The record-union., 1896-03-13
A CALM VIEW OF ARBITRATION.

The Record Union has kept con-
stantly in view that its opposition to the
plan of a permanent Committee of Ar
bitration for the settlement of issues
between this country and Great Brit
ain does not extend to arbitration it,
self. The desirability of peaceful set
tlement of international issues has
never been doubted in these columns.
But this concession must not be con-
fused with the other idea, namely, the
means proposed Of reaching it as set
out by the Chicago fadists, and indorsed
SO unanimously by the English philan-
question to arbitration when it arises,
and quite another to agree in advance
of the joining of issue, that when it
arises it shall go to a permanent tribu-
nal Of arbitration, practically foreign
body, one antagonistic to the American
spirit and American independence
AS a matter of fact, America has al
ways preferred arbitration. We have
repeatedly accepted and proffered it,
Indeed, we do not recall an instance
where the United States has refused
when it was at all possible to accept
it. The American record, therefore,
stands high on that score.
The questions, then, before us are
these: rs there any necessity for the
ee+ n L1;rb,oa,,+ ce a ,,e,.,,, a y,ayt .o,,r+ - 9
arbitration? Is there any reason to be-
lieve that there is danger to our own
or the interests of any others in main
tanning the doctrine that every case
should stand upon its own merits and
needs as to the matter of submission
to arbitration" We think that there is
but one answer to be made to these
plain questions. We never have re-
fused to submit to arbitration when it
was best; we never have sought war
as the better means of settling difficult
ties; we always favored all possible
arbitration and peace; therefore, there
is no need to provide against ourselves
by the erection of a tribunal that must
of necessity be in part composed Of units
that are foreign to us and our institu-
tions
AS the New York Tribune" pointedly
puts it, 1.-The permanent arbitration tri-
bunal idea is an attractive one" 1t is
an alIuring one, it might have added;
one calculated to appeal to the heart
more than to the head 1t is sophistical,
however. 1t sounds loudly to say as
do its advocates, 1--WE have abolished
dueling and slavery and the wager of
battle and all that, why not, then, put
the possibility of war SO far away as
to make it fmpossible?" But the re-
sponse is conclusive, and the Tribune"
thus ably sums it up:
The fallacy in this argument lies in
regarding the relation of nations to
each other as Identical with the rela-
ton between individuals or between
communities. IF men, instead of fight
ing out their quarrels with swords and
fists. appeal to courts of law, it Is be-
cause there are such courts which are
a part of a government superior to the
contesting individuals and able to en-
force its DEGREES upon them So with
communities, and so with the States of
this Union. There is a general govern
ment over them all, which they must
obey. But in the case Of sovereign ma
tions there is no such superior power,
and can be none so long as the two con-
testing parties remain sovereign ma
tions. An international court may be
established. It can have na power to