OCR Text |
Show 224 um "°'"" m MET" l 225 prises.* In reply Mr. Oliiey said in part: "Interiiationzil law fails to furnish any imperative reasons for excluding boundary contro- versies from the scope of general tr ‘aties of arbitratiim. If that be true of civilized states generally. (1 [17211011 must it be true of the two great Env'lish-spealcincr nations. :\s they .have'notImerely political institutions but systems of jurisprudence identical in their origin and in the fundamental ideas underlying: them. as the law of real property in each is but a growth from the same parent stem, it is not easy to believe that a tribunal composed of judges of the supreme court of each, even if a foreign jurist‘were'toact as umpire, could produce any tlae'i‘ant miscarriage ot justice. f if in 1785 John _]a_v believed that such disputes were capable of adjustment by judicial means, it was not surprising that his suc- cessor. in 1890. should take a similar stand. It will be remembered that in IS! Secretary Olney and the l:lritish Ambassador signed a generalarbitration treaty. In that agreement provision was made for the arbitration of pecuniary claims. For the adjustment of claims, or of differences involving principles of grave general importance affecting national rights as distinguished from private rights, it was agreed that recourse should be had to a tribunal composed of three American and three British judges. Their award, if made by a majority of five to one, was to be final. This treatv met with the approval of both President Cleveland and President McKinley. as \\ ell as of a large majority of the Senate. As less than two-thirds of the Senators present advised its ratification, when a vote was talcen, the treaty failed. Notwithstanding that fact the filney-l‘auneefote convention stands today as a sig- nificant proof of what legal differences two of our own Presidents as well as the liritish government believer] to be capable of adjust ment by judicial process, and that two years before the assembling of the liirst Hague (.‘oiiference. An attempt to settle the territorial differences between Great liritain and the l‘nited States concerningr the northeastern boundary by judicial process was only in part successful, irief reference to \\ hat happened is enlightening: Which of two rivers (l(‘~l;jll2tit‘(l in the 'l'i'eaty of l'eace as the St, (mix. and constitut- ing the huundar't. \\a~ It\(‘«'1‘lltl11e(l by means of arbitration. ‘ l‘ivriign Relations. 1M"? ‘1' l‘Iil‘i-igii Relations, 1‘?" lllC rightful ownership of certain islands in Passamaquoddy Bay and in the Bay of Fundy was established by a joint commission con- sisting of one Englishman and one Americanfk The remaining portion of the northeastern boundary dispute, involving the deter- mination of title to over 12,000 square miles, was not settled until 1842, and then by diplomacy. In the meantime, an attempt had been made in 1827 to settle the controversy by referring it to the King of the Netherlands as arbitrator. The royal arbitrator, instead of rendering a decision based on the descriptions contained in the treaty of 1783, declared in his award what he himself believed to be a suitable line of demarkation, This was regarded by the United States as a departure from the powers entrusted to him, rendering the award recommendatory in character, and there- fore imposing no obligation on the litigant states. There was a mutual waiver of the award by the two governments. If there was a miscarriage of justice, it was due to a failure on the part of the arbitrator to appreciate the nature of his duty and the scope of his powers, rather than to a weakness of the system on which reliance had been placed. The experience did, however, lessen the confidence of the United States in arbitration as a suitable means of adjusting territorial disputes. Some years later, when the con- troversy with Great Britain relatinj‘r to the Oregon dispute became acute, President l'olk declared that territorial differences were not capable of adjustment bv such means. In 1871, however, the [inited States and Great ltri iiii referred to arbitration before the German limperor the (jllt‘\li()ll as to the San Juan water boundary. llis award. rendered on October 2.1, 1872, was satisfactory to ludl] parties. and they expressed their thanks to that effect to the Kaiser.‘{' ()11 February 11, 1003. Great firiiilill and the United States concluded an agreement referring to a joint tribunal consisting of six impartial jurors, three to be appointed by the President and three to be appointed by the King, the determinatimi of the Alaskan boundary dispute. The United States was convinced of the justice of its own position. regarding the claims of Great liritain not only untenable but almost frivolous in character. Nevertheless, it was believed that the controversy, notwithstanding the ' Moore, Int. ArbitrationsiY L f'linpter If. TMoore, Int. Arbitrations, 1. Chapter ll. |