International A rbitration . income from the seal islands, because of the diminution of the animals by pelagic sealing. Although the contention of the United States was recognized as a strong one, the arbitra tors were influenced in their decision by a desire to preserve what is termed "the free dom of the sea." The Paris award was so much less satis factory to the United States than that of Geneva that the first impression created by. it was unfavorable to international arbitra tion, but the more mature and better judg ment of the country doubtless is that it was a wiser settlement of the questions at issue than to push them by the continued seizure of British vessels to the extreme of war. The latter half of the last century was very fruitful in the settlement of questions be tween the United States and other countries by means of arbitration. It will not be pos sible for me to enumerate them in detail. It suffices to state in general terms that they cover a great variety of questions, from high principles of international law and important territorial rights to individual pecuniary claims and torts. But there is one feature of these arbitrations which, for the honor of our country, calls for special notice. I refer to the spirit of equity and fair dealing which has marked the conduct of our government in all cases where any suspicion of fraud or exaggerated damages has attached to the arbitral 'decisions. I cite a few of these by way of illustration. The only instance in our history where fraud and corruption have been established against an arbitration tribunal was that with Venezuela under the treaty of 1866. Soon after the adjournment of the commission charges of irregularity and fraud on the part of the members were made at Washington by the Venezuelan government, and an investi gation established, to the satisfaction of Con gress, the fact that a corrupt arrangement had been made between the American com missioner, the umpire (a Venezuelan), the
159
United States minister to Venezuela, and his relative, the leading attorney before the com mission, by which a large part of each claim represented by the attorney and allowed by the commission was to be divided between the persons named. Awards upon the claims held by this attorney made up about twothirds in amount of the total awards, and some meritorious claims not presented by him were rejected. After considerable delay in securing legislation, a new commission was organized which reviewed the work of its predecessor. ÜÍ the twenty-four cases allowed by the first commission only nine were passed on favorably, and three old cases rejected were allowed by the new com mission, and which represented more than half of the total awards. Two claims of American citizens against Hayti which were strongly pressed diplo matically by our government, were sub mitted to arbitration in 1884, and awards for a large amount were rendered. Soon after this action charges of fraud on the part of the claimants were preferred, and Secretary Bayard after investigation held that neither of the cases had any foundation in justice, and that a sovereign state could not in honor press an unconscionable and unjust award. The Haytian government was accordingly released from the payment of these claims. The Chinese indemnity fraud of 1858 is an instance of the treatment by the United States of exaggerated damages obtained through commissions. A large sum was paid in gross by China upon the alleged claims of American citizens, and their claims were passed upon by a domestic or American commission. After all possible claims had been allowed about half a million dollars or considerably more than half of the sum paid remained in the United States Treasury. After being there for many years, Congress in 1885 directed its return to China. The minister at Washington, in acknowledging its receipt said: "This generous return . . .
