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

Provided, however, that either Congress or
Parliament may withdraw the same from
the operation OF this treaty, or if Congress
or Parliament be not in session, any mat
tiers in dispute shall not be Submitted to
arbitration until these bodies have had OPP
portunity to take action thereon.
In the case of controversies the award
shall be final if concurred in by all the
arbitrators. If assented to by majority
only the award shall be final unless one
of the parties within three months of its
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
a court composed of three Supreme Judges
OF Great Britain and the United States,
who shall agree upon three learndd and
impartial jurists to be added to said court
III case they shall be equally divided upon
the award to be made. The award OF the
court so constituted, whether rendered
unanimously or by majority vote shall
be final.
These amendments, Secretary Olney
argues, make all disputes prima facle
arbitrable and places where it belongs on
Congress and Parliament the rest and
power to decide whether they are arbltra-
bic or demand assertion by force OF arms.
By the scheme as amended the contro-
versy is finally ended whereas under the
original proposition there would be an
award only in the rare cases in which the
six appellate arbitrator favored it, either
as unanimously or by majority of five to
one. Mr.. Olney thinks such arrange
ha don In all
in which the arbitrator were equally
divided or stood four to two, public feeling
in each country would be aroused by the
protracted proceedings and the chances OF
a peaceful outcome would be rather preju-
diced 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
miscarriages of justice can never occur is
to insist upon the unattainabe, and is
equivalent to a REIMBURSEMENT altogether
of the effort in behalf of general system
of international arbitration. An approx
imation to truth-results which, on the
average and in the long run conform to
right and justice, is all that the lot of
humanity permits us TO expect from any
plan.
In conclusion Secretary Olney says: at
only remains to observe that if the amend
ments should prove acceptable, no reason
is perceived why the pending boundary
dispute should not be brought within the
treaty by express words of inclusion. If,
for 4fo ~
can be now expected, it cannot be i'm
proper to add that the Venezuelan bound
airy dispute seems to offer good opportu-
nifty for one of those tentative experiments
at arbitration which, as Lord Salisbury
Justly intimates, would be of decided adj
vantage as tending to indicate the lines
upon which a scheme for general arbitra-
ton can be iudiciously drawn"
On May s Secretary Olney forwarded
through ambassador BByard a request
from the Venezuelan Commission sitting
in Washington for reference as to the
claims set forth in the British blue book OF
English sovereignty over the coast be-
tween Pomeroon and Point Barima, for
which the commission said it had been
unable 20 find any warrant, and on May 80
Sord Salisbury sent Mr.. Bayard mem
orandum on the subject, and took the
opportunity to promise cordial assistance
to the commission IN its search for facts.
Lord Salisbury, writing on May Is to
Sir Julian Pauncefote in reioinder to Secre-
tary Olney's counter-proposals. disclaims
any intention to exclude the Venezuelan
dispute, but holds that the system of arbi-
tration ought to be applicable to all civil
lied countries.
He says be fears the first result of COM
pulsory 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 outweighed by a sys.
tenn generating a multiplicity of interna-
tional litigation, blighting the prosperity
of the border countries exposed to it, and
leaving the inhabitants under the endur-
ing threat either of forcible change of al
Iegiance or OF exile.
Sir Julian Pauncefote on June / had a
conference with Secretary Olney regard
ing the Venezuelan controversy, and ten
days later sent the Secretary the instruc-
tons from Lord Salisbury, upon which his
visit had been based.
In these, under date of May %, the
British Premier foresees the possibility oil
failure in the attempt to agree on the gen.
eral arbitra ton system and proposed set
Element of the Venezuelan dispute 10
which he declares from the first it has
been Objectionable TO subject to the de-
cision of an arbitrator, who in the last re-
sort must of necessity be foreigner, the
rights of the British colonists who have
settled in the country believing it to be
British. A commission consisting of four
members, two to be British subjects and
two citizens of the United States, is pro-
posed to report upon the facts which affect
the rights of Spain and Holland at the
date of Great Britain's acquisition OF
British Guiana.
Upon the report of such commission ii
is stipulated that Great Britain and
Venezuela shall endeavor to agree on q
boundary, but falling in this tribunal
was to be appointed, one British, one
Venezuelan, and they to select third,
who should fix the line of boundary. But
with proviso that it should not include
as Venezuelan territory any territory
which was occupied by British colonists