The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1896-07-18
tion without risk Of disastrous mis-
A 4 t-r.i a 90 - ttteftna

tion without risk Of a disastrous mis-
carriage Of justice"
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 or more permanent judicial OIL
cials, one OF whom is to be designated
by his own nation to act ms an arbltra-
tor, 10 act with one named by the other
side on the appearance OF any differ
ence between the two powers which
cannot be settled by negotiations
Lord Salisbury then quotes the draft
of the treaty at considerable length.
Article 4 OF the draft Is as follows:
ANY difference In respect to ques-
tion Of international law, involving the
territory. territorial rights sovereignty
or jurisdiction of either power. or any
pecuniary claim or group of claims Of
any kind involving a sum larger than
GlO0.0Oo shall be referred TO arbitration
under this treaty. But II any such
case. within three months after the
award has been reported, either power
protests that such award il erroneous
in respect to some issue OF fact or some
issue OF International law. the reward
shall be reviewed by court composed
court Of Great Britain and three OF the
judges of the supreme court OF the
United States: and II the said court
shall determine. after hearing the case
by a 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 deter
mination 1t shall not be valid. If no
protest Is entered by either power
against the award within the time linz
tied. II shall be final"
Secretary Olney began his regponse
by directing attention to the fact thar
Lord Salisbury In terms excludes from
consideration the Venezuelan boundary
dispute, but nevertheless declares that
these proposals'of her majesty's prime
minister are welcomed by the president
with the keenest appreciation of their
value and of the enlightened and pro-
gressive spirit which animates them.
The secretary says article 4 Is open 10
serious objection, as not securing an
end of n controversy unless an award
is concurred in by at least five out OF
six appellate arbitrators. Therefore,
by direction OF the president. Secretary
Olney proposes n substitute for articles
4 and 5. the change being provisions
any time before the arbitration tribu-
nal shall have convened may. by act.
withdraw that particular subject mat
ter from arbitration as Involving the
national honor or integrity and pr0vld-
ing further, that the award shall be
final II concurred In by all the arbitra-
tors. III assented by a majority only.
the award shall be final, unless one Of
the parties. within three months from
the promulgation. shall protest In writ
ing that the award Is erroneous i'm re-
spect to some issue Of law. In such
case the award shall be reviewed by a
court composed Of three United States
supreme Justices and three British su-
preme justices, who shall. in advance.
agree upon three impartial Jurists to
be added to their body In case they
shall be equally divided on the award.
The award of this court, whether unan-
imous or by majority. shall be maj.
Secretary Olney shows that the
awards, " unanimous, should be maj.
equally with those OF the appellate TIL
bunal There can be no arbitration In
a true sense. says Olney, without
final award, and Il might be better to
leave controversies to the usual mode
of settlement than to enter upon pro-
ceedlngs which are arbltrable in name
only. and which are likely to have no
other results than to excite an eNasper-
ated public feeling In both countries.
In conclusion, Secretary Olney says
"It only remains b observe that, IL ar
ticle 4. as amended, should prove ac-
ceptable, no reason Is perceived why
the pending Venezuelan boundary dis
pute should not be brought within the
treaty by the express words OF inciu-
sion. IL. however. no treaty Tor gem
erai arbitration can be now expect,u,
n cannot be improper to add that the
Venezuelan boundary dispute seems to
offer a good opportunity for one OF
these tentative experiments at arbitra-
tion. which. as Lord Salisbury Justly
intimates, would be Of decided advan-
tage rs tending to indicate the lines on
which a scheme for general arbitration
can be judiciously drawn