properly interpreting what would have been your instructions had you known of the subject. I shall, in compliance with President Roca's wish, do myself the honor when in Washington in August to verbally express to you the reasons he gave me for wishing to make such a treaty with us and his hope that we might decide to do so. 1 have, etc., WILLIAM I. BUCHANAN. [Inclosure.-Translation from La Nacion, June 11, 1899.] General treaty of arbitration, signed at Buenos Ayres June 8, 1899, between the Argentine and Uruguayan Governments. The Governments of the Argentine Republic and of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, animated by a common desire to solve by friendly means whatever question that may arise between them, have agreed to celebrate a general treaty of arbitration, for which purpose they name as their plenipotentiaries, to wit: His excellency the President of the Argentine Republic; his minister, secretary of the department of foreign relations and worship, Dr. Amancio Alcorta; and his excellency the President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay; his envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary in the Argentine Republic, Dr. Gonzalo Ramirez, who, having communicated to each other their full powers, found to be in due and good form, have agreed on the following articles: ARTICLE 1. The high contracting parties obligate themselves to submit to an arbitral decision all controversies of whatever kind which for any cause may arise between them, when they do not affect the principles of the constitution of one or the other country, and when they can not be solved by means of direct negotiations. ART. 2. Questions which have been the objects of definite arrangements between the parties can not be renewed by virtue of this treaty. In such cases arbitration will be exclusively limited to the questions which may arise upon the validity, interpretation, and compliance with said arrangements. ART. 3. In each case arising a tribunal of arbitration will be created, which shall resolve the existing controversy. If no agreement can be reached as to the constitution of the tribunal, it shall be composed of three judges. Each State shall name an arbitrator, and these shall designate the third. If they can not agree upon this designation, it shall be made by the head of a third State, who will be indicated by the arbitrators named by the parties. If no agreement can be reached concerning this last nomination, the President of the French Republic shall be asked to make the designation. The arbitrator thus designated shall by right be president of the tribunal. No person can be named third arbitrator who in such character shall have previously rendered a decision in an arbitral case under the terms of this treaty. ART. 4. None of the arbitrators can be a citizen of the contracting States nor domiciled in their territory. Neither can they have an interest in the questions which may be the object of arbitration. ART. 5. In the case of the nonacceptance or resignation of one or more of the arbitrators, or an insuperable impediment befalling one of them, a substitute shall be provided according to the same proceedings observed for the nomination of the arbitrator. ART. 6. The points agreed upon shall be set forth by the contracting States, which can also fix the scope of the powers of the arbitrators and any other facts relating to the proceedings. ART. 7. In default of special stipulations between the parties, it appertains to the tribunal to designate the time and place of its sittings outside the territory of the contracting States, to elect the language that shall be employed, to determine the methods of proofs, the formalities that shall be followed by the two parties, the procedure to be observed, and in general to take all measures that may be necessary to enable it to perform its functions, and to resolve all the difficulties which may arise in the course of debate. The contracting parties agree to place at the disposition of the arbitrators all means of information of which they are possessed. ART. 8. Each one of the parties can appoint one or more representatives before the arbitral tribunal. ART. 9. The tribunal is competent to pronounce upon the regularity of its own constitution, validity of the agreement, and of its interpretation. It is equally com petent to settle the controversies that may arise between the contracting parties on the subject whether certain questions may have or have not been points submitted to arbitral jurisdiction under written agreement. ART. 10. The tribunal shall decide in accord with the principles of international law, unless the agreement imposes the application of special rules or authorizes the arbitrators to decide as friendly intermediators. ART. 11. The tribunal can not meet without the attendance of the three arbitrators. In the event that the minority, after being duly cited, declines to take part in the deliberations or other acts of the case, the tribunal will be formed by the majority of the arbitrators only, the voluntary or unjustifiable nonattendance of the minority being duly noted. The award reached by the majority of the arbitrators will be final, but if the third arbitrator does not accept the view of either of the arbitrators named by the two parties his conclusion will be final. ART. 12. The award shall definitely decide each point in controversy, giving the reasons therefor. It shall be written in duplicate and signed by all the arbitrators. If one of them should refuse to sign it the others shall make mention of this fact in a special act, and the award shall be effective when signed by the majority of the arbitrators. The dissenting arbitrator shall at the time of the signing of the award make known his disagreement therewith, but without expressing his reasons therefor. ART. 13. The notification of the award shall be made to each one of the contracting parties by its representative before the tribunal. ART. 14. The award legally rendered shall settle within the limits of its effect the controversy between the parties. ART. 15. The tribunal shall set forth the period within which it shall be made effective, being competent to decide the questions that may arise in consequence of the execution of the award. ART. 16. The award can not be appealed, and its execution is confided to the honor of the nations who are signatories to this pact. Nevertheless, recourse of revision before the same tribunal which pronounced the award may be had, provided there is shown before the expiration of the time named for the execution of the award that: I. It has been rendered by virtue of a forced or falsified document. II. That it has been in whole or in part the consequence of an error of fact resulting from the proceedings or documents in the case. ART. 17. Each of the contracting parties shall pay its own expenses and half of the general expenses of the arbitral tribunal. ART. 18. The present treaty shall remain in force for ten years from the date of the exchange of ratifications. If it should not be denounced six months prior to its term of expiration, it shall be regarded as renewed for another period of ten years, and so successively. The present treaty shall be ratified and its ratifications exchanged in Buenos Ayres within six months from the date thereof. In witness whereof the plenipotentiaries of the Argentine Republic and of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay have signed and sealed with their respective seals, in duplicate, the present treaty, in the city of Buenos Ayres, the 8th day of June, 1899. AMANCIO ALCORTA. GONZALO RAMIREZ. AUSTRIA-HUNGARY. ARREST OF AARON KENIG ON A CHARGE OF ASSISTING AN AUSTRIAN SUBJECT ACROSS THE FRONTIER. Mr. Tower to Mr. Hay. No. 116.] UNITED STATES LEGATION, SIR: In compliance with the instructions contained in your dispatch No. 191, of the 6th of January, 1899, I have the honor to report to you the case of Aaron Kenig, a naturalized American citizen, who was arrested in Austria in the month of December, 1897, on the charge of attempting to assist an Austrian subject to cross the frontier of the Empire without a permit, in order to evade his obligation to perform military duty, in regard to which I have been in correspondence with the Austro-Hungarian foreign office during the past year. The facts relating to this case, in so far as I have knowledge of them, are as follows: Aaron Kenig was born in the city of Roman, in Roumania, in the month of April, 1863. He emigrated to the United States in 1883, going directly to Hartford, Conn., where he now resides and makes his living by selling boots and shoes. He was admitted to citizenship in the United States before the court of common pleas at Hartford, on the 26th of October, 1892. In the month of May, 1897, Mr. Kenig returned to Europe to make a visit to his friends, during the course of which he was married at Busk, in Austrian Galicia, in the month of November of that year, and in December he set out with his wife to go back to his home in Connecticut. He took with him on that occasion, as a traveling companion, a young man about 18 years of age, named David Taeger, a cousin of his wife, an Austrian subject, residing in Busk. It was the intention of this young man to go to America with Mr. Kenig, who had agreed to help him and to pay his passage. Taeger had not, however, obtained from the Austrian authorities the permit to travel, which it is customary in this Empire to issue in such cases, and which is necessary to enable an Austrian subject to cross the frontier. When the train in which Mr. and Mrs. Kenig and young Taeger were traveling reached the station of Szczakowa, where an examination of passports and traveling permits is made by the police, the party were called upon with the other passengers to show their papers. Mr. Kenig exhibited a passport issued to him by the Secretary of State at Washington, in May, 1897, which was accepted at once by the police agents as a sufficient identification of himself and his wife; but Taeger, who had no document of any kind to show, was immediately arrested. He was sent back to his home, and Aaron Kenig was charged with aiding him to escape the performance of his military duty by going abroad. Mr. Kenig was summoned to appear before the police magistrate at Szczakowa to answer this charge, and was subsequently bound over for trial before the district court at Taworzno; his money and his passport were taken from him and held by the authorities in the nature of bail for his appearance. Having proceeded to Taworzno accordingly in answer to this summons, he was there informed that his case had been transferred to the circuit court at Zloczow, and he was ordered to go there for trial. The money thus seized consisted of the following sums, to wit: 410 Austrian florins ($166.46), 50 reichmarks and 25 pfennigs in German currency ($11.96), 1 Russian ruble (52 cents), and 85 cents in American coin. Of this sum, I understand that 20 Austrian florins were returned to him for his immediate wants. Instead of appearing before the circuit court at Zloczow, as he had been notified to do, Mr. Kenig came to this legation on the 11th day of January, 1898, and made a complaint as to his arrest. As it seemed to me likely that this case might lead to subsequent correspondence with the Austro-Hungarian foreign office, I took from him, while the facts were still fresh in his mind, the affidavit, a copy of which is included in the documents submitted herewith. In that affidavit Mr. Kenig admitted that he had committed the offense with which he was charged. It will be observed that he swore to the following statement: "But Taeger, who had no passport of any kind, was held upon the charge of attempting to evade the military service to which he was bound by the laws of Austria-Hungary. Taeger admitted to the police authorities that he was upon his road to America with Kenig and his wife, and that the party intended to sail from Bremen for New York. Kenig was arrested at once upon the charge of assisting Taeger to escape military duty, and was taken in company with Taeger before a police magistrate of Szacowa. At the examination before this magistrate Kenig admitted that Taeger was traveling with him to Bremen for the purpose of emigrating. The magistrate then said to Taeger, 'How can you emigrate when you have no money?' Taeger replied, 'Mr. Kenig is going to pay my passage from Bremen.' Whereupon Kenig added, 'Yes, I am going to give him the money to pay his passage from Bremen to New York. The magistrate arrested Taeger immediately, and Kenig was held for a further hearing." Mr. Kenig did not say definitely when he left this legation after making the affidavit in question that he should not return to Zloczow and undergo his trial there, though he intimated that if he could obtain sufficient money from friends of his in Vienna he should disregard the summons of the court and go directly to America. Subsequently I received from him a postal card dated at Bremen the 14th of January, 1898, and mailed there the same day, upon which the following message was written: I notify you es I em goieng hom to Hartford conn Amerika tomorrow the 15th and I liff min case in your hands the imount of money is 410 o/W, 85¢ Amerikan money all the ansver witch you will hev to ansver me, Please send to Hartford conn. Yours Trouly, AARON KENIG. With the purpose of ascertaining the view of the Austrian authorities in regard to this case, and also to assist this American citizen in the event of my being able to do so, I wrote to the chief of police at Krakau, to the district captain at Zloczow, and also to the judge of the court at Taworzno, inquiring of them upon what ground Aaron Kenig had been arrested and what disposition, if any, had been made of his money and his passport. The replies of these officials having merely indicated the facts of his arrest, however, without any assurance that a speedy trial would be held, and as I had been informed in the meantime that Kenig had arrived in America, whence he had no intention of returning to appear before the Austrian courts, I addressed to the Count Goluchowski, Austro-Hungarian minister of foreign affairs, on the 9th of March, 1898, the note a copy of which is herewith inclosed, setting forth the facts as they had been represented to me by Mr. Kenig, and requesting him to cause an examination into this question to be made by the proper authorities, in order that this citizen of the United States may have justice done to him and that he may have returned to him the money that was taken from him and his American passport. In reply to this request I received the 10th of September, 1898, the note of which a translated copy is hereto appended, whereby the minister of foreign affairs confirmed the statement of facts of Kenig's arrest, as these were already known to me, and added that, after the preliminary hearing at Taworzno, Kenig had left Galicia; that as his whereabouts was not known the trial had been postponed until such a time as he could be arrested, and that the money taken from him, as well as his passport, was held in custody by the court; that subsequently a decree had been entered by the court according to which Mr. Kenig's money "was ordered to be retained by the court to pay the costs of the legal proceedings," though his passport was ordered to be returned to him upon his request at the termination of the trial. Thereupon I addressed to the Count Goluchowski the note dated the 15th of October, 1898, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which I asked to have Mr. Kenig's passport sent to this legation for transmission to him; and, in order the better to understand the rather general statement that "the money taken from Aaron Kenig was directed to be retained to pay the costs of the legal proceedings," I requested that I might be furnished by the court at Zloczow with a copy of its judgment against Mr. Kenig and of the decree under which his money was confiscated, to enable me to make my report to the Government of the United States complete in regard to this matter. In compliance with this request I was furnished by the minister of foreign affairs, on the 29th of December, 1898, with a copy of the decree of the court, which I have appended hereto in a translation. By this decree, which was dated the 2d of May, 1898, it is evident that no final disposition of Mr. Kenig's money has been made, but that it is simply being held with his passport until such time as his case may have been determined, and it will then be used, either wholly or in part, to pay the costs incurred by the proceedings. Meanwhile, the case has been indefinitely postponed until Kenig shall have been taken into custody. Therefore I addressed a note to the Count Goluchowski, on the 6th of January, 1899, in which I called his attention to the fact that no steps have been taken in this case since the month of May, 1898, but that the money and the passport taken from Kenig are still held in abeyance by the court. I added that this defendant is now in America, at his home in Hartford, Conn.; and I said further: More than a year has elapsed since the occurrence of the offense with which he has been charged, and eight months have passed without any final judgment having been delivered in regard to it. He asks to have his money given back to him and his United States passport returned into his possession. |