The herald., 1896-07-18

am in the spring OF 1895, but secretary
Olney later insisted upon disassociatine
the two subjects, evidently fearing an
entaneling alliance otherwise; that as
to general arbitration, the issues which
still prevent an agreement are the In
disposition of British government to in
clude territorial disputes, save with the
addition of provisions that, in the esti-
nation of Secretary Olney, will render
the attempt at arbitration nugatory be-
cause there are no means of making the
findings Of the arbitrators binding upon
the parties or of removing them from the
possibility of infinite appeals. AS to the
Venezuelan matter, specifically, the dif-
ficulty that cannot be overcome is the
refusal Of the British to subject to the
action of the arbitration the territory
upon which British subjects have act
ually settled. Imitation arbitration is
what Secretary Olney designates Lord
Salisbury's project, while the British
premier criticises Secretary Olney's plan
as calculated to result in evils worse
than war in the institution of innumer-
able suits to recover claimed territory.
The correspondence proper begins with
a note dated February 27, last, from Mr..
bayarQ 10 NHe MdTQulsbOb
which he says: "Thatin order to reach
we'll defined agreement for the arbi-
tration of boundary between British
Guiana and Venezuela, which seems to
be almost unanimously desired in both
the United tSates and Great Britain" !"
his instructions continue to indicate an
urgent desire to have the question re-
moved as soon as practicable from the
atmosphere of political controversy.
Therefore he proposed to enter upon ne
gotiations at Washington to effect this
purpose He also asked for a clear de-
f1nition of the settlements" by individ-
uals in the territory in dispute which
Great Britain desires should be exclud-
ed from arbitration.
Within four days of the receipt of this
note Lord Salisbury made reply readily
concurring in the suggestion to begin
negotiations and noting the desire of the
British government to bring the differ
ence between themselves and Nenezue-
Ia to an equitable settlement.
TIL day following this note, March 5,
last, Lord Salisbury addressed letter
to Sir Julian Pauncefote, in which he
refers to the exchange of communica-
tions in the preceding spring between the
ambassador and the late Mr.. Gresham
upon the establishment of system of
international arbitration for the adjust
ment of disputes between the two gov
ernments 1.-The further consideration of
which at that time was prevented by
circumstances to which it is unneces-
sary to refer"
Lord Salisbury added that it had again
been brought into prominence by the
controversy which had arisen upon the
Venezuelan boundary.
This diverted the discussion to the
general arbitration proposition and upon
the latter Lord Salisbury proceeded to
discourse as follows:
1.-THE obstacle which separated them
(the two governments) has been the diff
ficulty of deciding how far the under
taking to refer all matters in dispute is
to be carried. On both sides it is admit
ted that some exceptions must be made.
Neither government is willing to ac-
cept arbitration upon the issue of which
national honor or integrity is involved.
But in the wide region that lies within
this boundary, the United States desire
to go further than Great Britain. For
the view entertained by her majesty'S
government there is this consideration
to plead that a system of arbitration is
an entirely novel arrangement, and
therefore the conditions under which
1t should be adopted are not likely to
be ascertained antecedently. The limits
ultimately adopted must be determin-
ed by experiment. In the interest OF
the idea and of the pacific results which
are expected from it, it would be wise
to commence with a modest beginning
and not to hazard the success of the
principle by adventuring it upon doubt
full grounds"
Lord Salisbury argues that while there
is no difficulty in finding impartial arbi-
traitors to adjust private disputes or
cases involving claims for damages. the
classes of cases involving claims to ter
ritory or sovereign rights stand on an
entirely different footing and are calcu-
lated to involve deeply the sympathies
of men on one side or the other, and that
this interferes most formidably with the
selection of an impartial arbitrator.
Lord Salisbury says in conclusion:
1.-THE plan which is suggested in the
appended draft treaty would give a court
of appeal from the single voice of the
foreign judge. Its operation in arrest
ing a faculty of doubtful judgment
would make it possible to submit great
issues to arbitration without the risk of
dangerous miscarriage of justice"
The draft-treaty spoken of in the
above is composed of six articles. The
first provides for the appointment by
the United States and Great Britain of
two or more permanent judicial officials
one of whom is to be designated by his
own nation to act as arbitrator, to act
with one named by the other side on the
appearance of any difference between
the two powers which cannot be settled
by negotiations.
The second article provides for the
selection by the two arbitrators of an
umpire to act between them. The re-
mainder of the draft is as follows:
Third-Complaints made by the Off
cials of one power against the officers of
the other; all pecuniary claims or
groups of claims, amounting to not
more than 100000, made on either pow
er by the officials of the other. whether
based on treaty or agreement or other
wise. All claims for damages or indem-
nifty under the said amendment, all ques-
tons affecting diplomatic or consular
privileges; all alleged rights of fishery,
access, navigation or commercial privi-