Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-12-30
NO WORD FROM CASTRO
ARRANGENENTs FOR ARBITRA-
TON AT A STANDSTILL.
European Criticism Regarding the At
titude Of This Government In En-
deavoring to Settle the Trouble.

President Castros answer to the allies
proposal to arbitra;e the Venezuelan trou-
bles has not been received. In fact. 1t was
said that no news had come over night to
the State Department showing any change
in the status Of the Venezuelan matter. so
Secretary Hay had nothing Of Importance
to communicate to the cabinet on that sub
ject today. There are, however, under dis
cussion such questions as those relating to
the best means of terminating the blockade,
for the continuance of which, in the view
of our government, there will be no reason
able excuse after the conclusion or an
agreement to arbitrate, and other matters
touching the personnel Of the commission,
which it is expected will meet in Washing
ton to lay down the lines Of the arbitration
scheme.
A European Criticism.
,Inasmuch as certain European publicists
have taken exception to the EFFORTS OF the
United States to bring about arbitration be-
tween Venezuela and the allies, as VIOLA
ton of all the traditions and rules Of inter-
national intercourse. the attention of one
of the most eminent American members Of
the representatives at The Hague CONFER
ence, one of the men who framed the
Hague convention itself. was directed to
the criticisms. He very promptly cleared
away the Misunderstanding on that point
by pointing to article q of The Hague con-
vention as justification of the attitude OF
the United States. This article reads:
1.-The signatory powers consider 1t their
duty, If a serious dispute threatens to
break out between two or more of them,
to remind these latter that the permanent
court is open to them.
consequently they declare that the fact
of reminding the conflicting parties of the
provision Of the present convention. and
the advice given to them in the highest
interests Of peace, to have recourse to the
permanent court, can only be regarded as
friendly action"
Some Inside History.
Attention in Europe has already been d.
rected to this duty imposed on neutral
powers by the Baron dEstournelles De
Constant, one Of the ablest Of the French
representatives at The Hague conference,
but it remained for the American delegate
above referred to to point out a curious
fact in connection with the adoption OF the
above quoted provision.
The paragraph was proposed by FRANCE
and singularly enough it was opposed prln-
cpally by the United States, yet 1t Is the
United States which is the first Of nations
to avail itself of it's provisions. The reason
for the opposition Of our delegates was a
fear on their part that 1t would seem to Dc
a bestowal of power upon European coun,
tries to intervene in American AFFAIRS, ana
in a manner an infringement Of the Monroe
doctrine.
The French delegates were exceedingly
anxious to carry the paragraph, however,
and they finally succeeded in quiedng the
opposition Of the United States delegates
through the reservation by the latter on the
18th of July, 1889, Of the right to deal with
American affairs in accordance with our
established doctrines. This was thought to
safeguard the Monroe doctrine, though IN
fact it only recorded an opinion of the
United States delegates and did not bind
The Hague tribunal as a whole. Now the
article y above referred to has been I'M
voked by the United States for the very
purpose with which it was inserted blythe
French delegates; namely, to prevent the
ignoring Of The Hague tribunal in great IN
tErnati0nal diSnIlteS