204 TIIK TIJKATV OF WASHINGTON. 



claims oC the (Jovoniinoiil of tlio I'liilt'd States niitl of tlio Ciov- 

 cniiiU'iil of UiT r>rit.'\r.:Mt.; iMajosty nliall bo hulmulto<l to tlio 

 nrbilralioii ami award of His Majt'siy the Mmpcror of (iormaiiy, 

 wlio, IiaviiiLj r(.\L,'anl lo llio abovo-iiiontione'd Arliclo of the said 

 Treaty, shall deeidu thereui>oii, liiially and •without appeal, 

 Avliieh of those elaims is most in aoeordaiice ■with the tiaie iii- 

 tetpretatlon of tiie Treaty of Jime 1 "», 1840." 



StibsccnuMit ai'ticlos prescribe tliat tlic qtiestioii 

 sliall be discussed at Berlin by tlie actual diplomatic 

 Itepresentatives of the respective (lovcrnmeiits, either 

 tirally or by written armunent, as and wlien the Arbi- 

 traior shall see fit, either before the Arbitrator him- 

 self, or before a person or persons named by him for 

 that purpose, and either in tlio presence or the absence 

 of cither or both Agents. 



A previous arrangement in a treaty negotiated by 

 the Earl of Clarendon and ]\Ir. Johnson for referrin^r 

 the suliject to the arbitration of the President of the 

 S.viss Confederation had been rejected by the Senate 

 of the United States, not on account of any objection 

 to the particular arbitrator, but for other considera- 

 tions. 



There is good cause for the suggestion of Lord ISIW- 

 ton that the Senate of the United vStates considered 

 our " right to the disputed territory so extremely clear 

 that it ought not to be submitted to arl)itration." 

 That, indeed, is the tenor of Senator Howard's speech 

 on the subject, the publication of which was author- 

 ized by the Senate. Such a view of a question of 

 right may be admissible on the part of a private in- 

 dividual, who, in a clear case, may prefer a suit at law 

 in the courts of his country to a'bitration; but it is 



