on 18th May. In it he stated that he was Lord Salisbury's reply was despatched unable to agree with the proposed emendation of Article 4, but as both Governments were at one with regard to Article 3, he suggested that a beginning should be made by embodying their common views in a separate convention. To do this," he wrote, would not be to prejudice in the slightest degree the chance of coming to an agreement on the more difficult portion of the subject, which concerns territorial claims. "The first step could not prevent the ulterior steps being taken; it would rather lead to them." On 2nd June, Sir Julian Pauncefote telegraphed' that after long discussion with the Secretary of State he had found him more favourably inclined to the draft treaty provided that an alteration could be introduced into Article 4 to the effect that the award if retested against shall be reviewed by a curt composed of not less than five of the judges of the Supreme Court of the Power protesting." To this Lord Salisbury replied at once Her Majesty's Government would accept the fourth clause of the proposed Treaty in the form suggested by you.
Its application to Venezuela would also be accepted if the United States for this purpose will stand in Venezueln's plice, an arrangement for which a subsidiary Convention will be required. The two arbitrators would be chosen by Great Britain and the United States respectively. It would also be necessary that under the amended version of Clause 4 the revising tribunal_on the Venezuelan side should be not the Supreme Court at Caracas, but the Supreme Court at Washington, and that there should be an undertaking on the part of Venezuela to accept any decision to which the United States submit, or which is not set aside by the Supreme Court at Washington.
This telegram was duly communicated to Mr. Olney, who stated that he would take time to consider his reply.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.