The daily morning journal and courier., 1896-05-02
BIG DEBATE WON BY YALE
(continued fzom First Page )


 the two countries, They are therefore, an excellent subject for this court. Be- cause of our intimate relations with England, our treaties with her have required more of the time and thought of our state department than the treat ies with all other powers combined, The construction of treaties seems, therefore, a proper matter for the court, From the contiguity of our territory the settlement of the boundary disputes should be arranged for in advance. And provision should be made to ad- just that permanent source of inter- national trouble, the fisheries
 But how will you constitute this court? As to its exact composition that is matter of detail We stand here for the principle of a permanent court, Its composition is easy if the principle of it's existence is once admitted.
 q have shown that court with such a jurisdiction and such a composition as have outlined is a perfectly safe extension of the principle of arbitra- tion. The gentlemen are in favor of the principle of arbitration. They must therefore be in favor of such a perma- 
 can point out specific dangers in the idea of permanent courts, in it's juris- diction or in it's composition. Other wise, they stand convicted of refusing to accept the logical result of their own position"
 MIR. CLARK OF YALE.
 Walter Haven Clark of Hartford was the second Yale speaker. After com menting upon the points advanced by the second Harvard speaker, MT. Clark took up in review the strong points advanced by MT. Baldwin, his Yale predecessor and showed how they had not been controverted- After a general introduction, he took, up the present sytsem of special arbitration, reviewing in detail it's advantages. He called special attention to the guar antee of impartiality obtained from the system as maintained at present, and stated that in this point the per manent court was, in comparison at a disadvantage. He stated that for ab- solute impartiality the present system of special arbitration had never been equalled. Passing on to the perma- nent court suggested by the affirma- tive, he examined it critically in re- gard to its practicability. He calcu- lated the results probable from it's usage, of the principles of international law which would govern a decision from it, and the difficulties incident to the enforcement of it's decisions.
 MT. Clark claimed that where a permanent court was not absolutely impossible, it was at disadvantage as compared with the system now in vogue, and that it would not only fail to prevent wars, but would actually harm the cause of arbitration itself that the court must be not only prov en practicable, but that if established, it must accomplish the purpose of it's establishment better than the present system.
 MIR PARKER OF HARVARD.
 The third Harvard speaker, w. B. Parker, reinforced the point that the strength of the court was it's limita- \ tion.
 "Our project is eminent1y practical It offers three positive and lasting ad vantages. The permanent court would have the machinery for settling dis putes ready in advance. This advant- age is not only obvious, but inevitable. The second advantage is like the first Lit is the advantage of the very exist ence of the court. The very being of such a court, composed of the most en- inent jurists of the Anglo-Saxon race, and invested with the honor and au- thority of the two greatest nations of the, age, must powerfully effect the imagination of the people. Here are two advantages which the negative have not been able to deny. They are undeniable. With the permanent court you cannot help getting them; without the court you cannot get them at all
 'Now, third advantage, is that a court like this could not fail to have a great and beneficial influence upon in ternational law. Its decisions must tally one with another. It will be the greatest benefit to statesmen and diplo- matists. Temporary courts are not only < ly, by their nature, incapable of laying down principles, but by varying and uncertain decisions may even multiply causes of dispute, but the permanent court is bound to lay down principles Are these advantages not sufficient to justify us in taking the step proposed Does it not offer a reasonable probabili- ty of gain?
 "The negative say that we are going too far, that treaty providing for temporary arbitration, as occasion may require, is preferable. We admit the advantages of such a system if you compare it with our present precarious condition, but this debate forces you to compare it with a permanent court
 Tn this comparison the treaty device will fare badly. There is no well grounded objection which can be brought against permanent court which cannot equally be brought against treaty device. And more than this, it falls short of the positive ad- vantages which a permanent court must give It is still a promise against a reality and so long as it is possible for diplomatists to dodge the meaning of treaties, and so long as they car skai in h1r doi,an sllnh 2 freq .tt,1a-