Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

great powers. For example, in none of the cases 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 previous decisions of the courts. The distinction drawn by Mr. Root between submitting a decision of a court to review and submitting the question involved in the decision of a court, is the distinction between a court of appeal which passes upon a decision, and the arbitration of a question involved in a previous decision. In the first case, by a submission of a 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 a national to an international tribunal at any time, whereas, in the method proposed by Mr. Root national sovereignty and the finality of national decisions is not involved because the questions are by agreement of the two powers submitted to arbitration on their merits without transmitting the docket from an inferior to a superior jurisdiction.

Venezuela declined to accept Secretary Root's proposition because it believed it against its honor and dignity to submit to international arbitration questions which have already been passed upon by its courts. Venezuela is willing, however, to submit to international arbitration its judicial decisions in order, by examination of such decisions by a court selected from the Hague panel, 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 submit to the final decision of the tribunal. If, on the contrary, a disinterested tribunal, 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.

It would seem that the view of Secretary Root is more consistent with national dignity and honor than is the view of Venezuela. Mr. Root regards the judgment of the supreme court of a country as so final and entitled to such credit within the country, that he is unwilling that the judgment as such be submitted to reexamination by any international tribunal.

The case of the Orinoco Corporation is to be submitted to arbitration in such a way that the judicial proceedings had in Venezuelan courts

as well as the legislative and executive acts of Venezuela will be submitted to the tribunal in order to ascertain whether there has been committed in any or all of them manifest injustice. The tribunal is to be composed of three members selected from the permanent panel of the Hague court, one by each nation, and the two arbiters thus chosen are to select from the same court a third. It is wisely provided that none of these arbiters shall be a citizen of the United States or of Venezuela, and no member of the Hague court shall appear as solicitor for either of the two parties to the controversy. Within six months the governments are to send the names of the judges selected by each and within eight months the presentation of the claims must be made. Provision is made in the protocol for direct settlement between the Orinoco Corporation, the United States and Venezuela Company, and the Venezuelan Government, provided such settlement is made within five months and provided further it meets with the approval and gains the consent of the United States government. It is not unlikely that the two cases will be settled out of court. Should negotiations fail there will therefore be three cases submitted to arbitration.

The case of the New York and Bermudez Asphalt Company has been settled directly between the company and the government and no mention of the case is made in the protocol. The private agreement reached between the government and the New York and Bermudez Asphalt Company is set forth in eight articles. In the first and second the company recognizes the annulment of the Hamilton concession, and accepts the sentence of the courts of Venezuela regarding the claim for damages for aiding the rebellion. In the third article Venezuela agrees to reduce the amounts in which the company has been condemned by the aforesaid sentences. As a consequence, the company shall pay to the nation the amount of 300,000 bolivars (about $60,000) in cancellation of the obligations which the company contracted because of the aforementioned sentences. In Article 4 Venezuela declares that the company possesses over the Guanoco mine a mining title, dated December 7, 1888, as well as title to certain wild lands in which the mine lies. By the terms of Article 5 the government returns to the company the possession and the use of the Guanoco mine and other properties, and concedes to the company free transit and free importation of tools and machinery. The company recognizes the direct domination of Venezuela over the aforesaid mine. In Article 6 the company agrees to sell to Venezuela such Guanoco asphalt as it may need for its public works at a reduction of 25 per cent from

the current price. Article 7 provides that the company shall pay to the national government a tax of 4 bolivars for each ton of asphalt which it may export, without having to pay any other tax; but it is understood that the annual total of this tax shall never be less than the sum of 100,000 bolivars ($20,000). Article 8 says: "In the aforesaid terms all the questions and differences between the two parties up to to-day are settled, without any rights for subsequent claims in regard to them." In conclusion, both parties to the agreement ask the court immediately to give necessary orders for the sequestrated property of the company to be turned over to it.

As the American minister was withdrawn from Venezuela by reason of the failure to consider the various grievances of American citizens, the adjustment of these differences paves the way for resuming the diplomatic relations which were unfortunately suspended. Minister Russell will return to his post, a diplomatic representative will be accredited to the United States, and it is to be hoped that the relations of the two countries will be in future more satisfactory than in the past, because by an interchange of views and an adjustment of difficulties, suspicion has given way to confidence, and both countries are not only willing but desirous to maintain the most cordial relations and good understanding.

A NEW SULTAN IN MOROCCO

The internal commotions in Morocco which led to an assembling of a conference at Algeciras for settling the international status of Morocco, and the adoption of the Algeciras Act1 of April 7, 1906, the rebellion of Mulai Hafid resulting in the overthrow of the former sultan, and the recognition of the new one, after considerable difficulty and friction between the powers, especially France and Germany, as evidenced by the joint notes of the powers, the settlement of the controversy between France and Germany arising out of the Casablanca incident, have been fortunately terminated, and the agreement between France and Germany concerning the commercial interests of Germany and the political interests of France in Morocco eases the strained international relations caused by the internal disorders of Morocco and re

1 See Supplement, 1:47.

2 See Supplement, this issue, p. 103.

3 See JOURNAL for January, 1909, p. 176.

moves a source of future trouble between the powers interested in the North African state.

There are two powers preeminently concerned with the future of Morocco, namely, France and Spain. The acquisition of Algeria has made France a neighbor, and it is but natural to suppose that France, either influenced by the position of Algiers and the desire to maintain law and order in the department, or moved by a desire to include Morocco within its sphere of influence should jealously watch the trend. of affairs. In the next place the geographical situation of Spain and the foothold which it has in Morocco cause Spain to watch with jealous eyes the progress of events in the neighboring country. An agreement was reached between Great Britain, likewise interested in Morocco, and Spain, dated May 16, 1907; between France and Spain, dated May 16, 1907; and between Great Britain and France, dated April 8, 1904. The agreement between Germany and France (February 9, 1909) the material portion of which follows, likewise recognizes the political interests of France while safe-guarding the commercial relations of Germany:

5

The Government of the French Republic and the German Imperial Government, actuated by an equal desire to facilitate the execution of the Act of Algeciras, have agreed to define the significance which they attach to its clauses with a view to avoiding any cause of misunderstanding between them in the future.

Consequently, the Government of the French Republic, wholly attached to the maintenance of the integrity and of the independence of the Shereefian Empire, decided to safeguard economic equality there, and accordingly not to impede German commercial and industrial interests, and the German Imperial Government, pursuing only economic interests in Morocco, recognizing at the same time that the special political interests of France are closely bound up in that country with the consolidation of order and of internal peace, and resolved not to impede those interests, declare that they will not prosecute or encourage any measure calculated to create in their favour or in favour of any power whatsoever an economic privilege, and that they will endeavour to associate their nationals in business for which these may be able to obtain contracts (l'entreprise).

While this treaty may be distasteful to the element in Germany which wishes the acquisition of foreign naval bases and the political supremacy of Germany in Morocco, the understanding reached by the two powers will be exceedingly gratifying to those who believe that

+ See Supplement, 1:425. 5 See Supplement, 1:425. 6 See Supplement, 1:6.

France and Germany are enemies accidentally, not inherently. A favorite policy of Bismark was to encourage Austria to extend its influence to the south-east thus relieving Germany from the field of Austrian activity. It would seem equally statesmanlike for Germany to encourage France to compensate itself in the Mediterranean far from the Rhine, for the loss of territory consequent upon the unfortunate Franco-German war.

THE BALKAN SITUATION

In an Editorial Comment in the October issue of the JOURNAL (1908)1 it was pointed out that the proclamation of Bulgarian independence on October 5, 1908, that the permanent incorporation of Bosnia and Herzegovina with Austria-Hungary, and the substitution of Greek for Ottoman authority in Crete, constituted a violation of the Berlin treaty of July 13, 1878, which has hitherto formed the basis of law and order in the Balkan peninsula. It was also stated that the annexation of Eastern Roumelia to Bulgaria violated article 13 of the treaty of Berlin, and it was stated that as no one power could change the provisions of a treaty without the consent of the signatories it was probable that the conference of interested powers would meet to consider the situation and recognize formally the changes which had taken place. A conference has not assembled but the foreign offices of Europe have been busy exchanging notes and views. M. Isvolsky, minister of foreign affairs of Russia, has visited the capitals of Europe and it appears that the difficulties are to be settled by an arrangement satisfactory to the signatories of the treaty of Berlin without a formal conference of the powers.

The two great questions agitating the powers and at times threatening the peace of Europe relate to the compensation to be awarded Turkey for the recognition of Austro-Hungarian sovereignty in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the conditions upon which the Porte is to recognize the independence of Bulgaria. Without going into the events leading to the Russo-Turkish War it is sufficient to say that the Treaty of Berlin placed the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina under AustroHungarian occupation and administration. No term was placed to the occupation and administration of the provinces but whatever the

12:864.

« AnteriorContinuar »