New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1892-01-31
ARBITRATION AND HONOR.

The first proposals for arbitration of an inter-
national dispute since the adjournment OF the
Pan-American Congress have been made by
nation whose representatives, in that assembly
disappoved of that policy. This is most
singular result. The resolutions, which were
adopted by large majority of the delegates,
embodied the principle of compulsory arbltra-
ton as means of averting war, and applied 1T
to all disputes in matters of diplomatic etiquette
territories, boundaries, questions Of navigation,
the enforcement, construction or validity OF treat
les. and all other quarrels except where the in
dependence of the nation might seem to be at
stake. The United States through its repre-
sentatives sanctioned this principle, but Chill,
which had recently made territorial conquests
in war; dissented. It's delegates formally ex-
pressed their unwillingness TO entertain the
illusion that any conflict which may directly
affect the dignity or the honor of nation shall
ever be submitted to the decision Of third
party" Judges" they added shall not be
looked for either in that case or in any other OF
analogous nature 10 decide whether a nation has
the right to maintain her dignity or to preserve
honor. nation whose dignity has been wound
ed. or whose honor has been attacked will never
seek in arbitration the remedy for the offence"
When Chill proposed arbitration of existing
questions in dispute with the United States 1t
was not inconsistent, since the limitations which
its own representatives set up on April IA, 1890,
were closely followed. The offensive circular OF
Minister Malta compromised the honor and dig
nifty of the United States Government. Itis not
proper subject for arbitration. The attack by
rioters. police and soldiers upon tho unarmed
sailors of the Baltimore not for any offence OF
their own but solely in consequence Of hostility
to the Government in whose service they were
employed, was an affront to the dignity and
honor of the United States. The Chilian dele
gates at the Pan-American Congress themselves
being the witnesses, the United States cannot
submit this question to arbitration. 1t is not
like boundary dispute, nor matter OF frrl-
torial jurisdiction, nor question of treaty right.
1t is nothing for which financial damages can
be assessed and an indemnity paid. Insults
offered to a nation cannot be liquidated in dol
lars and cents. Apologies from those respon-
sbe for them are the only practical basis OF
! compensation. This was the logic of the CHILEAN
remonstrance against arbitration at the Pan
American Congress. 1t was also good, sterling
American common-sense.
What is matter OF dollars and cents can
properly be submitted to arbitration, buO notnlng
that affects the honor and dignity of the Nation.
Reparation for the lives taken and the wounds
inflicted has been demanded by the United
States That is legitimate subject for inter-
national arbitration. All questions Of fact re-
lating TO the origin of the attack, the response
bility of the police and local authorities, and
any extenuating circumstances, may properly be
considered by arbitrator in determining the
amount Of the indemnity. With the Withdrawal
Of the Malta circular and adequate apologies
for the Valparaiso outrage all questions affecting
the honor and dignity Of the United States have
been satisfactorily adjusted. If the indemnity
be not arranged by diplomatic agreement, as now
seems probable, it can be settled by arbitration
Chill can consistently adopt the latter course,
since its own ideas of international arbitration
as expressed at the Pan-Amercan Congress have
been adhered to closely in its proposals.