The record-union., 1896-07-26

of the United States, while conceding
that national honor and integrity should
never be the subjects of arbitration,
presses the English into a corner by
pointing out that an arbitration award
that either party may refuse to accept
arbitration. He proposed for the United
States that all territorial questions and
all claims disputes up to $500, 900 should
be referred to the permanent board, and
that its judgment should be final and
binding, provided that prior to sub
mission either country might withdraw
a case from arbitration, but not after it.
has been once submitted. He holds
should reside the right to first say If
case is referable to arbitration. He
desires also to reserve the right of pro-
test in any case submitted for three
is to be submitted to a new board spe-
cially composed for that purpose. But
in all instances Secretary Olney insists
that a case fully submitted the judg-
and binding, and in this he is unques-
tionably right.
Lord Salisbury in his letter proposed
that where an issue involves interna-
tional law relating to territory or ter
ritorial rights, sovereignty or claims in
excess of 100000, the judgment of the
Board of Arbitration may be subject to
review by board of judges Of the two
must agree ON a point at issue. other
wise the judgment should mot be bind
ing. Secretary Olney moves to amend
by providing that if all the arbitrators
agree upon a judgment it shall be final;
if the judgment is not unanimous, if
only majority concur in the judg-
ment, then within three months either
party may protest, and have the case
sent to the board of judges who shall
agree on three learned jurists to sit
with them in case of even division of
the court. In such a case the judg-
ment arrived at by the court and ITS
aids shall be final.
If these amendments proved accepta-
bic the United States proposed that the
Venezuelan matter be sent to the new
board as soon as named, and be made
an experimental case. What was the
result? Immediately England began
to withdraw, and to suggest difficulties
in the way, If all territorial claims were
made matters of compulsory arbitra-
ton, and the fear is injected that such
claims might so multiply as to make
ther arbitration more unsatisfactory
than war. And we confess to agree
ment with Lord Salisbury on that head,
for he adds that while he does not have
intent to exclude the Venezuelan case
from the scheme of arbitration Che Is
too cautious to wholly commit 1t to
that process), yet the system of arbitra-
ton ought to be such as to be applica-
Bile TO all civilized countries.
1t is not necessary to pursue the cor
respondence further. Enough has been
stated to show that there has arisen
precisely the difficulties the Record
Union" pointed out when it stood alone
in opposing the Chicago craze for per-
manent Arbitration Board. It is barely
possible that the two great nations may
come to some sort of an agreement
about ii yet, but we hope not. Matters
are well enough now. We are develop
ing some diplomatic ability. and have
shown English statesmen that we have
some ideas regarding international
rights and achievement of justice be-
tween powers. If this arbitration rad
can be stood off" another half century
we will have rank and standing as dip
lomatists, but if permanent arbitra-
ton is adopted, we will never have any
diplomatic independence, and It's ab-
sance among our statesmen is well nigh
national dishonOr.