The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1897-01-12
BROTHERHOOD WITH BRITAIN.
ANGLO-AMERICAN ARBITRATION
TREATY SIGNED.

StatcS-PresideRt Cleveland sends
the American Copy to the Senate
For RatificatiOn-A Resume of the
Negotiations For the COnsummn-
ting of asTreaty and an Outline of
Its Provisions.
Washington, Jan. 1.-THE Anglo-Amer-
lean general arbitration treaty was signed
in the diplomatic parlor of the state de-
partment at 1920 o'clock to-day by Sec
retary Oiney and Sir Julian Pauncefote.
The latter was accompanied by Lord
Cough, secretary of the embassy. The
American witnesses are the chief of the
diplomatic bureau, Mr.. Cridler, and Pri-
vate Secretary Blandford. The meeting
was devoid of any spectacular proceeding.
the two plenipotentiaries simply signing
their names to the two copies of the i'm
portant document, one of which will be
sent to the Senate for ratification, and the
other to Lord Salisbury by a special mes
senger who will sail on the Majestic from
New York on Wednesday.
1t was shortly after u o'clock to-day
when the British ambassador reached the
state department with Viscount Cough,
one of his secretaries. He had earlier in
the morning received final cablegram
from Lord Salisbury authorizing the sig
nature and had made an appointment
with Secretary Olney for consummating
the negotiations The secretary promptly
met Sir Julian in the diplomatic room on
his arrival, and the two plenipotentiaries
Immediately presented their credentials to
each other.
Secretary Olney signed as designated by
the President of the United States and Sir
Julian Pauncefote signed as designated by
the queen, on behalf of Great Britain.
The formalities having been completed,
the Secretary and Sir Julian shook hands,
congratulating each other, and the British
representative returned to the embassy
taking his copy of the document with
him.
The American copy was Immediately
sent over to the executive mansion and
delivered to the President, who little
later, sent it to the Senate with a message
asking for its ratification.
The British copy which was signed first
by Sir Julian Pauncefote and subsequent
ly by Mr.. Olney, and the United States
copy, signed first by Mr.. Olney and then by
Sir Julian Pauncefote, are known as the
original copies, and each government per-
manently retains its own.
After the Senate shall have given its
advice and consent to the ratification of
the treaty, it will be necessary to make
| an extract copy of our treaty as signed,
and append thereto the Presidents ratifi-
| cation. This is known as the exchange
| copy, and will be delivered to the British
| government in exchange for similar
copy received from it, the British ratifca-
tion being signed by her majesty, the
| queen.
After this has been done, the proclama-
| tion of the President will be written in
the original copy of our treaty which was
| before the Senate and then the treaty be-
| comes effective
The negotiations for the treaty signed
| to-day began nearly two years ago, in the
| spring of 1895, shortly before the death of
| Secretary Gresham, which abruptly termi-
mated further consideration of the ques-
| tion at that time. The suggestion was
| one in which Secretary Gresham was
/ wrapped up, and although his conference
| with Sir Julian Pauncefote on the subject
| did not reach a very definite point, the
seeds were sown which grew rapidly un-
| der the impetus of the crisis in the Vene-
zuelan dispute a year ago, when the Nen-
| ezuelan commission was fairly launched
| upon its investigation Then on March
! 5, 1896, when diplomatic relations between
this country and Great Britain were I'm
| der high tension, Lord Salisbury
sent Sir Julian Pauncefote an in
| struction to endeavor to renew the
subject, transmitting at the same time six
| heads of a proposed treaty for arbitration
| in certain cases, the obvious effort being to
| offset in part at least, the firm refusal OF
| Great Britain to consent to the arbitra-
ton of the boundary question. The pro-
| posed scheme was to supplement diploma
tic negotiations by a judicial determina-
tion of matters of fact disputed by the
| two governments, and while no binding
award was contemplated, the proposal
| was expected to provide method of dis
| posing of very many causes of friction
| which might arise be,ween friendly ma
| II N rty
should select two or more permanent judi
cial officers and when question arose,
| each government should designate one OF
| said officers as arbitrator.
| Head two directed the arbtrators when
| ever they disagreed, to select an umpire
| whose decision should be an award.
Head three was as follows: Complaints
| made BY the nationals of one power
| against the officers of the other; all pecu-
| MARY claims or groups Of claims, amount
ing to not more than 100000 sterling, made
| on either power by the nationals OF the
other, whether based on alleged right by
| treaty or agreement or otherwise; all
claims for damages or indemnity under
the said amounts; all questions affecting
diplomatic or consular privileges; all al
legged rights Of fishery, access, navigation
or commercial privileges; and all questions
referred by special agreement between the
Two parties shall be referred to arbltra-
the award shall be final"
Under mead four, differences involving a
arger sum were, after arbitration, sub
ject to appeal, and the award was to be
reviewed by court composed OF three
judges Of the supreme court of Great Brit
ain and three OF the United States su-
preme court, whose award would be final
IL made by a vote Of five to one.
Head FIVE excluded differences involving
national honor or integrity Of territory
and head six provided that any question
might be referred 10 the arbltrators with
the stipulation that unless acceptable to
both powers the decision should not be
| valid.
Secretary Olney found no criticism to
make to the first two heads and head
three appeared to him to be restricted "a
| controversies which could never endanger
| peaceful relations. But he proposed a
substitute to numbers four and ive which
made arbitration obligatory and decsve
except where national honor was involved
This made the award final in all cases
II unanimous, and by the substitution OF
"a majority vote. instead Of a Ave to one
vote OF the appellate arbitors, provided
for a decision IN every case. This was
accomplished by having the three judges