in the only case in which, according to its opinion at the
time, a difference could be foreseen, to wit, with regard to Article I.;
because it has already been proposed by Her British Majesty's
Government, and accepted by this Government with regard to the
difference in respect of Article 14 of the Convention arising in the
matter of the so-called Coolie question, which was settled by
Arbitration; because the Right Honourable the Secretary of State, Mr.
Chamberlain, himself, in his letter of the 4th September, 1895, to His
Excellency the High Commissioner at Cape Town, favours this principle in
the same question, where he says: 'After 1886, as time went on, the
manner in which the law was interpreted and was worked, or was proposed
to be worked, gave rise to complaints on the part of the British
Government, and as it seemed impossible to come to an agreement by means
of correspondence, the Marquis of Ripon took what is the approved course
in such cases, of proposing to the South African Republic that the
dispute should be referred to Arbitration. This was agreed to ...,'
because the principle of Arbitration in matters such as this appears to
the Government to be the most impartial, just, and most satisfactory way
out of the existing difficulty, and, lastly, because one of the parties
to a Convention, according to all principles of reasonableness, cannot
expect that his interpretation will be respected by the other party as
the only valid and correct one. And although this Government is firmly
convinced that a just and impartial decision might be obtained even
better in South Africa than anywhere else, it wishes, in view of the
conflicting elements, interests, and aspirations which are now apparent
in South Africa, and in order to avoid even the appearance that it would
be able or desire to exercise influence in order to obtain a decision
favourable to it, to propose that the President of the Swiss Bondstate,
who may be reckoned upon as standing altogether outside the question,
and to feel sympathy or antipathy neither for the one party nor for the
other, be requested to point out a competent jurist, as has already
often been done in respect of international disputes. The Government
would have no objection that the Arbitration be subject to a limitation
of time, and gives the assurance now already that it will willingly
subject itself to any decision if such should, contrary to its
expectation, be given against it. The Gov