hasta el lugar en que entran en el río Arauca, aguas abajo de éste hasta el punto equidistante de la villa de Arauca y de aquel en que el meridiano de la confluencia del Masparro y del Apure intersecta también el río Arauca, desde este punto en línea recta al Apostadero del Meta, y por las aguas de este río hasta su desembocadura en el Orinoco. Sección 6a, Trozo 1o. Desde la desembocadura del río Meta en el Orinoco, por la vaguada de este río hasta el raudal del Maipures, pero teniendo en cuenta que desde los tiempos de su fundación el pueblo de Atures se sirve de un camino situado en la orilla izquierda del Orinoco, para salvar los raudales desde frente al citado pueblo de Atures hasta el embarcadero sito al mediodía de Maipures, frente al cerro de Macuriana y en dirección al norte de la boca del Vichada; queda expresamente consignada en favor de los Estados Unidos de Venezuela la servidumbre de paso por el mencionado camino, entendiéndose que dicha servidumbre cesará á los veinticinco años de publicado el presente laudo, ó cuando se construya un camino por territorio venezolano, que haga innecesario el paso por el de Colombia, reservando entre tanto á las Partes la facultad de reglamentar de común acuerdo el ejercicio de esta servidumbre. Trozo 2o. Desde el raudal de Maipures por la vaguada del Orinoco hasta su confluencia con el Guaviare, por el curso de éste hasta la confluencia del Atabapo; por el Atabapo aguas arriba hasta 36 kilómetros al norte del pueblo de Yávita, trazando desde allí una recta que vaya á parar sobre el río Guainia 36 kilómetros al occidente del pueblo de Pimichín y por el cauce del Guainia, que más adelante toma el nombre de río Negro, hasta la piedra del Cocuy. Dado en el Real Palacio de Madrid por duplicado á diez y seis de marzo de mil ochocientos noventa y uno. El Ministro de Estado, CARLOS O'DONELL. MARÍA CRISTINA. Lo que se inserta en la Gaceta de Madrid para los efectos del art. 3o del Tratado de Caracas de fecha 14 de setiembre de 1881, por el cual se estipuló que el presente laudo quedaria ejecutoriado por el hecho de publicarse en el periódico oficial. In his report for 1893 the Colombian minister for foreign affairs, referring to the foregoing award, stated that the governments of Colombia and Venezuela agreed to send out within a certain period a mixed commission to mark the boundary. This commission, however, was not sent out, and Venezuela had dispatched to Bogota a legation of the first class to negotiate with Colombia an arrangement as to the several points relating to the frontiers, as defined in the arbitral sentence. The two governments had embodied their views in an agreement, the text of which he gave. It was dated April 4, 1894, and declared that Venezuela, while fully accepting the arbitral sentence, thought that it would facilitate the settlement of economic and political questions between the two countries if Colombia would "nobly concede, in some parts of the line, a slight rectification," on grounds of mutual convenience and common interest. On the other hand, the Colombian minister for foreign affairs declared that his government accepted in principle the proposal of Venezuela "for certain modifications of the frontier line, which modifications shall be determined after 5627-VOL. 5-30 the conclusion of the treaties which are on the point of being settled referring to commerce and navigation."1 Khedive of Egypt and M. de Lesseps.-July 6, 1864, the Emperor of France rendered an award as arbitrator in the dispute between M. de Lesseps and the Khedive of Egypt touching the construction of the Suez Canal. Khedive of Egypt and Foreign Powers.-By a decree of January 13, 1883, the Khedive instituted an international commission to adjust claims growing out of the insurrectionary movements which had taken place in Egypt since June 10, 1882.3 FRANCE AND THE ALLIED POWERS (1814).—By the Peace of Paris of May 30, 1814, Article XIX., the French Government agreed "to liquidate and pay all debts" which it might "be found to owe in countries beyond its own territory on account of contracts or other formal engagements between individuals or private establishments and the French authorities, as well for supplies as in satisfaction of legal engagements."4 By an identic treaty concluded at Paris November 20, 1815, and forming part of the second Peace of Paris, between France on the one hand and Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, and Russia, respectively, on the other, provision was made for carrying the foregoing stipulation into effect. It was provided that the liquidation should extend to "supplies and deliveries, arrears of pay and allowances, claims of civil hospitals, the restitution of funds intrusted to the French post-offices," certain "bons” and “mandats” and various other specified matters. To this end, the contracting parties agreed to appoint commissions of liquidation for the examination of claims, and commissions of arbitration to decide on cases on which the former commissions should fail to agree.5 France and Chile.-By a convention signed at Santiago November 2, 1882, similar in terms to that subsequently concluded between Chile and Great Britain (infra), it was agreed to refer the claims of French citizens against Chile to a mixed commission. By a protocol signed at San tiago December 30, 1887, the French claims, which numbered 89 and were of the nominal amount of about $3,400,000, were directly settled by the two governments for $300,000, Chilean silver.6 France and Chile. By a convention of October 13, 1895, expressed in substantially the same terms as the Anglo-Chilean convention of September 26, 1893 (infra), it was agreed that the claims of French citizens against Chile, growing out of the civil war in the latter country of 1891, and the subsequent events, should be referred to a mixed commission.7 1 For. Rel. 1894, 200. 2 The award may be found in Br. and For. State Papers, LV. 1004; de Clerq., IX. 108. 3 Calvo, Le Droit Int. 4th ed. 468. 'Hertslet's Map of Europe by Treaty, I. 342. 5 Id. 382. The commissioners of liquidation appointed by Great Britain were Messrs. Colin Alexander Mackenzie and George Lewis Newnham; the commissioners of arbitration appointed by the same government were Messrs. George Hammoud and David Richard Morier. For. Rel. 1883, 97; Id. 1888, I. 181; Calvo, Le Droit International, 4th ed. III. 455, 466; De Martens, Recueil, 2 série, IX. 704. 7 Mr. Strobel to Mr. Olney, No. 47, October 24, 1895, MS. dispatches from Chile. By an agreement signed at Santiago, February 2, 1896, the two governments settled the claims directly and thus dispensed with the arbitration. The sum total of the claims was upward of 1,000,000 francs. The French Government accepted in discharge of them the sum of £5,000, or about 125,000 francs,' "su France, Chile, and Peru: Arbitration of claims on guano funds.-By a preme decree" of February 9, 1882, Chile, then engaged in a successful war with Peru, directed the sale of 1,000,000 tons of guano from deposits situated in Peruvian provinces which she had then conquered and which, as will presently be seen, passed into her hands, with all the liens upon them, at the close of the war. By article 13 of the decree it was provided that the money for which the guano was sold should be equally divided between the Chilean Government and such Peruvian creditors as were secured by pledges of guano; by article 14, that a board of arbitrators should be constituted to liquidate the claims of the creditors in question; and by article 15, that if, within a period of 180 days, the arbitrators should not be appointed by common accord with the creditors, Chile would appoint them directly. Finally, by article 16 of the decree, it was declared that the Chilean Government would deposit a sum equivalent to the moiety destined for the Peruvian creditors in the Bank of England. such deposit to be considered as passing the property to such creditors as should in the manner pointed out establish a title to it. By the treaty of peace of October 20, 1883, commonly called the treaty of Ancon, Peru ceded to Chile, in perpetuity and unconditionally, the province of Tarapaca. It was further agreed that the provinces of Tacna and Arica should continue in the possession of Chile, subject to Chilean laws and authority, for a period of ten years from the date of the ratification of the treaty, and that at the end of that term a popular vote should decide to which country the provinces should finally belong, the successful party to pay to the other 10,000,000 Chilean silver dollars or Peruvian soles. By Article IV. of the treaty the supreme decree of February 9, 1882, was confirmed, and it was provided that, after the sale of the million tons had been effected, the Government of Chile would continue to pay over to the Peruvian creditors 50 per cent of the net proceeds of guano till the extinction of the debt or the exhaustion of the deposits then being worked. Article VI. reads as follows: "The Peruvian creditors, to whom may be awarded the proceeds stipulated in Article IV., must submit themselves, in proving their titles and in other procedures, to the regulations stated in the supreme decree of February 9, 1882."2 The arbitrators were not appointed by common accord within the period prescribed for that purpose, nor did Chile afterwards appoint them alone. On the other hand, by an agreement signed at Santiago January 8, 1890, called the Elias-Castellon protocol, Chile, in order to enable Peru to arrange her foreign debt arising out of loans of 1869, 1870, and 1872, agreed to grant to Peru the 50 per cent deposited or yet to be deposited in the Bank of England under the supreme decree of February 9, 1882, and 80 per cent of the net proceeds since February 9, 1882, of guano taken or yet to be taken from deposits to which the creditors of Peru were entitled. The provisions in the supreme decree and the treaty of peace in relation 1 For. Rel. 1896, 42. For. Rel. 1883, 731, 732. to the arbitration of the claims of the creditors were not recalled in the protocol of January, 1890. As to the effect of that omission Chile and Peru disagreed, the latter contending that, as the result of the credit of the funds to her, the previous stipulation as to arbitration fell, while Chile took the opposite view. Meanwhile France was pressing upon Chile the payment of a claim of the Messrs. Dreyfuss Brothers & Co., of Paris, growing out of a guano contract which they made with the Peruvian Government in 1869. This claim involved complicated accounts, as well as a question touching the relation in which the claimants stood to the Peruvian Government under the contract. The Peruvian Government denied that anything was due to the claimants, and the same position was maintained by Chile. July 23, 1892, however, M. Bacourt, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of France, and Señor Isidore Errazuriz, Chilean minister of foreign relations, signed at Santiago a protocol by which it was agreed that a certain percentage of the net proceeds of guano sold by Chile from February 9, 1882, to January 9, 1890, should be applied to such claims of “French creditors" of Peru as should be allowed by the chief justice of the supreme court of justice of Switzerland, who was designated by the protocol as arbitrator for that purpose. Peru vigorously protested against this arrangement as an attempt to adjust an unliquidated and unacknowledged claim against her by a proceeding to which she was not a party; and when, in June, 1893, Chile and France addressed the Swiss Government on the subject of the arbitration, the Peruvian Government contested their competency to control the matter without its intervention. The Swiss Government gave to the subject special consideration, and on March 24, 1894, communicated its decision to "all the states involved in the matter" by sending them a memorandum in which its views were fully set forth. Its decision was to the effect that the duties of the arbitration would be accepted on condition (1) that the arbitral tribunal should be composed of Dr. Hafner, the actual president of the federal tribunal, and two other members; (2) that it should have power to decide upon its own jurisdiction and on all interlocutory questions, and to pronounce upon all interventions; and (3) to determine all the conditions of the arbitration. These terms were accepted by all the interested governments, including those of Chile, France, Great Britain, and Peru, and the tribunal was duly constituted. The gates were thus opened to all claims of creditors of Peru on the fund in the Bank of England. Among the claims in behalf of which persons have intervened before the arbitral tribunal are those of Landreau and Cochet, in which interests on the part of citizens of the United States have been alleged to exist. The arbitral process is still pending. France and Hayti.-Under a protocol similar in terms to that between Great Britain and Hayti (infra) claims of French citizens against the 1 Memorial of the Peruvian minister of foreign relations of 1891, Appendix. 2 Rapport du Département Fédéral des Affaires Étrangères (de Suisse) sur sa Gestion en 1893, 30; Memoria que el Ministro de Estado en el Despacho de Relaciones Exteriores presenta al Congreso Ordinario de 1894. 3 Rapport du Département Fédéral des Affaires Étrangères (de Suisse), 1894, 39; see id. 1895. Haytian Government were adjusted by a mixed commission at Port au Prince. This commission was in session in July 1892. France and Mexico.-By a treaty and a convention, both concluded March 9, 1839, it was agreed to submit to a third power the decision of certain questions growing out of the then recent hostilities between France and Mexico. Her Britannic Majesty was afterwards chosen as arbitrator. She rendered, August 1, 1844, the following award:1 "We, Victoria, by the grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, having accepted the Office of Arbiter, which has been conferred upon us by His Majesty the King of the French and by the President of the Republic of Mexico, by virtue of the notes delivered to our secretary of state for Foreign Affairs on the 26th of June, and on the 8th of July 1843, by the plenipotentiaries of His Majesty and of the President, respectively, with a view of terminating the differences which have arisen between the French and Mexican Governments, on certain points reserved by the Treaty, and also by the convention, concluded between those Governments on the 9th of March, 1839, which points are stated in the Treaty and convention as follows: "Treaty, article 2. "In order to facilitate the prompt re-establishment of a mutual good will between the two nations, the contracting parties agree to submit to the decision of a third Power the two questions, namely: "1st. Whether Mexico has a right to claim from France either the restitution of the Mexican ships of war captured by the French forces subsequently to the surrender of the fortress of Ulloa, or a compensation for the value of the said ships in case the French Government should have already disposed of them. 666 2ndly. Whether there is ground for allowing the indemnities which might be claimed on the one side by the French who have suffered injury in consequence of the law of expulsion; on the other side, by the Mexicans who have had to suffer the consequences of hostilities posterior to the 26th of November last.' "Convention, Article 2. "The question whether the Mexican ships and their cargoes which were sequestered during the blockade, and subsequently captured by the French in consequence of the declaration of war, ought to be considered as legally acquired to the captors, shall be submitted to the arbitration of a Third Power, according as it is declared in article 2nd of the Treaty of this day.' "Having attentively and impartially considered the points thus submitted to us, and having carefully weighed every transaction that took place between the parties from the 16th of April 1838 until the conclusion of the Treaty of the 9th of March 1839, "Declare, that, "With regard to the first point stated in the second article of the Treaty and also in the convention, whether Mexico has the right to claim from France either the restitution of the Mexican ships of war captured by the French Forces subsequently to the surrender of the fortress of Ulloa or a compensation for the value of the said ships, in case the French government should have already disposed of them, and whether the Mexican De Clercq, V. 193. |