Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 01.djvu/831

ARBITRATION. tion was referred to the Emperor of Germany, who rendered an award sustaining the American chiims to the Haro Channel as the true interpre- tation of the treaty. This boundary was finally lixed by the protocol of 1873.

(S) Between the United States and Great Brit- ain in IS55 to determine by a mi.xed commission the reciprocal "Reserved Fisheries Rights"

ider the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, which re- newed the privileges renounced under the Con- vention of 1818 by taking and curing fisli in "unsettled bays, harbors and creeks" along the ('anadian shore. The work of the commission was to define the "rivers and river-mounts" re- served under the treaty, and was not concluded until 1860.

(9) Between the United States and Great Britain under the Treaty of 1803, by which the claims of the Hudson's Bay and Puget's Sound Agricultural Companies arising under the Oregon Treaty (Treaty of 1840) were settled by refer- ence to two conunissioners, one from each State, who chose an umpire. They awarded .$450,000 to the Hudson's Bay Company, and!i!200,000 to the Puget's Sound Company, in return for which the companies executed deeds of release of their pos- sessory claims in the Oregon region to the United States.

(10) Between the United States and Vene- zuela, in 180, by a mixed commission — one from each State, and an umpire, in settlement of claims of American citizens against the latter. The award was $1,253,310.30 in favor of the United States, but was subsequently impeached for alleged fraud. By treaty in 1885 these claims were resubmitted to a second commission of simi- lar cliaracter, which, in 1888, awarded $980,- 572.00 to the United States.

(11) Between the United States and Mexico, in 1808, for variois claims and counterclaims subsequent to the Peace of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, in 1848. The award was rendered in favor of the United States; but objection was raised later to some of the evidence admitted. Pending the investigation of these charges, distribution has never been made of the funds.

(12) Between the United States and Great Britain, in 1S71, by the terms of the Treaty of Washington, providing for the submission to arbitration of: (1) The San Juan water boun- dary ( see 7 ). Referred to the Emperor of Ger- man}', who sustained the American claim. (2) The Nova Scotia fishery rights. (3) Claims and counterclaims growing out of the Civil War, other tlian the Ahibama claims. (4) The Ala- hiiDia claims (q.v.). Under the second, an award of £1,100.000 was given to Great Britain, and under the tliird £386,000.

(13) Between the United States and France, in 1880, for claims for injuries growing nut of the Jlcxiean War of 1862-67, the Civil War, and the Franco-Prussian War. An award of $612,- 000 was rendered against the United States. (14) Between the United States, Great Britain, and Germany, in 1889, to determine their con- flicting claims in the island of Samoa. The ap- pointment of the Chief Justice of Samoa was to be referred to the King of Sweden and a joint commission established. In 1899 complications aro.se, resulting in a joint high commission pro- ceeding to the Samoan Islands. As a result of this investigation, an agreement for their par- tition was signed in Washington, December 2, 1899.

(15) Between the United States, Great Brit- ain, and Portugal, for the determination of the dispute arising from the seizure and annulment of the charter of the Delagoa Baj' Railway, con- structed by an American citizen. The claims were referred to tliree jurists appointed by the President of the Swiss Confederation.

(16) Between Great Britain and the United States, in 1892, regarding the Bering Sea seal fisheries. The commission, which sat in Paris, gave a divided award, mainly in favor of Great Britain, in 1893; but in favor of the United States' admission of the necessity for regula- tion of pelagic sealing and the proposal for such regulations. Later, in 1896, a further com- mission was created to award the amount of damages due to Canadian sealers under the de- cision of the Bering Sea Arbitration Court, to which reference was made above. This was fixed at $471,151.

(17) Between Great Britain and the United States, in 1897, to determine the boundary be- tween Alaska and the British Possessions. After reaching a decision, the commission's work was interfered with by an act of the British Colum- bia Legislature. A subsequent determination of the question was reached on the same lines in 1899.

Consult: Balch, International Courts of Arbi- tration (Philadelphia, 1896); Moore, History and Digest of International Arbitrations to which the United t^tates has been a Part]/ (Washington, 1898): Darby, International Arbi- tration. International Tribunals (London, 1900); and works under International Law. For labor arbitration, see Industrial Arbitration. ARBOGA, ar-biVga. An ancient city in Sweden, in the Province of Westmannland, 10 miles from the mouth of the Arboga River, by which, with the aid of a canal, the lakes Hjel- mar and Malar are united (Map: Sweden, F 7). Arboga is connected by steamer with Stockholm, and used to be an important commercial town; but it has now sunk into insignificance, and only possesses an historical interest, from the antiquities in its neighborhood. Of all its churches, cloisters, and chapels, there onh' now remain the town and parish churches, the for- mer with an altar-piece of Rembrandt's. Sev- eral kings of the family of Vasa have resided here. Church assemblies were held here in 1396, 1412, 1417, 1423, and 1474; diets in 1435 (the first in Sweden), 1440, 1471, 1529, and 1561, in which last year also certain articles, known as the Arboga Articles, were passed, by which Erie XIV. was enabled to limit the power of the nobles; and in 1625 Gustavus Adolphus issued an edict here, commanding that the copper coin of the realm should contain its full worth of copper. Population, 1901, 5250. AR'BOGAST (? -394). A Frank who became a distinguished general in the Roman service. During the reign of Gratian he successfully commanded an expedition against the Germans, and under Valentinian II. was commander in Gaul. After winning the favor of his army, he defied the authority of the Emperor, who was killed, probably by Arbogast's order, in 392. Eugenius, Arbogast's client, was proclaimed Emperor; but Arbogast, after suffering a defeat at the hands of Theodosius, near