The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1896-08-27

directed TO the same peaceful object
1t is obvious, therefore, that the senti-
ment for peace and in favor of arbtra-
ton as the alternative for war is growing
apace. How has that sentiment told on
the direct action of nations? How far
have they shaped their policy according
to Its methods? The answers to these
questions are also hopeful and encourag-
ing. Experience has shown that, over Il
large area, international differences may
honorably, practically and usefully be
dealt with by peaceful arbitrament.
There have been since 1915 some sixty
instances of effective international arbi-
traton. To thirty-two of these the United
States has been party and Great Britain
to some twenty of them.
UNITED STATES AGAIN LEADS.
There are many instances also of the
introduction of arbitration clauses into
treaties. Here again the United States
appears in the van. Among the first of
such treaties-if not the very first-is the
Guadaloupe- Ilidalgo treaty of 1913 be-
tween the United States and Mexico.
Since that date many other countries
have followed this example. These
facts dull as is the recital of them, are
full of interest and hope for the future.
But are we thence to conclude that the
millennium of peace has arrived--that
the dove has returned to the ark, sure
sign that the waters of international
strife have permanently subsidized? | am
not sanguine enough to lay this flatter-
ing. JUNCTION to my soul. unbridled am
bitlon-pridc of power still hold sway,
although | believe with lessened force
and i'll some sort under the restraint of
the healthier opinion of the world.
But further, friend as | am of peace,
| would yet affirm that there may be
even greater calamities than war-the
dishonor of Il nation. the triumph of an
unrighteOus cause. the perDctuation of
hopeless and debasing tyranny.
War is honorable
In those who do their native rights main
tain;
In those whose swords an iron barrier
are
Between the lawless spoiler and the
weak;
But is, in those who draw tn offensive
blade
For added power or gain, sordid and
despicable."
1t behooves, then, all who are friends
of peace and advocates of arbitration to
recognize the difficulties of the question,
to examine and meet these difficulties
and TO discriminate between the cases
i'll which friendly arbitration is, and in
which it may not be, practically, possible.
SHORTCOMINGS OF THE LAW.
Pursuing this line of thought, the
shortcomings of international law Ie-
veal themselves to us and demonstrate
the grave difficulties of the position. The
analogy between arbitration as to mat
ters in difference between individuals
and to matters in difference between ma
tons carries us but short way. In
private litigation the agreement to refer
is either enforceable as rule of court
or, where this is not so, the award gives
to the successful litigant substantive
cause of action. In either case there is
behind the arbitrator the power of the
judge TO decree and the power of the
executive to compel compliance with the
behest of the arbitrator. In fine. such
arbitration is mode of litigation by con-
sent. governed 10y law, starting from
familiar rules and carrying the full sane
ton of judicial decision. International
arbitration has none of these character
istics 1t is cardinal principle of the
| law of nations that each sovereign
power. however politically weak. is in
ternatlonally, equal to any other polti.
cal power, however politically strong
W
relating to arbitration, and of the law
itself there is no authoritative exponent
nor any recognized authority for its en-
fOrcemont.
But there are differences to which
even as between individuals, arbitration
is inapplicable-su subjects which find theil
counterpart in the affairs of nations
Men do not arbitratc where character
is at stake. nor will any self-respectine
nation readily arbitrate on questions
touching its national independence OF
affecting its honor. Again, a nation may
agree to arbtrate and then repudate it,
agreement. Who is to coerce it? Or
having gone to arbitration and been
worsted. it may decline to be bound by
! the award Who is to compel it?
These considerations seem to me tC
Justify two conclusions: The first i,
that arbitration will not cover the whole
held of international controversy and
the second that unless and until the
great powers of the world in league
bind themselves to cocrce n recalcitran,
member of the family of nations we have
still to face the more than possible dis
regard by powerful states Of the obliga
tons of good faith and of justice. The
scheme Of such Il combination has beer
advocated, but the signs of its accom-
Dlishment are absent.
FORCE NOT THE ONLY POWER
Are we. then, to conclude that force
is still the only power that rules the
world! By no means. The sanctions
which restrain the wrongdoer-the
breaker of public faith. the disturber of
the, peace of the world-are not weak
and year by year they wax stronger
They, are the dread of war and the
repr0bation of mankind. Public
opinion is a force which makes itself felt
i'll every corner and Granny of the world
and is most powerful in the communi.
ties most civilized. In the public press
ana IN the telegraph it possesses agents
by which its power is concentrated and
speedily brought to bear where there is
any public wrong to be exposed and
reprobated. 1t. year by year, gathers
strength as general enlightenment eX.
tends its empire, and higher moral
attitude is attained by mankind. 1t has
no ships of war upon the seas or armies
i'll the field, and vet great Dotentates
trembe before it and humbly bow to its
rule.
Again trade and travel are great pacifi-
Gators. The more nations know of one
another the more trade relations are es-
tablished between them, the more good
will and mutual interest grow up; and
these are powerful agents working for
peace.
But although | have indicated certain
classes of questions on which sovereign
powers may be unwilling to arbitrate,