The record-union., 1896-07-26
AND NOW SHE Is WARY OF 1T.

Some six months ago it was proposed
that a Board or Court of Permanent
Arbitration of Disputes between Eng
land and the United States should be
erected to which should be referred all
disputes and issues arising between the
two countries. In this country and in
England it was received with a
''whoop' The Record Union" op-
posed the scheme. 1t has learned moth
ing since to induce 1t to modify its
views.
This journal then said that the rea-
sons for opposition TO the plan were nu-
merous, but three were Of the greatest
Importance, namely: Entry into such
agreement would eliminate even so lit
tie as we now have of diplomatic skill;
it would really destroy the beginnings
of diplomatic school in this country;
1t would practically annex US to Eng
land, skilled for centuries in diplomacy
Secondly, the Record Union" pointed
out that when it came to referring
issues, England would invariably with
hold such cases as in her opinion were
wholly within her private judgment and
not Immediately the concern of the
United States Government
Thirdly. 1t was pointed out that our
chief need is power to command respect
for our rights abroad, but that this per-
manent court, being one-half foreign,
would tend to deprive us of the abil-
fty to command such power, because it
would be said at once that the need for
physical force had been eliminated by
the international arbitration commits
sion. In addition, it was admitted that
arbitration abstractly was not to be
opposed but commended, and that there
was no reason whatever against sending
any issue to arbitration where agree
nent upon a particular case TO be arbi-
trated could be reached to have it so
disposed of.
AT that time we took the Venezuela
case as an Illustration of the illogical
character of the permanent arbitration
proposition, saying that had there been
such an arbitration tribunal when the
Venezuela case arose, England would
have been very likely to have said that
the United States was not a party to it,
and hence refused to permit the ques-
ton to go to court
On Saturday the Record Union"
printed very fully the correspondence
between the British and the American
Secretaries on this subject. This cor
respondence emphatically sustains
every point made by this paper ON the
arbitration question. lit is shown by
the correspondence that under such a
scheme the Venezuela case would never
have gone to the permanent board.
England, early In the correspondence,
stated that no controversy affecting the
honor or the integrity of territorial
rights should go TO such a board without
the consent of the parties specially
given, and that no agreement involy
ing more than S500,000 where money is
concerned should be referred except by
special agreement.
Here we have even in the preliminary
correspondence, precisely what the Rec
ord-Union'' declared would develop.
More than that, England proposes that
after a case has been submitted by spe-
cial agreement the arbitration judgment
shall not be binding unless both parties
are satisfied, and the Prime Minister
closes his letter with the emphatic
statement that not all cases can be ref
errable to arbitration. and that the
honor and integrity of the nation cannot
be things for consideration by an arbi-
tration court Unquestionably he Is
right in this. AS most things worthy
of much notice which arise between ma
tions relate ito integrity or national
honor, the so-called compulsory arbi-
tration treaty would be a sham and less
useful than fugitive or special arbitra-
ton.
Mr.. olney In his responses on behali