The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-01-11
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

which the correspondent of the London
Chronicle has been doing at Washing
ton is fifty concluded by his interviews
with members of the Senate and House
committees on foreign affairs relative TO
the establishment by the United States
and England of a permanent court OF
international arbitration. To each mem
Der Of the two committees the CORE
spondent put the question:
Would IL, in your opinion, be well for the
governments of the United States and Great
Britain TO endeavor to agree on the consti-
arbitration to which all questions at issue
between the two governments, not involving
national autonomy or honor, should be sub
mitted for decision when diplomatic nego-
tiations fail?
The replies were unanimously and
strongly in favor of such an arrange
ment. Mr.. Hit, chairman of the House
committee on foreign affairs, speaking
for the committee, and, as he believed.
for the whole House, said: 1.-The estab-
lishment of such a court would be the
best work the governments could do for
the two nations and for mankind" The
correspondent concludes that the Amer
lean Congress and people would favor
the establishment of such a tribunal,
and closes with the significant statement
that 'the nation desiring arbitration is
in civilized attitude and the nation
refusing it is in an uncivilized attitude"
The suggestion for the establishment
OF permanent court of international
arbitration between the United States
ic OH
has never been made before amid cir
cumstances which gave it so much
weight. Nor is it visionary or chimeri-
cal. 1t would doubtless be impossible to
create a general international tribunal
of arbitration, but between the two great
English speaking nations it ought to be
entirely practicable. About three years
ago resolution was introduced in the
British House of Commons favoring the
establishment of such a tribunal, and,
while it failed Of adoption, it received
very favorable consideration. The Lon
don Spectator favored it in a leading
editorial, and even went so far as to
indicate in a general way how such
tribunal might be constituted. 1t said:
What we want is a permanent tribunal of
great jurists, who will not only be impair
tial. but will act on strict principles OF law
and justice. Such court could be con-
str1ucted with the greatest possible ease. Let
us agree with America that tribunal shall
be constructed by taking three judges from
the Supreme Court of the United States and
three Judges from our Judicial Committee
and letting them sit together TO hear any
cause referred to them by the two govern
ments. Further, let ii be arranged that, as
in our Judicial Committee, the court shall
give its award as the award Of the whole
court, and not as the award of the major
ity, and that the members OF the court shall
take an oath of secrecy, so that the deci-
sionS of the court shall not be weakened by
people declaring that the award would have
been otherwise If this or that judge had not
been crank on some point or other Last
~, let the court, before 1t begins its de-
l5erations, draw lots, and let the judge on
whom the lot falls be given two votes, in
case of the members being equal on both
sides, and in order that a definite decision
should be given in each case. Such a trib-
unal as this would. we believe. be perfectly
competent to try most of the cases to which
arbitration would be applicable. The fact
that the common law is part of the Consti-
tuition of the United States, as well as the
ultimate authority in our tribunals, would
enable the judges TO understand each others
way of thinking. This court of high COM
mission. as 1T might not inaptly be called,
would have a united mind in regard TO
fundamentals, and would nave little or no
difficulty in settling a scheme of procedure.
That 1T would command the respect of both
all E,nglishmen look with admiration on the
Supreme Court of the United States, so all
Americans respect that bicameral body OF
judges which sometimes sits as the House
of Lords and sometimes as the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council.
The Spectator is a leading organ of
public opinion in England, and would
probably take the same position on the
question now that it did three years ago.
It's suggestions as to the composition of
the proposed tribunal are ingenious, and
show how easy it would be to create a
high court that would command the con-
fidence and respect of both nations. That
a justice of the Supreme Court could be
entirely impartial in the arbitration of
International disputes is shown by the
fact that in the Boring sea tribunal,
which sat at Paris in 1898, Justice Har-
Ian voted against the United States on
four of the five points submitted.
1t is not unlikely that Mr.. Norman's
timely agitation of the subject may give
il new interest in both countries and
perhaps incite measures that may lead
to practical results. At all events, If
the English press and people receive the
suggestion of an international court of
arbitration with disfavor. then" as the
Chronicle correspondent says, "the world
will see that America is ahead of Eng
land in the most striking characteristic
of a civilized people"