The herald., 1896-07-18

l tereQ Dy eltner power against tne dWdr'
within the time limited, it shall be fina
Fifth-Any difference which. in tn
Judgment of either power, materiall
affects its honor or the integrity of 1t
territory shall not be referred to arbi
tration under this treaty except by spec
ial agreements.
Sixth-Any difference whatever, b.
agreement between the two powers ma,
be referred for decision by arbitration
as herein provided. with stipulation
that unless accepted by both powers
the decision shall not be valid.
Secretary Olney began his respons'
by directing attention to the fact tha
Lord Salisbury in terms excludes from
consideration the Venezuelan boundar,
dispute, but. nevertheless declares tha
these proposals of her majesty's prime
minister are welcomed by the presiden
with the keenest appreciation of theil
value and of the enlightened and pro
gressive spirit which animates them.
The secretary says that if Lord Sails
bury had stopped on article three, nc
criticism could have been made except
that the subjects to he arbitrated are sc
cautiously restricted as hardly to cover
other than controversies which as be-
tween civilized states could almost
never endanger their future relations.
| But article three. as we'll as four, is ap-
parently qualified by article five, since
the national honor may sometimes be
| involved even in claim for indemnity
| for an individual. Further, the arbi-
trary machinery provided by article four
| is open to serious objection as not Sc
| curing an end of a controversy unless
an award is concurred In by at least
| five out of the six appellate arbitrators.
Therefore. by direction of the presi-
dent, Secretry OlneN proposes a substi-
tute for articles and 5, the changes be-
| ing provisions that either congress or
parliament at any time before the arbi-
tration tribunal shall have convened
may by act withdraw particular subject
matter from arbitration as involving the
national honor or integrity, and provid-
ing further that award shall be final if
concurred in by all the arbitrators. If
assented by a majority only the awarH
shall be final, unless one of the parties
within three months from it's promul-
cation shall protest in writing the award
is erroneous in respect to some issue of
fact or law. In such case the award shall
be reviewed by a court composed of
three United States supreme justices
and three British supreme justices, who
shall, in advance, agree upon three i'm
partial jurists to be added to their body
in case they shall be equally divided on
award. The award of this court, whe ther
unanimous or by majority, shall be
final.
Secretary Olney points out in support
of his amendments that they make all
the disputes prima facie arbitrable. He
shows that the awards, if unanimous,
should be final equally with those of
appellate tribunal.
There can be no arbitration in a true
sense, says Mr.. Olney, without a final
award, and it might be better to leave
controversies to the usual mode of set
tlement than to enter upon proceedings
which are arbitrable only in name, and
which are likely TO have no other result
than to excite an exasperated public
feeling in both countries.
In conclusion, Secretary Olney says:
1T only remains to observe that If
article 4, as amended, should prove ac-
ceptable, no reason is perceived why the
pending Venezuelan boundary dispute
should not DE brought within the treaty
by express words of inclusion. If, how
ever, no treaty for general arbitration
can now be expected, it cannot be i'm
proper to add that the Venezuela bound
aary dispute seems to offer good oppor-
tunity for one of those tentative expert
ments at arbitration which, as Lord
Salisbury justly intimates, would be of
decided advantage as tending to indi
cate the lines upon which a scheme for
general arbitration can be judiciously
drawn"
Under date of May IS, Lord Salisbury
replied to Secretary Olney's statement
through Hon. Julian Pauncefote, begin
ming by an expression of regret that in
some essential particulars the opinio3s
of the two governments do not as yet
seem to be sufficiently in accord to en-
able them to come to a definite agree
ment upon the whole of this important
subject"
He says that Secretary Olney mistook
his meaning in assuming that he ex-
cluded the Venezuelan boundary dis
pute. He had wished to state his views
upon the question of general arbitration,
But" says Lord Salisbury. Il was
we'll aware that any settlement to which
we might arrive must, in it's general
principles, be applicable to disputes not
only between Great Britain and the
United States, but between either of
them and other governments. and therS
fore, with certain adoption of detail, it
would apply to a dispute between Great
Britain and Venezuela"
Lord Salisbury then takes up the ques-
tion of conflicting territorial claims, stat
ing that with respect to the mode of deal
ing with these disputes the views of the
two governments seem still apart, and
asserting that Great Britain is not yet
prepared for a complete surrer der of her
freedom of action, at least until further
experience in arbitration has been ac-
quired. He expresses a belief, too THAI
a compulsory arbitration of territorial
disputes would result in an enormous
multiplicity of these claims.
At this ponit there is injected some
correspondence between Secretary Oh
ney and Ambassador Bayard relative to
procurement from the British govern
ment of evidence for the use of the Ven
ezuelan boundary commission, Whicn
was cheerfully promised, and when the
arbitration matter is again resumed, it