The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1897-01-30
SHOULD Be RATIFIED.
Views Of Permanent Arbitration Com.
mittee on Treaty.
OBJECTIONS MADE TO DOCUMENT
DO NOT HOLD.

OBJECTIONS MADE TO DOCUMENT
DO NOT HOLD.
Questions of Policy Not Included-Appoint-
ment of King Oscar as Possible Arbi-
| traitor Not a Mistake-Treaty Made on
| Our Invitation.
Washington, January g. 1S97-Ths
Permanent Committee on Arbitration
with Great Britain, appointed by the
Conference held al Washington on April
22d and 23d, 1896, deem 1t their duty to
make the following public statement OF
the views concerning the treaty between
| the United States and Great Britain,
concluded January 18th, 1897.
THE ORIGIN OF THE TREATY.
| From Washington's administration
down to this day, arbitration has uni
| formly been prominent feature of our
national policy. Acting upon the con-
viocion that justice is best secured by
| judicial methods, our Govern ment has
always stood among the nations as the
champion Of law, and the pending
treaty is, In very definite sense, the
result of our initiative. In 1890 Congress
unanimously adopted concurrent reso-
luton requesting the President ito in
vito from time to time, ssas fit occasions
may arise, negotiations with any govern
ment with which the United States has
or may have diplomatic relations, to the
end that any differences or disputes aris-
ing between the tw governments which
cannot be adjusted by diplomatic agency,
may be referred to arbitration, and be
peaceabIy adjusted by such means" In
1898 the British House Of Commons ex-
pressed the hope that Her Maiesty's gov
eminent would "lend their ready cooper
alton to the Governments of the United
States upon the basis Of the foregoing
resolution. The pending treaty, BY
which the two governments agree to sub
NIT to arbitration, under certain limita-
tions, call questions in difference be-
tween them which they may fail to ad
Just by diplomatic negotiations, follows
almost the precise words of the resolution
| of Congress.
| None but the most cogent reasons could
Justify the rejection of treaty thus
negotiated in direct response to our own
| invitation.
WHAT THE TREATY IS.
| The treaty provides different methods
for the various cases arising.
| Fecuniary claims are to be submitted
to tribunal consisting OF "jurists OF
repute," three or five in number, each
government naming one member of the
court If it consists of three persons, or
two nom beers, If it consists of five. The
remainingymembe is to be selected by
those first namd or, If they cannot agree,
by the joint action of the Supreme Court
of thesUnited States and the Judicial
| Committee of the British Privy.C Council
| Finally, and only in the event Of these
bodies being unable to unite in seleo-
ton, the third or fifth member Is to be
named by the King of Sweden and Mop
way.
Other matters of difference, not involv-
| ing territorial claims, are also to be sub
mitted to the tribunal of five, consti-
tuted as above; but whenever it is found
that the determination of any dispute
necessarily involves the decision Ut
question of grave general Importance,
affecting the national rights Of either
party as distinguished from the private
rights whereof it is merely the inter-
national represen tative, then the dispute
is to be referred to theatribunal provided
for the adjudication of territorial claims.
| This tribunal is to consist Of three
American and three British judges
named by the President of the United
States and the Queen OF Great Britain
respectively. There is no kumpire. The
award of this tribunal is not to be nnal
unless agreed upon by majority of not
less than five to one Of its mem ers. ssBut
| if there should be less majority, the
award may also be final if both Powers
acuuiesce If either protests against it
as erroneous. the award will be OF no
validity. 1t is further provided that In
such cases of disagreement, there shall
| lie nosrecourse to hostile measures of any
description, until the mediation of one
orsmore friendly Powers has been invited
The treaty is toy remain in force for
| five years, and assmuch longer.as the TWO
governments desire-either being at
| liberty to terminate it after January 18th
| 1909, by merely giving notice. There
will, therefore, be full opportunity Tor
revision if, after fair trial, experience
shows defects in the practical working OF
| the scheme.
SUPPOSED OBJECTIONS TO THE
TREATY.
The objections to the treaty whiohscome
to the notice ofathis committee, have re-
ceived careful and respectful considera-
ton. WeHbelisve that they are almost en-
tirely owing to an imperfect study, or n
misapprehension, of its provisions or Of
their possible effect.
1t seems to be supposed that the treaty
may require the contracting parties to
arbitrate questions Of policy. But by re-
ferring to the treaty Itself, 1t will be
found thatssthe parties have agreed to
only Tin accordance with the provisions
| O nd c5,lsilaat Ito Ii i4,+,axa of this