The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-10-05
EACH MADE CONCESSIONS
The Members of the Arbitration
Tribunal Were Far Apart.
A CASE OF COMPROMISE
Up to the Last Moment 1t Looked as If
an Agreement Was Impossible.
In Europe They Look at
Things So Differently.

Paris, Oct. "A representative of the
associated press this afternoon had a
conversation with Justice Brewer of the
United States supreme court regarding
the award of the Anglo-venezuelan ar
bitration tribunal, from which it ap-
pears that the deliberations of the court
did not proceed as smoothly and with
the spontaneous unanimity which q
perusal of the award would lead one to
believe.
Justice Brewer, in replying to ques
ton, said:
Until the last moment, I believed a
decision would be nuite impossible, and
it was by the greatest concentration
and mutual concession. that eompro-
mise was arrived at. If any Of us had
been asked to give an award, each
would have given one differing In ex
tent and character. The consequence
of this was that we had to adjust our
different views and finally to draw
line running between what each thought
right
Being asked whether political consid-
erations influenced that award, the JUS
tice said he could not admit that, as
such an admission would reflect on the
judges, but there was no doubt that the
present insurrection in Venezuela and
the consequent feeling of instability
weighed to certain extent in the bal
ance.
In response to an inquiry as to what
questions separated the Judges, Justice
Brewer replied:
Nearly every point. In the first
place, European lawyers don't look
upon the question Of prior rights re-
sulting from rights of discovery in the
same way as we do. Then the ques-
ton of the nature of control and the
extent of influence and relationship
with the native races and such matters
are not viewed in the same manner on
the other side of the Atlantic. In fact
the whole situation is not SO keenly ap-
preciated by Europeans as it Is by the
Americans
Replying to a question regarding the
deliberations with international court
Mr. Brewer said that there was, prop
erly speaking. no casting of votes. Each
judge conceded something in turn.
With regard to the proceedings in open
court he said the hearing of arguments
might have been considerably curtailed
had the case been heard exclusively by
either an English or an American
court, but the judges thought it pru-
dent to allow counsel full liberty in
order to make matters clearer to the
| president, who. afte< all, was not a
lawyer. Asked whether, according to
his own opinion, Venezuela was entitled
to more than she actually received,
Justice Brewer, after some hesitation,
shrugged his shoulders and said he
would rather say nothing on that sub
ject and concluded by remarkng that
whatever these two parties might think
| of the award, Venezuela received
Barim point, which gives her full con-
troll of the interior of her territory, and
| England is confirmed in the possession
of territory in the development OF
| which she has spent considerable
money and energy, but the principal
blessing is that the two nations can at
at last develop peacefully side by side
large tracts Of territory. which. owing
| to the previous antagonism, have re-
manned unproductive.