The sun., 1903-11-12

q protest against the refusal Oh tnat hd-
ministrative Council to furnish Mr.. MAC
VEAGH with copies of certain papers
which, as counsel for Venezuela, he be-
| lieved he had the right to see. The pur-
pose Of the letter was entirely proper,
and it produced the desired result, as Ia
shown by the action Of the Tribunal when
it met. Mr.. MACVEAGH did not say that
if the arbitrators were lawyers instead
of diplomats they would know their
business better He was referring not
to the judicial but to the executive side
of the Tribunal when he wrote, with
what seems to US to be some appearance
of acerbity:
IL now venture TO dissent from your conclusion
In refusing request for copies OF papers on Mel
only because my long and varied experience OF the
administration OF Justice In courts OF great dignity
and very extensive Jurisdiction ought to give some
weight to my opinion on subject OF that character
While 1t was not to be expected that The Hague
Conference should be able to agree upon wise pro-
visions In all respects 1t Is perhaps especially to be
regretted that the charge Of the Court should have
been committed to diplomatsts as generally speak
Ing. however Intelligent in other respects they can
no, be expected 10 be familiar with the accepted
methods OF procedure In courts of great authority
Although actuatcd with the best desire to facilitate
the work Of the Tribunal, 1t Is due to shat lack OF
familiarity. am sure, that you have entirely mis-
apprehended the meaning Of Article IS OF The Hague
Convention. to which you referred as authority for
denying us access to he nlcs OF the Court"
The remainder of the letter is an un-
exceptionable and proper appeal to the
Administrative Council to reconsider the
principle of practice which MIR. MAC
VEAGH believed to be enormously con-
ceived, and to which he objected in the
particular instance affecting his case.
Whatever may be thought of the tone of
the passage quoted above, it was GER
tainly not an insult to the jurists before
whom Mr.. MAcVEAGH was about to
appear in his capacity of advocate. Yet
it is conceivable that the remarks about
the administrative management of the
Tribunal may have given offence to
some of the diplomats concerned, and
perhaps even have led to friction and
ll-feeling which set going the exag-
gerated and unwarranted report that
Mr. MAcvEAGH left The Hague suddenly
to escape recall by the Washington au-
thorities.
4. AS to the statement that Mr. MAC
VEAGH attacked Great Britain's course
in Venezuela in such way as to give
great offence, we are convinced that at
the time of his departure, after his work
at The Hague had been finished, his rela-
tions with the representatives OF the
British case were serenely amicable.
In examining this matter somewhat
minutely, our sole purpose has been to
separate the true from the false or un-
substantiated, in despatch originally
written and printed on what was prop
erly regarded as ample authority. This
we do in justice not less to our own ideas
of right than to the reputation Of gen.
tleman and jurisconsult of high character
and distinguished reputation, not the
least of whose many services to the coun-
try has been his recent professional per-
formance at The Hague.