The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-07-18


call attention TO the fact that SO far as the
Venezuelan dispute was concerned the
position of the United States had been
plainly defined, not only by the executive,
but by the unanimous concurring action
of both branches of Congress, and that
genuine arbitration finally disposing of
the controversy would be cordially well
coined.
The correspondence ends with letter
June % from Secretary Olney to Sir Julian
Pauncefote in which he replied to Lord
Salisbury's of May IS. He finds that Lord
Salisbury's dispatch discards all general
phraseology, and makes a clear distinction
between non-arbItrable or territorial con-
troversies and all others.
The advantages of this sharp division
line, he thinks, are very great, and the
fact that it has been drawn shows that the
progress of the discussion is eliminating
all but the vital points of difference.
Secretary Olney then proceeds to show
that if Lord Salisburys plan of reckoning
an award could be permitted there would
be no real arbitration at all. He insists
that the acceptance should be in advance.
The American p Ian is to reserve the
right not to go into an arbitration if the
territorial claim in dispute involves Ma
tional honor and integrity. The British
proposals also reserve this right. The
vital difference, he says, is that under the
British plan "the parties enter into an
arbitration and determine afterward,
when they know the result, whether they
will be bound or not. Under the pro-
posals of the United States the parties
enter into en- arbitration. having de-
termined beforehand that they win
be bound. The latter is a genuine arbi-
tration; the former is more imitation
which may have its uses. but like all other
limitations cannot compare in value with
the real article.
The document then goes into techni-
cal legal discussion of international law
as applicable to territory and closes with
the following keen point: "By the
original proposalso of Lord Salisbury con-
tanned in the dispatch of March 5 last a
! protested award IS to be void unless sus-
tanned by the appellate tribunal of six
| judges by vote of five to one.
HE has since suggested that suchpro :
tested award may be allowed to stand
unless tribunal of five Supreme Court
Judges of the protesting country shall set
/
error in law. Without committing N.Y.
self on the point, it occurs to me as worthy
of consideration whether the original pro-
posals might not be so varied that the
protested award should stand unless set
aside by the appellate tribunal by the
specified majority. Such a change would
go far in the direction of removing that
want of finality to the proceedings which,
as has been urged in previous dispatches,
is the great objection to the original pro-
posals."
Up to this date the Secretary has re-
ceiyed no reply to the foregoing COM
muLication.
LONDON, ENG, July lin the House
of Lords to-day Lord Salisbury laid upon
the table OF that body the papers relating
to the boundary dispute between Great
| Britain and Venezuela. Lord Salisbury
stated that concurrently with the nego-
tiatlons which were in progress with the
United States IN regard TO the dispute be-
| tween Great Britain and Venezuela, ne
| gotiations were also going on between the
! British and American Governments con-
| templatlng the establishment of a scheme
for general arbitration of questions which
might arise between the two nations.
This, however, he said, was matter which
required great care and circumspection.
Lord Salisbury said negotiations be-
tween the United States and Great Britain
| were still incom plete, but are advancing
! amicabiy. In the first and the smaller
| question with Venezuela, upon which
negotiations had been carried with the
United States rather than Venezuela, no
conclusion had as yet been arrived at.
The Government had never thought
that the question of the ownership of set
tied territory ought to be arbitrated. In
the question of unsettled country the
Government had always been ready to
arbitrate, but 1t was necessary to distin-
guish between the two. 1t was i'm possible
to proceed any faster than they had done,
because they had not yet obtained the
full facts necessary 10 the adjustment of
the case.