Upon the refusal of the Government of Buenos Ayres to pay a debt to a citizen of the United States, which the Government of the United States claimed to be justly due, the minister of the United States at Buenos Ayres was instructed "to insist upon an arbitration to take place at this city" [Washington], and that the award of the arbitrators should be final. He was further instructed to say to the Government of Buenos Ayres that any further delay on its part in facilitating and effecting its final settlement, will be regarded by the President as indicating but a slight disposition to do justice to a citizen of the United States, and to cultivate and promote the friendly relations which so happily subsist between the two Governments." Mr. Calhoun, Sec. of State, to Mr. Brent, Mar. 3, 1845, MS. Inst. Arg. This Department has for many years past adopted the policy of submitting to a disinterested arbitration claims of its citizens against other governments, when otherwise unable to agree upon an adjustment, and when no political reasons have interfered to prevent such submission, and when there has been no great principle of public law at issue.“ Mr. J. C. B. Davis, Act. Sec. of State, to Messrs. Allen & Son, Aug. 13, 1869, 81 MS. Dom. Let. 543. April 7, 1888, an agreement was entered into between Mr. Lewis, United States consul at Tangier, and the Moorish authorities, for the arbitration of the claims against the Government of Morocco growing out of the neglect or refusal of that Government to observe and enforce treaty rights of American citizens and protegés. The Sultan having refused to approve the agreement, Mr. Strobel, secretary of the United States legation at Madrid, was directed, April 28, 1888, to proceed to Tangier to assist in the negotiations. He arrived at Tangier on the 2d of May, and on the 8th of the same month, with the assistance of Mr. Strobel and of Commander Folger, of the U. S. S. Quinnebang, a new arrangement was completed, satisfactory to all parties. By this agreement a tribunal was to be constituted, to be composed of Mr. Lewis and of two persons designated by the Sultan, who were, however, to have but one vote. The agreement contained an enumeration of four matters which were to be disposed of, but -t.pulated that other claims of American citizens in regard to debts, commercial intercourse, and robberies might be presented. The tribunal was to endeavor to make its report by June 1, 1888, and its decisions were to be binding. In the event of a disagreement one of the foreign representatives at Tangier was to be named as umpire. The tribunal met and agreed upon an award, which was signed by Mr. Lewis and the two representatives of the Sultan. This award embraced the matters specifically enumerated in the agreement, and stipulated that the other claims should be left to the examination and decision of certain other persons. Complaint was afterwards made of the nonobservance by the Moorish Government of the provisions of the award in respect of two of the four enumerated matters. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Lewis, consul at Tangier, March 1, 1889, 129 MS. Inst. Consuls, 112. "The condition of international law fails to furnish any imperative reasons for excluding boundary controversies from the scope of general treaties of arbitration. If that be true of civilized states generally, a fortiori must it be true of the two great English-speaking nations." Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Sir J. Pauncefote, Brit. ambass., June 22, 1896, For. Rel. 1896, 232, 236. (2) AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE. § 1070. Where the parties to a controversy agree to submit it to arbitration, it is the usual practice to draw up and sign a treaty, convention, or protocol defining the question at issue and the arbitrator's powers, besides providing for the appointment of arbitrators and regulating to some extent their procedure. The agreement of two nations to arbitrate a question "constitutes an obligation between them which neither is morally free to disregard on grounds of technical formality." Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Baker, min. to Costa Rica, July 14, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 202, 203. (3) APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS. § 1071. "Under no circumstances could the Governinent of the United States carry its mediatory good offices to the extent of proposing itself as arbitrator, even if excluding the imputation of being itself an interested party to the arbitration;" and the fact that it had been constrained to occupy a position of reserve with regard to a question between two other nations "for its own protection and to safeguard American interests, would effectually preclude any suggestion that the Executive of this Government be invited to decide it as a judge." Mr. Gresham, Sec. of State, to Mr. Peralta, Costa Rican min., May 18, 1893, For. Rel. 1893, 287, 288, 289. On June 12, 1848, Lord Palmerston earnestly opposed a proposition in Parliament that Great Britain should pledge herself to abide the result of arbitration, on the ground that "there is no country which, from its political and commercial circumstances, from its maritime interests, and from its colonial possessions, excites more anxious and jealous feelings in different quarters than England does, and there is no country that would find it more difficult to obtain really disinterested and impartial arbitrators." Creasy's First Platform of Int. Law, 698. For notice of the arbitration of the German Emperor in the case of the In July, 1892, the British schooner Lottie May put into the port of Ruatan, island of Ruatan, Honduras, unloaded a cargo of provisions and asked for a clearance for Great Caiman, whence she had come. Clearance was refused because of revolutionary troubles on the Honduran coast, and afterwards the captain of the schooner was arrested for alleged insulting language to the authorities. He was imprisoned for six days, the vessel meanwhile being detained. The British Government claimed damages to the amount of £300 for the captain and £200 for the vessel. The Honduran Government admitted liability, but contested the amount of damages, claiming that it was not liable for damages on account of imprisonment of the master, but only for the detention of the vessel. It was agreed to arbitrate the question, and an invitation to act as arbitrator was extended to Mr. Arthur M. Beaupre, chargé d'affaires ad interim of the United States to Guatemala and Honduras. Mr. Beaupre was authorized by the United States to act on the understanding that he was to do so personally and not as the representative of his Government. This condition was accepted by the parties to the dispute, who desired, however, that the case should be submitted to "Arthur M. Beaupre, who is now chargé d'affaires ad interim of the United States," with the understanding that he was to sign his individual name and render his decision over his personal signature. This arrangement was approved. For. Rel. 1899, 371–372. The members of the general board provided by The Hague treaty are not officers of the United States whose appointments require confirmation by the Senate, nor are they in the ordinary acceptation of the terms persons holding office. Their work is not only occasional, Fit is contingent upon their appointment by foreign powers to act as arbitrators in the settlement of disputes between them. Griggs, At. Gen., Nov. 7, 1900, 23 Op. 313. (4) LIMITATION OF ARBITRATORS' POWERS. § 1072. An award was made under the 7th article of the treaty of 1794 with Great Britain to several persons collectively, who afterwards disagreed as to their respective shares. It was advised that the Government had only to see that the money was paid to those in whose favor it was awarded, and that they must resort to the courts to settle their differences. Breckenridge, At. Gen., 1805, 1 Op. 153. Under the treaty with Spain of February 22, 1819, provision was made for the appointment of commissioners to "receive, examine, and decide upon the amount and validity of all the claims" of a certain description against that Government. It was held that this gave the commissioners power to decide conclusively upon the amount and validity of claims, but not upon the conflicting rights of parties to the sums awarded by them. Comegys v. Vasse, 1 Pet. 193. Under the act of Congress constituting a board of commissioners to pass on claims, provided for by the treaty with France of 1831, the decision of the board between conflicting claimants is not conclusive, and the question of their respective titles is fully open to be adjudicated by the courts. Frevall. Bache, 14 Pet. 95. The award of commissioners under the act of 1849 (9 Stat., 393), passed to carry into effect the convention with Mexico of 1848, does not finally settle the equitable rights of third persons to the money awarded. It makes, however, a legal title to the person recognized by the award as the owner of the claim, and if he also have equal equity, his legal title can not be disturbed. Judson . Corcoran, 17 How. 612. When it was announced, in 1887, that Costa Rica and Nicaragua would refer their boundary dispute to the President of the United States, the Colombian minister at Washington suggested that it would be advisable to postpone the proceedings till the Spanish Government should render its decision in the pending arbitration of the boundary between Colombia and Costa Rica, and in case this could not be done he reserved the rights of his Government, so far as they might be affected by any decision on the dispute between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Replying to these representations, the Department of State said: "I do not conceive it possible for an arbitrator to assume to decide any question other than that submitted to him by the two states which may seek his judgment, or to take cognizance of any collateral issue between either of them and a third state, which is not expressly submitted to him by the parties directly interested. I am not aware that Nicaragua is a party to the submission now before the Queen Regent of Spain, any more than Colombia is a party to the question which Costa Rica and Nicaragua may submit to the arbitrament of the President of the United States; and I find nothing in the submission to Spanish arbitration (as heretofore made known to this Department by the official communications of the representatives of Colombia and Costa Rica at this capital) which would induce me to advise the President that, in the event of his accepting the personal trust of arbitrating the boundary question between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, his decision should await or be in any way contingent upon the decision of the Spanish arbitrator in the wholly independent question between Costa Rica and Colombia, or be otherwise rendered than upon the precise facts submitted to him." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Becerra, Colombian min., July 23, 1887, An award was rendered on the question between Costa Rica and Nica- The arbitration between Colombia and Costa Rica lapsed, owing to a dispute between the contracting parties as to the time within which their cases were to be presented. Negotiations were, however, afterwards undertaken for a new treaty of arbitration. (Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4857.) → Regarding this state of facts as established by the diplomatic understanding of the two governments, we have a case in which, notwithstanding the provisions of the treaty placing American citizens upon the same plane in this regard as natives, a tax is levied upon them of double the amount of that imposed upon natives, and when not paid the employers of such workmen are subject to a summary seizure and sale of their goods. It is strongly urged in the able arguLent submitted by the minister of Hayti that the remedy of the claimants should be sought in the local courts of Hayti, and that such remedy is exclusive. Numerous precedents are cited to the proposition that governments will not intervene diplomatically when such remedy is given. As a general proposition, it is settled international law that a government will not intervene in claims against foreign governments when redress may be had in the courts of that country. If there has been a substantial denial of justice, or a gross miscarriage thereof, sanctioned and approved by the opposing government, a |