Evening star., 1909-02-09

ernment of Venezuela, made it impossible
for the courts of that country. while he
was president. TO be free from strong
compulsion to decide in accordance with
decisions made under such circumstances
Is practically a refusal of real arbitration.
There is serious objection, Mr.. Root con-
tinued to any submission to arbitration
on account of denial OF justice. because
that would involve matters difficult Of
proof. without going into the general
character of Castro's government in such
a way that the United States would, In
it's case before the arbitration tribunal,
appear to be casting aspersions upon
Venezuela which would be regretted on
all sides, for it would create hard feeling
and be exceedingly prejudicial to the
reputation of Venezuelan courts.
Examples of Arbitration.
Mr. Root submitted to Venezuela a list
of cases upon which decisions had been
rendered by the Supreme Court Of the
United States. and which questions were
afterward submitted to- arbitration by the
United States under the British American
claims convention. sitting under article
XII of the treaty of Washington
In six of these cases the international
tribunal decided adversely to the deci-
sion of the Supreme Court Of the United
States. and its judgment was accepted by
this government. In six cases the In
ternational tribunal decided In accord
ance with the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States. and Great
Britain accepted the judgment without
question, which illustrates the general
policy Of the United States as well as
that of Great Britain to freely submit
OH their merits. to impartial international
arbitration questions involving the deci-
sions of its highest tribunal.
In his correspondence Mr.. Root tried
to make clear his opinion that Venezuela
would suffer no loss Of dignity by sub
mitting to arbitration questions which
had been passed upon by its courts.
Point Made by Root.
Mr. Root further stated that in a pro-
tocol no mention should be made of SUBJ
mitting court decisions to review. but
that the protocol should speak Of sub
mitting to International decisions cases
in respect to which there have already
been decisions of the courts. This. he
said, will be much easier for Venezuela.
and is in accordance with the practice of
the great powers. For example. in none
of the instances where the United States
has submitted cases already decided have
the decisions of the courts been treated
as being under review, but the cases
have been submitted on their merits for
a new decision. Notwithstanding the pre-
viOus decisions of the courts. The dis
tinction drawn by Mr.. Root between sub
hitting decision of court to review
and submitting the question involved i'm
the decision OF a court is the distinction
between court of appeal which passes
upon Il decision and the arbitr ration of
question involved in a previous decision.
In the first case, by a submission Of
judgment TO review the sovereignty of
the nation is involved, because it creates
over and above its courts an International
tribunal TO which an appeal can be taken
from national to an International tri-
bunal at any time. whereas in the meth
od proposed by Mr.. Root national SOW
ereignty and the finality of national de-
csions is not involved. because the ques-
tions are by agreement of the two DOW
ers submitted to arbitration on their
merits without transmitting the docket
from an inferior to a superior jurisdic-
ton.
Declined by Venezuela.
Venezuela has declined to accept Sec
retary Roots proposition because 1t be-
lieves it is against its honor and dig
nifty to submit to international arbitra-
ton questions which have already been
passed upon by its own courts. Venezuela
is willing, however. to submit to inter-
national arbitration their judicial de-
csions in order. by examination of such
decisions by court selected from The
Hague, to determine whether there has
or has not been a denial of justice in
the proceedings had in the Venezuelan
courts If it shall appear that there has
been a denial of justice. then Venezuela
will consent that the questions shall be
examined upon their merits. and will sub
nit to the final decision of the tribunal
II, on the contrary. a disinterested tri-
bunal, selected from The Hague. shall
consider the proceedings so regular that
there has been no denial of justice. the
decisions of the courts of Venezuela shall
be considered as final and the questions
in controversy shall be dismissed.
1t appears TO the Depar artment of State
that the view OF Secretary Root is more