Washington, or by the principles of international law not inconsistent therewith. And so far as relates to the vessels called-The Georgia, The Sumter, The Nashville, The Tallahassee, and the Chickamauga, respectively, The tribunal is unanimously of opinion That Great Britain has not failed, by any act or omission to fulfill any of the duties prescribed by the three rules of articles VI in the treaty of Washington or by the principles of international law not inconsistent therewith. And so far as relates to the vessels called-The Sallie, The Jefferson Davis, The Music, The Boston and the V. H. Joy, respectively, The tribunal is unanimously of opinion That they ought to be excluded from consideration for want of evidence. And whereas, so far as relates to the particulars of the indemnity claimed by the United States, the cost of pursuit of the confederate cruisers are not, in the judgment of the tribunal, properly distinguishable from the general expenses of the war carried on by the United States. The tribunal is therefore of opinion, by a majority of three to two voices That there is no ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head. And whereas prospective earnings cannot properly be made the subject of compensation, inasmuch as they depend in their nature upon future and uncertain contingencies: The tribunal is unanimously of opinion That there is no good ground for awarding to the United States any sum by way of indemnity under this head. And whereas in order to arrive at an equitable compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is necessary to set aside all double claims for the same losses, and all claims for "gross freights” so far as they exceed "net freights"; And whereas it is just and reasonable to allow interest at a reasonable rate; And whereas, in accordance with the spirit and letter of the treaty of Washington, it is preferable to adopt the form of adjudication of a sum in gross, rather than refer the subject of compensation for a further discussion and deliberation to a board of assessors, as provided by article X. of the said treaty; The tribunal, making use of the authority conferred upon it by article VII. of the said treaty, by a majority of four voices to one awards to the United States a sum of $15,500,000 in gold as the indemnity to be paid by Great Britain to the United States, for the satisfaction of all the claims referred to the consideration of the tribunal, conformably to the provisions contained in article VII. of the aforesaid treaty. And, in accordance with the terms of article XI. of the said treaty, the tribunal declares that "all the claims referred to in the treaty as submitted to the tribunal are hereby fully, perfectly, and finally settled." Further it declares, that "each and every one of the said claims, whether the same may or may not have been presented to the notice of, or made, peferred, or laid before the tribunal, shall henceforth be considered and treated as finally settled, barred, and inadmissible."11 This award was signed by Chas. Francis Adams, Frederick Sclopis, Stampfli and Vicomte d'Itajuba. It will be observed that its form complies in all essential particulars with the forms commonly used in the judgments and decrees of the courts of Great Britain and the United States, and disposes of all the questions in detail, except that it does not apportion the sum allowed the private claimants, but leaves its distribution to the government of the United States. The commission provided for in articles XII to XVII, to which was submitted the other claims growing out of the war, held its final meeting on September 25, 1873, and awarded to Great Britain $1,929,819 in gold, and disallowed all claims of citizens of the United States against Great Britain.12 The commission provided for in articles XXII to XXV met at Halifax, Nova Scotia, June 15, 1877, and on November 23, 1877, awarded to Great Britain $5,500,000 in gold for the difference in value of the fishing privileges granted by the treaty.13 Only the year before that in which this treaty, which so happily settled this long list of controversies between the two great English speaking nations, Great Britain, pursuant to the Protocol of the treaty of Paris of 1856 hereinbefore mentioned, appealed to both France and Prussia to arbitrate their differences. Napoleon III was then on the throne of France. He took offence at the choice of a Hohenzollern to the throne of Spain and was not satisfied with the mere non-acceptance of the throne, but insisted on guarantees from Prussia that such a dynastic combination should not be made in the future.11 Prussia refused and the war so disastrous to France followed. 11 Senate Documents, 2d Session, 61 Congress, 47-718. 12 Senate Documents, 2d Session, 61 Congress, 47-705. 13 Senate Documents, 2d Session, 61 Congress, 47-709. 14 Halleck's Int. Law 1. 500. Good offices, meditation or arbitration could not serve the purposes of imperial ambition. THE FUR SEAL FISHERIES The fur-seal fisheries in Behring's Sea gave rise to various questions between Great Britain and the United States, which the governments were unable to settle by diplomacy. The seals resorted to the islands to breed, but went far out on the sea where they were taken by fishermen. The United States claimed the right to regulate the taking and prevent the destruction of them. This claim was denied by Great Britain. A treaty was concluded February 29, 1892, submitting the questions on which the governments differed to seven arbitrators, two each to be appointed by the respective governments, one by the President of France, one by the King of Italy, and the other by the King of Sweden and Norway. The sixth article of the treaty states five points to be decided by the arbitrators: "1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as Behring's Sea, and what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior and up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States? 2. How far were those claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain? 3. Was the body of water now known as Behring's Sea included in the phrase "Pacific Ocean" as used in the treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia; and what rights, if any, in the Behring Sea were held and exclusively exercised by Russia after said treaty? 4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction, and as to the seal fisheries in Behring's Sea east of the water boundary, in the treaty between the United States and Russia on the 30th of March, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that Treaty? 5. Has the United States any right, and if so, what right of protection or property in the fur-seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Behring Sea when such seals are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit?"15 The arbitrators decided "that the United States has not any right of protection or property in the fur-seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Behring Sea, when such seals are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit." Pursuant to 15 Senate Documents, 2d Session, 61st Congress, 47-748. other provisions of the treaty the arbitrators decided that concurrent regulations outside the jurisdiction limits of the respective governments were necessary and included in their award nine articles providing among other things that both governments should forbid their citizens and subjects to kill, capture or pursue at any time seals within sixty geographical miles of the Pribilov Islands; or to kill, capture or pursue them during the season from May 1 to July 31 on the high sea in the part of the Pacific Ocean, inclusive of Behring Sea, which is situated to the North of the 35th degree of north latitude and eastward of the 180th degree of longitude from Greenwich till it strikes the water boundary described in Article I of the treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia: that only sailing vessels should be permitted to take seals, and that each such vessel should procure a license from its government; that the use of nets, fire arms and explosives should be forbidden, except that shot guns might be used outside of Behring's sea.' 16 The award did not fully dispose of all matters of disagreement on the subject of the seal fisheries, but enabled them to agree on temporary regulations for the prevention of the extermination of the seals. It decided adversely to the United States all claims of exclusive jurisdiction over the high seas. Nor does it recognize any right in both governments acting in concert to make rules governing persons other than their own citizens and subjects. The high seas being the common property of all nations, the regulation of their use requires the joint action of all of them. The award did not dispose of the claims made against the United States for seizures and interference with the operations of British subjects. These claims were subsequently referred to a commission which on December 17, 1897, awarded the claimants $473,151.26 against the United States.17 The two governments being unable to agree on the boundary line between Alaska and the British Dominions appointed a tribunal of six jurists, three of them named by each govern 16 Senate Documents, 2d Session, 61 Congress, 47-751. 17 Senate Documents, 2d Session, 61 Congress, 47-770. L ment, to determine the line. This tribunal, although composed entirely of nationals of the two parties, made an award which settled the controversy. The success of these arbitrations and of those determining matters in difference between Great Britain and Venezuela, treaty of 1897, between the Argentine Republic and Chile, treaty of 1902, led to a feeling among diplomats of great confidence in the efficacy of arbitration as a means for the settlement of international disputes. The tripartite arbitration of the Samoan claims which, pursuant to the treaty concluded November 7, 1899, between the United States, Germany, and Great Britain, was submitted to the King of Sweden and Norway as sole arbitrator, resulted in a decision in favor of Germany on October 14, 1902. King Oscar held that the military operations of Great Britain and the United States between 1 January and 13 May, 1899, were unwarranted under the treaty between the three powers concluded at Berlin June 14, 1889, and the principles of international law. This arbitration was notable because it submitted to a single arbitrator a question as to the rightfulness or wrongfulness of the military operations of two of the greatest nations in the world as affecting the subjects of a third great nation. There was plausible ground for making the claim that this was not a justiciable matter because it involved the honor of Great Britain and the United States, but no such claim was made and the controversy was settled by this award.18 The marked success of arbitration in bringing about speedy and complete settlement of so many controversies which might have been treated as grounds for war, induced the second Hague Conference to devote great care and attention to arbitration as a means to be resorted to by all nations for determining those questions that they were unable to settle by diplomacy. But the convention finally agreed on does not bind the nations to submit any class of disputes to arbitration. It merely approves and recommends it, provides a tribunal which may be resorted to if the parties so agree, and furnishes rules of pro 18 Senate Documents, 2d Session 61st Congress, 48-1591. |