The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-10-06
THE VENEZUELAN AWARD.

A Paris cablegram TO the New York
World reports some alleged expressions OF
ex-Presldent Harrison regarding the award
of the British-venezuelan arbitration tri-
bunaI which are interesting in themselves
and likely to attract considerable attention
by reason Of their bearing on the general
question of international arbitration. The
dispatch reads thus:
The World correspondent saw General
Harrison. the leading counsel LOT ssns-
zuela. at his hotel later in the day and sug-
gested TO him that the case nad peen ue-
cided not solely on judicial considerations,
but with a view to have 6oth SIDES gss
equivalent advantages, so that no serious
cause might be left for further friction.
That's exactly the point said MI Har-
rison. which must now be mace clear. AT
bitration in theory is al right. but when an
international tribunal faces such a proDiem
as we have had to study ana solve loeal
justice must invariably submit to questions
OF expediency.
Unless courts of arbitration In the future
show themselves Drawer and less inclined TO
be pleasant on both sides, such tactics will
deter the nations from submitting their diI-
ferences TO tribunals Of this character. For
feel sure that a part Of her righteous claim
will be sacrificed to please the other party.
CORE linen isnon Sen c sfSai This 1 Is What has been
done? A part of Venezuela's territory has
been given 70 England deli5erateiy with .he
lQea OF en0lQS the dispute
yes" was the answer, II consider that,
while we succeeded in preventing spoliation
TO such a scope as England intended, YET
Venezuela does not get the territory that L
consider she is entitled to. The award is a
matter of mutual concession-a compro-
mise"
At this point in the interview General
Harrison began to pace the floor rather ex-
ci;edly and then added.
THE plain truth Is that my feelings are
such just now that 1 am afraid my Ian
guage might run away with me. L prefer
that you should look over this statement.
which l have. written out as an expression
of my views"
IN this document Mr.. Harrison evidently
aims at showing two things: First. that, al
e~rations which had nothing to do with JUS
tice TO Venezuela. the counsel for tina
Great Britain more than she ever intended
to give. Second. that, II more was not
awarded to Venezuela; 1t was because the
TO save her from the humiliation OF a de-
feat.
Resuming the conversation, General Har-
rison said In regard to the boundary line or
dered by the court: II have not been able
SO far to understand upon what principls
down. II neither shows a regard for the
natural boundaries between, the two coun-
tries nor the rights of title"
In conclusion Mr.. Harrison INDUCED In
some pointed sarcasm on the work of the
court of arbitration, which he asked the
World correspondent not to publish or re-
peat.
The Importance Of this is not so much in
its bearing on the present case. which is
now closed, as in the effect 1t may have in
weakening the cause of international arbi-
tration. The effect Of the criticism is TO
place the award of the arbitration tribunal
In this case on a level with that Of petit
.juries in litigated cases, who often com
promise conflicting claims on a basis quite
different from the contention of either par
ty. Perhaps this Is only equivalent to say
ing that human wisdom is finite and hu-
man nature much the same in a plain cfti-
zen on a petit jury or a great jurist and
publicist on an arbitration tribunal Yet 1t
is likely to be used as an argument against
international arbitration by its opponents,
who will say we might as well surrender
our rights at once as allow them to be COM
promised away under the ~pretense Of doing
exact justice. In a majority OF controverted
cases and claims both parties think they are
right. If they did not there would be no
controversy. 1t must be a very plain and
a very strong case in which all the right is
on one side. 1t Is evident from the outline
that has been given of the award and from
tiN Va NV0A~Na 90
the arbitrators did not accept in full the
contention of either party. but adopted a
new and somewhat arbitrary basis of set
| Element. But, after all, is not compromise
the essence of arbitration? Certainly the
| object of all arbitration is to effect a peace
able and permanent settlement Of disputes
on a basis fairly satisfactory to both par
ties. and II this can be done by adopting a
middle or compromise line better than by
allowing the contention of either party In
full, then there should be compromise. In
finite wisdom and ideal justice are hardly
to be expected In human affairs. History
shows that most international disputes.
especially boundary disputes, that have
been submitted to arbitration have been
settled on compromise lines. 1t was emil
nently so in the cases Of our northeastern
and northwestern boundary disputes with
Great Britain. and probably the Alaskan
boundary dispute will recognize the same
principle. In short, IL the object Of inter-
national arbitration is TO secure interna-
tional peace by settling dangerous disputes
| on a basis the substantial equity of which
will be recognized by both disputants, it
would seem that compromise Is or the es-
sence of the whole business. In this case
the members of the arbitration tribunal
were all eminent lawyers, but Ii is evident
they felt they should not be bound by legal
technicalities. A dispatch says:
On questioning the judges 1t was found
that they were generally of the opinion that
In order TO be a good international arbitra-
tor Ii is not sufficient TO be q good lawyer,
but II is absolutely necessary to be, at the
same time, a statesman. They. therefore,
hope that the boundary as fixed will not
only be satisfactory from the legal point of
view, but also from that of international
peace, and will lead to the establishment OF
good neighbOrly feeling between the two
powers.
From this IL appears the arbitrators felt
that their duty was to find an equitable
basis of settlement in a dangerous and long
standing controversy. even though 1t in
volved some compromise of rights. rather
than TO render a decision which should be
technically invulnerable from a legal point
of view.