Omaha daily bee., 1897-01-21
OLNEY AND ARBITRATION
Secretary of State Gives Explanation o
Recent Treaty,
MONROE DOCTRINE is NOT SUBSERvED
Any Question Arising Under IL is TO
lie Excepted from the Scope OF
the simple Original
Arbitration,

! WASHINGTON, Jan. 20.-The senate com
mi.tee on foreign relations today had unde
consideration the general arbitration conven
tion between the United States and Grea
Britain. Secretary olney was before tn,
! committee during the session to explain
the provisions of the treaty.
Secretary Olney remained with the com.
mittee until 1t adjourned. There was gen.
erai discussion of the provisions OF the treaty
nearly every member questioning its prob
able effect. Nothing was brought out show.
ing any definite plan of the committee OF
its intention regarding the treaty, though
the questions put to the secretary indicated
that there would be opposition to many oi
it's provisions and there were differences OF
opinion among members and the secretary
as to the effect OF the treaty.
Secretary Olney supported his assertion
that the treaty was in no sense in derogu'
ton or subservation of the Monroe doctrine
pointing out that article expressly pro-
yided that II in the course OF the arbitra-
tion of a claim, 1t was found the decision
involved the decision of a disputed question
OF principle of grave general Importance,
affecting the national rights OF such party
as distinguished from the private rights of
which 1t was a representative. the jurisdic-
tion of the simple arbitration, composed of
two arbitrators and an umpire shall cease
and that Ii shall be dealt with by the more
complex arbitration set down for the settle
ment of territorial claims, and composed of
Judges of the United States and British
supreme courts.
The secretary pointed that In this case
a question arising under the Monroe doc
trne, would certainly be regarded as tX-
cepted from the scope OF the simple or orig
inal arbitration Then, If il should come
before the second tribunal. an adverse deci-
sion against the United States, and conse-
quently against the doctrine could be had
only in case five of the six arbitrators so
decided an utterly improbable contingency,
in view OF the fact that this would involve
the casting of one of the votes of the two
United States representatives against their
own country. Then to quiet apprehension
that the United States might suffer from the
selection as an umpire of King Oscar, who
would naturally sympathize with the Euro
pean side of the case, the secretary pointed
out that after all the only harm that could
result to the United States would be a
small financial loss for the king is to name
the umpire only In cases involving pecuniaIy
claims and other matters not involving
any important principle, and even in such
cases either power could Insist upon a sub
stitute for King Oscar, in any particular
case.
NICARAGUA CANAL.
Another topic discussed by Mr. Olney and
the members OF the committee was the posi-
canal. Mr.. Olney admitted that any dis
pute resulting over the canal would be sub
ject to arbitGament under the terms OF the
agreement but he contended that the ad-
vantagcs secured were more than sufficient
TO counteract this defect.
Again referring to the designation of King
Oscar as umpire, Mr. Olney said he was in
nowse welded TO the selection, but that it
had appeared better to provide an umpire
than to leave the work of agreement on
disputed points to the arbitratoIs. and that
the Swedish sovereign had been accepted as
a fairly disposed man.
Mr. Olney declared that the treaty had
been negotiated with great care for the pro-
lection of American interests and expressed
the opinion that If ratified, IL would be
found satisfactory safeguard He con-
tended for It's approval. as an advance in
diplomacy, in accordance with the tendency
of the times. Mr.. Oney was made to under
stand that the committee wanted the fullest
possible information, and having this 1t
would be disposed to take up and act upon
the treaty on its merits
The committee expressed a determination
after Mr.. Olney left to take up the subject
at its next meeting, with a view of dspos-
ing of 1t at as early date as possible. 1t
is considered probable thai final action can
be reached at one more sitting, but members
of the committee assert that there Is now no
disposition to postpone the report until the
next session of congress- as for time
seemed to be the case. 1t is generally
agreed that the document will be modified in
some particulars. and this will necessitato
more or less delay. While Mr.. Olney was
before the committee he was asked
whether the Venezuelan commission had
ever made a report to the State depart |
ment and he replied 1t had not.