The herald., 1896-07-18

one by Venezueta, ana tne tniru py the
two already chosen. This tribunal. II
is proposed, shall fix a line binding upon
both countries, provided that 1t 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 /, 1887, al
though in respect to such territory. the
tribunal may submit recommendations
to satisfy the equitable rights of the
parties.
ON June IL, last, Secretary Olney re-
gretfully declined this proposition as
not calculated to terminate speedily the
boundary dispute, or give due recogni-
ton to the just rights of the parties.
The gravest objection made by the
secretary is that. although the arbitra-
BILE tribunal may find certain territory
to belong to Venezuela, and may even
find that there are no equities that
should prevent her having it, whether
] she gets it or not, is not to depend upon
the good pleasure of Great Britain. Sec
retary Olney argues that to meet the
case Lord Salisburys plan must be
amended by adding one or more MEM
| bers to the commission, so that it can
| reach a result and not become abortive;
that the commission should have power
to ascertain the facts pertaining to the
arbitrary or disputed territory by Brit
ish subjects, and that the provision for
the exception of territory occupied by
British subjects should be stricken out
or replaced by proviso giving to these
occupants such weight as equity and in.
ternational law require.
On the same date Secretary Olney no.
titled Sir Julian that our government
would not be at liberty to include the
Venezuelan boundary case within the
scope of general arbitration treaty,
although 1t would welcome settlement
of that controversy by a special treaty
In the last letter of the series, dated June
%, Secretary Olney devotes himself to
answering Lord Salisburys statements
respecting the general arbitration prop
osition, beginning with the statement
that our government cannot refrain
from hoping that persistent effort in
the line of the pending negotiations will
have results which, If not all that the
enthusiastic advocates of International
arbitration anticipate would be a de-
cided advance upon anything heretofore
achieved in that direction. He refers to
Lord Salisbury's plan for freedom of ac-
tion as meaning deliberat tely to reject
an award after entering on an arbitra-
tion. and says his lordship's real posi-
tion is that there shall be no genuine ar
bitration 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 sane
tion. unless accepted by all parties.
The vital difference between the two
proposals, he says, is manifest. Under
the British plan the parties enter into
arbitration and determine 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 be-
forehand that they will be bound. The |
latter is genuine arbitration, and the |
former is mere imitation. The plan |
of Lord Salisbury is that all the forms |
and ceremonies of arbitration should be |
gone through with, but with liberty for
either party to reject the award if not
to its liking. 1t is respectfully submitted
that proceeding of that sort must have
a tendency to bring all arb!trating into
contempt; that each party to a dispute
should decide to abide by an award be-
fore entering into an arbitration or
should decide not to enter into 1t at all.
Once entering into 1t, should be ire
Vocably bound