The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-07-18

tfsSk& lf1aNc On e3teer power ny iac otas-
cia1s Of the other. whether based on frNats-
or agreement, or otherwise all Claims for
daTnsges or indemnity under the said
amendment; all questions affecting aiplo-
matte or consular privileges: all alleged
rights Of fishery. access. navigation or
commercial privilege. and all questions
referred by special agreement between
the two parties. shall be referred 20 srhi-
tration In accordance with this treaty /.
and the award thereon shall he final
"f'earth-As.y difference IN respect TO q
question OF fac; or OF international law
Involving The territory, territorial rights.
sovereignty or jurisdiction OF either pow
er. OF any pecuniaryr claim or group OF
claims OF amy ksad involving a sum larger
than &ioooee. shall he referred 40 arhitra-
ton under this treaty. bat II in any such
case. within three months after the award
has been reported, either power prIests
that such award Is erroneous IN respecs TO
some issue of fact or some issue Of lntcr-
national law. the award shall be reyie we'd
by a court composed OF three of the
Judges of The supreme court OF Great
Britain and three OF the Judges OF the SUI
preme court OF the United States. and IL
the said court shall determine. after hear
ing the case. BY majority or not less
than riye 10 one. thst the said Issue has
been rightly determined. the award shall
stand and be final. but in default Of such
Ucie4fnlN1isoH TX S1ait DoS bS fdtsG- ~ 10
protest Is entered by either power against
the award within the time limited. II shall
be final.
'.Flfth-Any difference which. in tho
Judgment Of either power, materially af-
fects its honor or the integrity OF its ter
ritory. shall not be referred 20 arbitra-
ton under this treaty except by special
agreements.
''Slxth-Any differences whatever. ny
agreement FNiween the two powers may
he 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 began his response by
directing attention 10 the fact that Lord
Salisbury in terms excludes from consid-
Grafton the Venezuelan boundary dispute.
but nevertheless declares that these pro-
nossls OF her mat atestys prime minister are
welcomed by the president, with the Keen
est appreciation OF their value and OF tho
enlichtened and progressive spirit which
anima;cs them.
The secretary says that IL Lord Sails
bury had stopped on article 8. no criticism
could have been made except that tha
SUBJECTS to he arbisrated are so cautiously
restricted as 10 hardly cover other than
controversies which as between civilized
states could almost never endanger their
future relations. But article 8 as well as
~ IL AfleaiSHAiS QdatiIeu by article -
since the national honor may sometimes
be involved even in claim for Indemnity
for an individual. Further. the arbitrary
machinery provided by article 4 is open to
serious objection as not securing an end
of a controversy unless an award Is con-
curred in by at least five out OF the six
appellate arbitrators. Therefore. by direc-
tion of the president. Secretary Olney pro-
poses substitute for articles and 5,
hn @ha hal tat hat nlt
congress or parliament at any time be-
fore the arbitration tribunal shall havo
convened, may by act withdraw the par
tieular subject matter from arbitration
as involving the national honor or In
tegrity. and providing further that the
award shall be final II concurred In by all
the arbitrators. IL assented TO by q
majority only the award shall no final.
unless one OF the parties within thrao
months from It's PRONUNCIATION shall pro-
test in writing the award is erroneous in
respect to some issue OF fact or law.
In such case the award shall ba reviewed
by court composed OF three United
States supreme Justices and three British
supreme justices. who shall in advance
added to their body In case they shall be
equally divided on the award. The award
OF this court. whether unanimous or by
majority. shall be fiual.
Secretary olney points out In support ee
his amendments that they make all tho
disputes prima facie arbitrabie. He shows
that the awards. Il unanimous. should be
final equally with those OF the appellate
tribunal. There can he no arbitration in
a true sense, says Mr.. olney. without =
final award. and II might be better to
leave controversies to the usual mode OF
settlement than 10 enter upon, proceedings
which are arbitrable only in name, and
which are likely 10 have no other Asult
than TO excite an exasperated public feel
ing In both countries.
in conclusion Secretary olney says: 1T
only remains 10 observe that. If article
4. as amended should prove acceptable.
10 resson IL perceived why the pending
Venezuelan boundary dispute should not
be Drought within tho treaty by express
words OF inclusion. If. however. no treaty
for general arbitration can now be cx-
pecied. IL cannot be improper 10 add that
the Venezuelan boundary dispute seems 70
offer a good opportunity dor one OF these
tentative experiments at arbitration.
whlch. as Lord Salisbury Justly intimatas.
would be OF decided advantage as tend
Ing TO Indicate the lines upon which
scheme for general arbitration can be tu-
dicionsiy drawn"
Under date OF May is. Lord Salisbury
replied 10 Secretary ulneys statement
by an expression OF regret that In some
essential particulars. the opinions OF tho
two governments do not as vet seem 10 bo
sufficiently In accord 90 enable them To
come 90 a definite agreement upon tina
whole cs this important subject" lie says
that Secretary oiney nistook his meaning
in assuming that he excluded the yenezu-
elan boundary dispute. lie had wished To
STATE his views upon the question OF gem
eral arbitration. "Bat." Eays Lord Sails
bury, II was well aware that AIRY settle
rnent at which we might arrive must. In
its general principles. be applicable 10
disputes not only between Great Britain
and the United States. but between either
OF them and other governments. and there
fore with consideration Of adaptation In
detail II would apply to dispute between
Great Britain AMI Venezuela"
Lord Salisbury then takes up the Ques-
ton OF conflicting territorial claims. stat
ing that with respect TO the mode OF deal
ing with these disputes the views OF ihe
two governments seem sttil apart. and az
seriIng that Great Britain Is not yet pre-
pared for n complete surrender Of her free~
dom Of action. at least until further cxpe-
rlenee In arbitration has been acquired.
He expresses n belief. TOO. that n compuf-
sorry arbitration OF territorial disputes
would result in an enormous multiplicity
of these claims.
At this point there II Injected some cor
respondence between Secretary olney and
Ambassador Bayard relative 10 procure
ment from the British government OF evil
denee for the use OF the Venezuelan boun +
ary commission. which was cheerfniiy
promised and when the arbitration mat
ter IL again resumed IL is through the note
from Sir Julian TO Secretary olney dated
June 3, submitting proposals for the settle
msnt Of the Venezuelan boundary qiles-
Lord Salisbury submitted 20 the United
States aas The friend of Venezuela -