The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-07-18
experience in arbitration has been ac-
quired- He expresses a belief, too, that
A COMPULSORY ARBITRATION

experience in arbitration has been ac-
CURED He expresses a belief, too, that
A COMPULSORY ARBITRATION
of territorial disputes would result in an
enormous multiplicity of these Gains.
AT this point, there is injected some cor
respondence between Secretary Olney and
Mr.. Bayard relative TO the procurement
from the British government of evidence
fer the use Of the Venezuelan boundary
commission, which was cheerfully prom
iSSd, and when the arbitration matter is
again resumed it is through the note from
Sir Julian to Secretary Olney dated June
8, submitting proposals for the settlement
of the Venezuela boundary question, in
the form of a memorandum from Lord
Salisbury submitted to the United States
as the friend of Venezuela. Lord Sails
bury says that from the first his objec-
ton has been to submit to foreign ar
bifrator the rights OF British colonists
who had settled in a territory they had
every ground to believe British. He was
willing that the unsettled territory should
be subjected TO arbitration even though
some portions should be found to fall
WITHIN THE SCHOIBURGK LINE.
Therefore he proposes a commission of
two British and two Americans to aScer-
tain the facts affecting the rights of the
united colonies and of Spain respectively
with the date of the acquisition of Guiana
by Great Britain.
A majority report should bind both gov
eTnments and upon the report Great Brit
rive at a boundary line Failing in agree
meDt, the controversy and report should
be submitted to a tribunal of three, one
named by Great Britain and one by Ven
ezuela, and the third by the two already
chosen. This tribunal, it is proposed,
shall fix a line binding upon both coun-
tries, provided that it shall not have
power to transfer TO either Venezuela or
Great Britain any territory bona fide
occupied by the subjects of the other
country on January l, 1887, although in
respect to such territory the tribunal
may submit recommends lions to satisfy
the equitable rights of the parties.
On June L last Secretary Olney regret
fully declined this proposition as not cal
culated to terminate speedily the bound
airy dispute or give due recognition to the
just rights of the parties.
THE GRAVEST OBJECTION MADE
by the secretary is that although the ar
bitral tribunal may find certain territory
to belong to Venezuela and may even find
that there are no equities which should
prevent her having it, whether she gets
IL or not is to depend upon the good pleas
ure of Great Britain. Secretary Olney ar
CUES that to meet the case Lord Sails
bury'S plan must be amended by adding
one or more members TO the commission,
so that it can reach a result and not be-
come abortiVe; that the commission
should have power to ascertain the facts
pertaining to the arbitrary or disputed
territory by British subjects, and that the
provision IOr the exception Oh IeIiltOly
occupied by British subjects should be
stricken out or replaced by a proviso CIV
ing to these occupants such weight as
equity and international law require.
On the same date Secretary Olney notl-
fed Sir Julian that our government would
not be at liberty to include the
VENEZUELAN BOUNDARY CASE
treaty, although it would welcome set
Element of that controversy by special
treaty.
In the last letter of the series, dated
June %, Secretary Olney devotes himself
to answering Lord Salisbury's statements
respecting the general arbitration propo-
stion, beginning with the statement that
our government cannot refrain from mop
ing Jhat persistent efforts in the line of
the pending negotiations will have results
which, if not all that the enthusiastic adj
vocates of international arbitration antlc-
ipate, would be a decided advance upon
anything heretofore achieved in that d1rec-
ton He refers to Lord Salisburys plan
for freedom of action as meaning deliber-
ate1y TO reject an award after entering on
an arbitration, and says his lordships real
position is that there shall be no genuine
arbitration at all; there shall be the usual
forms and ceremonies, also called arbi-
tration convention hearings, evidence and
arguments, but as a grand result, instead
of a binding adjudication, only an opinion
without legal force or sanction, unless ac-
cepted by all parties. The vital difference
helw een the two proposals, he says, is
manifest.
UNDER THE BRITISH PLAN
the parties enter into arbitration and de-
termine afterwards, when they know the
result whether they will be bound or not.
Under the United States proposal the
parties enter into an arbitration, having
determined before hand that they will be
bound. The latter is a genuine arbitra-
ton; the former is a mere imitation. The
the
forms and ceremonies of arbitration
should be gone through with, but with
liberty for either party to reject the
award if not to it's liking. 1t is respect
fully submitted that a proceeding of that
sort must have tendency to bring all
arbtrating into contempt; that each
party to a dispute should decide to abide
bitration or should decide not to enter into
it at all, and once entering into it, should
be irrevocably bound.