The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1896-02-20
TALK OF ARBITRATION
The London Times Discusses the
Proposed Joint Commission,
ENGLAND WOULD COOPERATE.

The Times Believes That If Proposal for
Joint Commission Were OGioia1ly Sub
mitted Her Majesty's Government Would
AooeptIt with Little or No Modification
LONDON, Feb 20.-A Washington dis
patch to The Times with reference to an
editorial in that paper on Tuesday, with
reference to joint Venezuelan commits
sion, says; "It is agreed here that the gov
ernments would only be bound by ma
j"-ity of the original members of the Joint
Venezuelan commission" The Times ed.
itorial referred to expressed the conviction
that proviso to this effect would have to
go with the plan for the appointment Of
joint commission.
With reference to the growing agitation
in America in favor of board of interna-
tional arbitration the Washington dis
patch to The Times says
1.-The movement here will lend strength
to the movement in England, and Lord
Salisbury will find himself face to face
with an organized effort well led and for
lnidably supported, with unusual means
of securing such attention and support as
will enable President Cleveland to renew
and press his proposal. All this might die
peaceably away if Lord Salisbury con-
sented to the complete arbitration of the
Venezuelan dispute.
"Ot tlerwise he is likely to find himself
confronted with the necessity Of saying yea
or nay to some such scheme as that now
pigeonholed in Downing street. He knows
well that the American executive will
welcome any good occasion to revive his
plan. He will see that that plan, backed
by the executive, is one thing, but backed
by both houses of congress and a strong
public sentiment is another and a harder
/ to put aside. 1t rests with Lord Salisbury
to choose between guarded guaranteed
arbitration confined to Venezuela, or an
unlimited arbitration, opening the doors
to infinite mischief in the future"
In an editorial commenting on the fore
| going i ne Times contends that the method
of procedure now suggested does not favor
a rapid disposal of the disputed question,
but would rather deal with detailed in
I vestigation of different districts, which
would be a work of time. GAS to an
acceptance of the general principles, the
editorial continues, ''the regular course
would probably be that the United States
should formulate them for the considera-
tion of the queens government, which
cannot be blamed for waiting for some
ulOFe duOuOIlUdllN6 pTSoSuOthlOh Ohdh ndo
yet been made.
Nothing is more harmful than to as
sumo more exact and defined agreement
than really exists. What is wanted now
is an exact understanding for a basis of
condition on which an arbitration ought
to proceed. On the other hand, it is not
necessary to wait until we can formally
ratify an agreement on the whole question.
1t is highly probable that if the proposal
for joint commission were officially sub
mitted England would accept forthwith
with little or no modification. This would
save time, and would draw the two gov
ernments closer.
1T is quite mistake to imagine, as they
seem to do in Washington, that general
arbitration has any terrors for the British
government. Mr.. A. J. Balfour's recent
remarks in parliament ought to dispose OF
that idea, But general arbitration could
never any more than partially induce
either England or the United States tC
forego the right of sovereign states to de
fine by negotiation the case to be submit
ted to the arbitrators."