The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1896-07-18
TO DO AWAY
WITH WAR.
England and United States Adj
vance Toward Arbitration.
Twelve Letters Pass Between
Olney and Salisbury.
NO AGREEMENT YET.
Nothing Is Decided Regarding
the VenezueIan Dispute.
But Considerable Progress Is
Made Toward Arbitration.

washington, july 1S.-1he cores
pondence which has passed between
the governments of the United States
and Great Britain respecting the es-
adjustment of a general system of ar
bitratiOn for the settlement of any dis
putes which might arise between the
countries and for the settlement by ar
bitratiOn of the dispute over the Ven
ezuela boundary has been made public
in the shape of an even dozen letters
which have been exchanged between
Secretary Olney, Lord Salisbury, Sir
Julian PauncefOte and Ambassador
Bayard.
The correspondence is of great IN
terest as marking a sensible advance
toward the adoption between the two
English speaking nations of the people
of arbitration as a means of settling
disputes between themselves, but the
persons who have looked forward with
hope and expectation to the speedy
conclusion of the treaties embOdy wing
the arbitration principle for the settle
ment of either or both of the great
open issues between the two nations
are doomed to disappointment, for at
the date OF exchange or the last note,
one from Secretary Olney to the Brit
ish ambassador here, dated within
month past, points of most vital ma
ture in the case not only of the Ven
ezuelan question specifically, but of the
general arbitration proposition as we'll
were still the subject of discussion
without much expectation of an early
adjustment.
Notable features of the correspond
ence are the fact that whereas Mr..
Bayard, by instruction of Secretary
OIney, proposed negotiations at w ash
ingtOn respecting the VeneZula bOun-
dairy dispute, Lord Salisbury broaden
ed it into a. general arbitration scheme
following a lead set by the late Secre-
tary Gresham in the spring of 1895;
that Secretary Olney later insisted up
on disassOciatfng the two subjects, eV-
identity fearing an entangl1ng alliance
general aTDltT1-
ton the issues which still prevent an
agreement are the indispOsition of the
British government to include terrific
rial disputes save with the addition or
provisions that in the estimate of Sec
retary Olney will render the attempt
al arbitration nugatory because there
is no means of making the findings of
the arbitrators binding upon the par
ties, or of removing them from the pos
sibility of infinite appeals. AS to the
Venezuelan matter specifically the diff
ficulty that cannot be overcome is the
refusal of the British to subject to the
action of arbitration the territory up
on which the British subjects have set
tied.
Under the British plan suggested by
Lord Salisbury the parties enter into
arbitration and determine afterwards
when they know the result, whether
they will be bound or not.
Under the United States proposal,
made by Secretary Olney, the parties
enter into an arbitration, having de-
termined beforehand that they will be
bound. The latter is a genuine arbt-
tration, the former is a mere imitation.
The plan of Lord Salisbury is that all
the forms and ceremonies of arbitra-
ton should be gone through with, but
with liberty for either party to reject
the award if not to it's liking.
1t is submitted by Secretary Olney
that a proceeding of that sort must
have a tendency to bring all arbitrating
into contempt; that each party to
dispute should decide to abide by an
award before entering into arbitration
or should decide not to enter into it at
ALL and once entering it should be ir-
revocably bound.