The record-union., 1896-07-18

BOUNDARIES, sovereignty or JurlSulclioii,
or any pecuniary claim or group
of claims aggregating sum
larger than 100000, and in respect of
all controversies not in the treaty spe-
cialy described; provided, however, that
either Congress or Parliament may
withdraw the same from the operation
of this treaty, or if Congress or Parlia-
ment be not in session, any matters IN
dispute shall not be submitted to arbl-
tration until these bodies have had op-
portunity to take action thereon. In
case of controversies the award shall be
final, if concurred in by all the arpftra-
tors. If assented ito by a majority
only, the award shall be final, unless
one of the parties within three months
of it's PRONUNCIATION shall protest in
writing to the other that the award is
erroneous in respect of issue of fact or
of law. In every such case the award
shall be reviewed by court composed
of three Supreme Judges of Great Brit
ain and the United States, who shall
agree upon three leanred and impartial
jurists to be added to said court in case
they shall be equally divided upon the
award to be made. The award of the
court so constituted, whether rendered
unanimously or by a majority vote,
shall be final
These amendments, Secretary Olney
argues, make all disputes prima facie
arbitrable, and places where it belongs,
on Congress and Parliament, the right
and power to decide whether they are
arbitrable or demand assertion by force
Of arms. By the scheme as amended
the controversy is finally ended, where
as under the original proposition there
would be an award only in the rare cases
in which the six appellate arbitrators
favored it, either by unanimity or by
the majority of five to one.
In all cases in which the arbitratorS
were equally divided or stood four to
two, public feeling in each country would
be aroused by the protracted proceed
ings, and the chances of peaceful out
come would be rather prejudiced than
promoted. 1t is also pointed out that
the United States, having no European
alliances, has more to fear than Great
Britain from the bias of foreign judges.
Secretary Olney finally contends that
to insist upon an arbitration scheme so
constructed that miscarrfages of justice
unattainable, and is equivalent to a re-
linquishment altogether of the effort in
behalf of a general system of interna-
tional arbitration An approximation
to truth-results which on the average
and in the long run conform to right
and justice-is all that the lot Of hu
manity permits us to expect from any
plan.
In conclusion Secretary Olney says:
'It only remains to observe that If the
amendments should prove acceptable no
reason is perceived why the pending
Venezuelan boundary dispute should not
be brought within the treaty by express
words of inclusion. If, however, no
treaty for general arbitration can now
be expected, it can but be proper to add
that the Venezuelan boundary dispute
seems to offer a good opportunity for
one of those tentative experiments at
arbitration which as Lord Salisbury
justly intimates, would be Of decided ad-
vantage as tending to indicate the lines
upon winch a. scheme for general arbi-
tration can be judiciously drawn"
On May Sth Secretary Olney forward
ed, through Embassador Bayard, re-
quest from the Venezuelan Commission
sitting in Washington for references as
to the claims set forth in the British
blue book of English sovereignty over
the coast between the Pomerpon and
Point Barima, for which the commission
said it had been unable to find any war
rant, and on May 18th Lord Salisbury
sent Mr.. Bayard memorandum on the
subject, and took the opportunity to
promise cordial assistance to the COM
mission in its search for facts.
Lord Salisbury, writing May 18th to
Sir Julian Pauncefote in rejoinder to
Secretary Olney's counter proposals,
disclaims any intention to exclude the
Venezuelan dispute, but holds that the
system of arbitration ought to be appli
cable TO all civilized countries. He says
he fears the first result of compulsory
arbitration of territorial claims will be
an enormous multiplication of their
number, and he questions whether the
benefits of preventing war from such
disputes may not be outweig he'd by a
Sysem generating a multiplicity of in
ternational litigation, bIghting the
prosperity of the border coun tries ex-
posed to it, and leaving the inhabitants
under the enduring threat either of a
forcible change of allegiance or of exile.
Sir Julian Pauncefote on June 1st had
a conference with Secretary Olney re-
garding the Venezuelan controversy.
and two days later sent to the Secretary
the instructions from Lord Salisbury
upon which his visit had been based
In these, under date of May 22d, the
British Premier foresees the possibility
of failure in the attempt to agree on the
general arbitration system and pro-
posed settlement of the Venezuelan dis
pute. in which he declares from the first
1t has been Objectionable to subject to
the decision of an arbitrator, who in
the last resort must of necessity be a
foreigner, the rights of the British colo
nfsts who have settled in the country
believing it to be British
A commission consisting of four mem
bers, two to be British subjects and two
citizens of the United States, is pro-
posed to report upon the facts which af-
feet the rights of Spain and Holland at
the date of Great Britain's acquisition
Of British Guiana Upon the report of
such commission it is stipulated that
Great Britain and Venezuela shall en-
deavor to agree on a boundary, but fall
ing in this tribunal was to be appoint
they to select a third, who should fix
the Line of boundary; but with proviso
that ii should not include as Venezuelan
territory any territory which was occu-
pied by British colonists on or before
January /, 1887. or as the territory of
Great Britain any occupied by the Ven
eZuelans at the same time.
Mr.. Olney on July 18th writes that his
= -fxya
proposal as well adapted to bring the