possible to refer great issues to arbitra-
ton without the risk of a disastrous mis-
carriage of justice. 1 am aware that to
the warmer advocates of arbitration this
plan will seem unsatisfactory and imper-
feet. But | believe it offers an oppor-
tunity of making a substantial advance.
which more ambitious arrangement
would be unable to secure, and If, under
its operations, experience should teach us
that our apprehensions as to the danger of
reposng an unlimited confidence in this
kind of tribunal are unfounded. it will be
easy by dropping precautions that WIN
have become unnecessary to accept ana
establish the idea of arbitration in its
most developed FORM"
The draft treaty spoken of in the above
is composed of six articles. The first
provides for the appointment by. the
United States and Great Britain of two
permanent judicial officers, one of whom
is to be designated by his own nation to
act as arbitrator to act with one named
by the other side on the appearance of
any difference between the two powers
which can not be settled by negotiations.
The second article provides for the Sc
lection by the two arbitrators of an UNI
pire to act between them.
The third article enumerates the diff,
ferent complaints to be referred to arbi-
tration.
The fourth provides that certain differ
ences on questions of international law or
any pecuniary claim or claims involving
a sum larger than t1OOOOO, after being
settled by arbitration, shall be reviewed
by court composed of three United
States supreme judges and three British
supreme judges, if either power protests
that such award is erroneous in respect
to some issue of fact or international law.
Articles five and six are as follOws
"Fifth-Any difference which in the
judgment of either power materially af-
fects its honor or the integrity of its ter
ritory shall not be referred to arbitration
under this treaty except by special agree
ment.
'Sixth-Any difference whatever by
agreement between the two powers may
be referred for decision by arbitration as
herein provided, with the stipulation that
unless accepted by both powers the de-
cisiOn shall not be valid"
Secretary Olney begins his response by
directing attention to the fact that Lord
Salisbury's terms excludes from consider
alton the Venezuelan boundary dispute,
but nevertheless declares that these pro-
welcomed by the president with the keen
est appreciation of their value, and of the
enlightened and progressive spirit which,
animates them, and adds:
$50 far as they manifest desire that
the two great English-speaking peoples of
the two worlds shall remain in perpetual
peace, he finally reciprocates that desire
The secretary says that if Lord Sails
bury had stopped in article 3, no crit
icism could have been made except that
the subjects to be arbitrated are so eau
tiously restricted as hardly to cover other
than controversies, which, as between civ
iliZed states, could almost never endanger
their future relations
But article 3, as well as 4, is apparent
ly qualified by article 5, since the national
In a c,o;n, For ;ndomnitv for an individual
Tnrth"r tbn arbitrntion nolicv nrovided
i,, ort;n,o 4 10 onnn to serous objection
~ ~ nt sao,,r;ns an and of controvarsv nm.
l." ln,s "o, an a,,,nrd ;S noncn,red in Inv at least
fro on nm+ of tho civ opnellata arhitrators.
Thoroforo of " NV d;rnci;an Of Tho nresident
S,o.,m, oI.1,o,, ~ ,,rnnoaoa a srhat;tura for
art;nIos ond tbn cbon noes heinc nro-
..;a; 49, ani o;,. p 'm nnoroaa 81, norl;an,an
NiSions Ia, In 49, thn anl;traI tr;h,nai
at Any .il'e peiore me @ uroi.r"a H., ot w;th-
snan nhNe conNeheu' my, os sotto,. @ fron,
uraW any particulnr supJtp' .;ona, ,iao, hori
arpitratlon as ihVoivlhs ,i,e ha.,ar s,,'t, tbat
or OF integrity, OF proNluins lui.nei snn. T..
,hc award shaii pe hiai - a'.al eontat ~ h.,
by all the arDitrators. II assen,eu 70 Wy
Il majority only, the AWARD snail pe % hnai
unless one OF the parties wltnin tnree
months from lts PRONUNCIATION shall pro
test in writing that the award Is errone.
Gus in respect to some issue OF rae, or
law In such case the award snaii pe
reviewed by court composed Oh three
United States supreme justices ana tnree
British supreme justices, who snail IN aa-
vance agree upon three impartial JurlsIs
to be added to their body III case tney smnli
be equally divided on an award. Inc
award of this court, whether UNANIMOUS
or by majority vote, snaii pe nhai. -.
Secretary Olney points out that ms