The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-04-09
HOW MEN WILL DIFFER IN OPINION

The Washington Post of yesterday con-
tains the following editorial article on
the Behring Sea Arbitration Commission:
One Way out OF It.-Of course IL was
very polite on Mr.. James c. Carter's part
TO assure the court Of arbitration in she
Behring sea case that he would not ac-
cuse Great Britain OF sharp practice. Mr..
Carter Is an eminent turist, n great adj
vocate, and a cultivated gentleman; po-
likeness Is as much a part Of his equip
ment as knowledge and information. But
Is he not putting too severe a strain
upon the credulity OF the civilized world
in suggesting that England would hesitate
at bad faith and treachery I'm any mat
ter in which her interests might be con-
cerned? Everybody knows that the arbi-
tration now pending has been brought
about by England because she wants 10
acquire something 10 which she has not
the shadow OF a claim; that the very
pretense upon which her assumptions are
based is transparently disingenuous. Why
should Mr.. Carter waste time and
squander courtesy in repudiating an idea
that has occurred TO everybody who has
any sort OF acquaintance with the
episode?
II III becomes us, however, 10 upbraid
England with trickery in this Behring
sea affair. Let us be frank enough to
acknowledge that we ourselves are to
blame and 10 confess that our own folly
and not Englands bad faith lies at the
root Of the disaster We have virtually
abandoned our property and forfeited our
dignity in the face OF England's insoent
demand What we needed was a little
STRAIGHTFORWARD, simple American man
hood instead Of the deplorable burlesque
Of diplomacy which has dispossessed us.
II does not become this country 10 at
tribute 10 Engand's rascality consuin-
nation which Is due 20 our own stupldlty
and cowardce. We had but 10 say that
the seals were ours and 10 serve notice
that we intended 10 maintain our rights
In order 10 forestall the widest pOSslbln-
ties Of English trickery. That, however,
IS lust what we did not do. We preierreo
the erimace Of the cOurtier TO the soldier =
sword and we have ourselves 10 reprod0"
for the humiliating consequences.
There Is ono light and only one IN
which this alleged bad faith on Englands
part can be considered 10 our advantage:
II n he true. as Mr.. Carter charges ana
as we doubt not is the fact, that Eng
land has violated the spirit OF the agree
ment which led to this ill-omened con
troversy. why will not that justify US III
withdrawing from the arbitration and re-
gaining at one stroke our property ana
our self-respect? Folly. vanity infatua-
ton. the ambition 10 achieve results by
the devious pathways Of finesse have LED
us into the net a single erort OF couI-
ageous candor will enable us 20 break
through It. Why not take that expedleht!
To one who views this matter from
the standpoint OF The Times, this sounds
like the rawlings Of mailman. and we
say It with entire respect
II is perfectly astounding 10 US to hear
a man in his right mind say:
"Eyervbody knows that the arbitration
now pending has been brought about by
England because she wants 10 acquire
something 10 which she has not the
shadow OF a claim; that the very pre-
tense upon which her assumptions are
based is transparently disingenuous.
We will not say that the writer Of this
paragraph knows but We say that he
ought to know that 20 per cent. Of the
conservative people OF the United States
welcomed the prospect OF settling this
matter by arbitration. And, when he
says that England secured the arbitration
unfairly TO acquire something 20 which
she had not the shadow OF a claim, he
substantially imputes folly and idiocy
10 nine-tenths Of the publicists in the
United States.
The open ocean Is the common property
Of all mankind. and no one nation can
acquire an exclusive right in It against
the others. That is the position which
Great Britain is to-day asserting, and
that is the position which we are deny
ing before the court OF arbitration. 1t
does seem to plain people like us to be
verging upon the absurd to say that a
nation asserting this proposition is at
tempting Ito acquire something to which
il has not the shadow OF a claim" while
the nation that is denying II is defend
ing 'Its property and maintaining its
dignity" before the world.