The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-01-27

Of this nation from sole authority, then the
controversy would faliundsr the provisions
OF Article w.:
"Aii peounisry claims or groups OF pecunlsry
claims which shall exceed sioo. 900 In amount, ard
all other r.dfters IN d .6sreros IN respect Of tchtch either
Of fhe hieh CONTRACTING parties shalhaver fohh against
me other. under treaty or ot~hsrtcfss-providsd such
matters In dinerenced do not involve territorial claims
shall be dealt with and decided by an srbltrai trl.
bunsi constituted as provided in the next article"
Observe the wording: "All other matters
In difference, under treaty or otherwise"
That Is to say, II England's claim to part
nership rights in the canal rested upon
the question OF the continued exist
ence Of the Clayton. Bulwer Treaty, 1t
would go TO this arbitral tribunal for
determination. II the treaty Of 1850 were
~adjudged obsolete, then England's claims
to joint partnership In the canal, resting
now on international expediency, or on tho
interests Of the worlds commerce, or on the
common good Of mankind, or on whatever
pretext her philanthropists and diplomats
might juggle into the controversy. would
20 yet again TO that same arbitral tribunal
for settlement. "Under treaty or other
wise!" Downing street showed both genius
and foresight when it struggled those words
into the ey-Pauncefote treaty; for we
cannot suppose hat an American Secretary
Of State ever consciously planned this dan
gerous trap for his own country.
And the "arbitral tribunal" to decide
whether we shall control our own Amer
lean canal or whether England shall have
. voice in the management; how would 1t
be constituted
Secretary OLNKY gives the Senate Com
mittee on Foreign Relations to understand
that even IL q vital question like the Monroe
doctrine or the Nicaragua anal should ever
60 to arbitration, there would be no danger
to American interests. inasmuch as an adj
verse decision would require the assent Of
two OF the three American ~jurists acting as
arbitrators. But a question arising as
above under Article ". toould not 90 to
ish Judges and three Justices of the Su-
preme Court Of the United States. BY the
distinct provisions Of Article Nv. 1t would
20 to another sort of 'arbitral tribunal'
described in Article ":
ANY subject Of arbitration described In Article ~.
[srising from matters OF difference under treaty or
o.nerwse J snAl DC suomi'.ed ' tne .iieuna' pro
vided for by Article ILL.,. the award Of which tribunal.
II unanimous, shall be ANAL"
The tribunal provided for in Article III.
consis ats of an American arbitrator. n British
...;...... 81 =, u,.n ,.u.a ;,... Ia,
"pe
a., y, c,rrs. ,haoward - .roh . tr;hunoi
,.au,J ~, ~. ,u.nima,s o. ~. .m.r,..n
.-,s,s,,or Wh. Iii N,.r;,.n rar,d
- aiuo = .,ah;. :, ~.
oS.ro,so nnd,v;a.d oon,ro, oy.r ~. o.n.I
m. a.. -, -
so1ans"- go
49, ,na"sNSa nnI 49," .N.nsI
oa,,no..,
n,,s,n ,.n ",oo' : 81 rue .m.pa W as'
mspd a review thereon. In such case tho matter
In controversy shall be submitted to an arbitrai
tribunal consisting of i've jurists OF repute' no one
Oh "nom sna, ns,s oeen : me%oes Oh y ~,
A. h. selected a, roilow,. Two nv each Of IN. hish
contracting parties and one to act as umpire by the