Article 30.-The powers who accept arbitration will sign a special act, clearly defining the object of the dispute, as well as the scope of the arbitrators. The powers' act confirms the undertaking of the parties to submit in good faith to the arbitration judgment.

act.

Article 31.-Arbitration functions may be conferred upon a single arbitrator, or on several arbitrators designated by the parties at their discretion, or chosen from among the members of the permanent court established by the present Unless otherwise decided, the formation of the arbitration tribunal is to be effected as follows: Each party will appoint two arbitrators, who will choose a chief arbitrator. In case of a division, the selection is to be intrusted to a third power, whom the parties will designate. If an agreement is not effected in this manner, each party is to designate a different power, and the choice of a chief arbitrator is to devolve upon them.

Article 32.-When an arbitrator is a sovereign, or head of a State, the arbitral procedure depends exclusively on his august decision.

Article 33.-The chief arbitrator is President de jure. When the tribunal does not contain a chief of arbitration, the tribunal may appoint its own President. He may be designated by the contending parties, or, failing this, by the arbitration tribunal.

Articles 34 to 50 provide for the appointment of councilors, language to be employed in conducting the case, rules of procedure, and sessions behind closed doors.

Article 51 stipulates that majority decisions shall be rendered in writing, and minority opinions shall be submitted in the same manner, and both shall be signed by the coun cilors.

The concluding articles refer respectively to the rendering of decisions by the court at public sittings, the revision of proceedings, where irregularity or new evidence is discovered, and provisions for showing the cost of the tribunal without reference to penalties imposed.

While there was general assent to the provisions of the peace proposals by members of the conference to make them effective, all the countries participating had to ratify the terms, and it was then that insurmountable difficulties in the form of objections interposed. There was a hesi tancy upon the part of each country to take the initiative

to bind themselves to an observance of the express conditions, and the result was that the United States was the only power that ratified the agreement. The moral effect, however, may not be discounted, for though universal peace is a dream not to be realized this side the millennium, the bringing together of representatives of all countries for an avowed peaceful purpose must be a distinct gain in increasing the disposition to refer future disputes to arbitration.

THE JOINT HIGH COMMISSION.

The discoveries of gold in Alaska were followed promptly by great friction between the United States and the Dominion of Canada over the boundary line between Alaska and British America, which had never been accurately delimited. Almost simultaneously a dispute between the two nations arose over the fishery question. After a long diplomatic correspondence it was finally agreed to refer the matters at issue to a Joint High Commission for determination. The international commission assembled in Quebec, August 23, 1898, with Lord Herschel as president, and at once entered upon the consideration of the following principal questions:

1. The questions in respect to the fur seals of Behring Sea and the waters of the North Pacific Ocean.

2. Provisions in respect to the fisheries off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and in the waters of their common frontiers.

3. Provisions for the delimitation and establishment of the Alaska-Canadian boundary by legal and scientific experts if the commission shall so decide, or otherwise.

4. Provisions for the transit of merchandise in transportation to or from either country, across intermediate territory of the other, whether by land or water, including natural and artificial waterways and intermediate transit by

sea.

5. Provisions relating to the transit of merchandise from one country to be delivered at points in the other beyond the frontier.

6. The question of the alien labor laws, applicable to the subjects or citizens of the United States and of Canada,

Vol. III.-28

7. Mining rights of the citizens or subjects of each country within the terri tory of the other.

8. Such readjustment and concessions as may be deemed mutually advantageous, of customs duties applicable in each country to the products of the soil or industry of the other, upon the basis of reciprocal equivalents.

9. A revision of the agreement of 1817 respecting naval vessels on the lakes.

10. Arrangements for the more complete definition and marking of any part of the frontier line, by land or water, where the same is now so insufficiently defined or marked as to be liable to dispute.

11. Provisions for the conveyance for trial or punishment of persons in the lawful custody of the officers of one country through the territory of the other. 12. Reciprocity in wrecking and salvage rights.

The Joint High Commission held numerous sessions in Quebec and the city of Washington, and being unable to adjust all differences by treaty, on the 20th of October, 1899, a modus vivendi was negotiated between the State Department and the British Foreign Office, the text of which is as follows:

It is hereby agreed between the governments of the United States and of Great Britain that the boundary line between Canada and the Territory of Alaska, in the region about the head of Lynn Canal, shall be provisionally fixed without prejudice to the claims of either party in the permanent adjustment of the international boundary, as follows:

In the region of the Dalton Trail, a line beginning at the peak west of Porcupine Creek, marked on the Map No. 10 of the United States Commission, December 31, 1895, and on Sheet No. 18 of the British Commission, December 31, 1895, with the number of 6,500; thence running to the Klehini (or Klaheela) River, in the direction of the peak north of the river, marked No. 5,020 on the aforesaid United States map and No. 5,025 on the aforesaid British map; thence following the high or right bank of the said Klehini River to the junction thereof with the Chilkat River, a mile and a half, more or less, north of Klukwan, provided that persons proceeding to or from Porcupine Creek shall be freely permitted to follow the trail between the said creek and the said junction of the rivers into and across the territory on the Canadian side of the temporary line wherever the trail crosses to such side, and subject to such reasonable regulations for the protection of the revenue as the Canadian government may prescribe, to carry with them over such part or parts of the trail between the said points as may lie on the Canadian side of

the temporary line, such goods and articles as they desire, without being required to pay customs duties on such goods and articles and from said junction to the summit of the peak east of the Chilkat River, marked on the aforesaid Map No. 10 of the United States Commission with the number 5,410, and on the Map No. 17 of the aforesaid British Commission with the number 5,490. On the Dyea and Skaguay trails, the summits of the Chilkoot and White passes.

It is understood, as formerly set forth in communications of the Department of State of the United States, that the citizens or subjects of either power found by this arrangement within the temporary jurisdiction of the other shall suffer no diminution of the rights and privileges which they now enjoy.

The government of the United States will at once appoint an officer or officers, in conjunction with the officer or officers to be named by the govern ment of Her Britannic Majesty, to mark the temporary line agreed upon by the erection of posts, stakes, or other appropriate temporary marks.

No sessions have been held by the Joint High Commission since the modus vivendi was negotiated, which may be taken as a settlement of the dispute until new questions arise to revive the contention.

THE KENTUCKY ELECTION TRAGEDY.

A tragic and very serious incident occurred in Frankfort, Kentucky, January 30, 1900, which was the culmination of a political dispute, that for a while threatened the gravest consequences, giving rise to a just fear that civil war would be precipitated in the State. The circumstances that led to this painful tragedy, and its results, were as follows: In the fall of 1899, at the State elections in Kentucky, William E. Goebel was the Democratic nominee for governor against William S. Taylor. The nomination of the former had been bitterly contested, upon the grounds of his moral unfitness for the high position to which he aspired. Goebel, who admittedly was a man of great personal courage and political resource, was at the time a State Senator, whose services were chiefly distinguished for opposition to the Louisville

& Nashville R. R. Co., whose charter he sought to have revoked for interference in State elections and lobbying through the legislature measures that it was alleged bore oppressively upon the commerce of the State. He was also hated by an influential element of his own party for the killing of John Sandford, while the Republicans charged him with forcing laws by which the control of the State was given almost irrevocably to the Democrats, through appointment of a partisan election board. The election of 1899 was marked by intense excitement, not only because of personal feeling that entered into the campaign, but also because the legislature was to choose a United States Senator to succeed Blackburn. On several occasions a riot was narrowly averted, and bloodshed was expected at every political meeting. Fortunately these fears were disappointed, and the election passed off with surprising quietness.

The people of Kentucky breathed easier when election day passed without a tragedy, but it was the calm that preceded a great political storm. When the returns were certified they showed a majority of 2,383 in favor of Taylor, and the election certificate was accordingly issued to Taylor and the other State officers on the Republican ticket, but by the same returns a majority of Democratic candidates for the legislature was declared.

Goebel and his party refused to abide by the election returns, and, setting up a cry of fraud, committed chiefly in Louisville, carried their contention before the Election Board, which after a long hearing decided that Goebel had been lawfully elected by a small plurality. When, therefore, the legislature was convened at Frankfort, January 20, 1900, the two governors were at the Capitol to establish themselves in the gubernatorial office. Taylor, holding the cer tificate, took possession of the State House, and, foreseeing trouble, took the precaution to summon a large force of