The daily morning journal and courier., 1896-05-02

is here to uphold, we wish it under stood at the outset that we do not share in the eXtravagant pretensions so popularly set up for arbitration. We sweep away war, and that perma- nent court will eXtinguish the war pow CT. We are not contriving to usher in perpetual peace. We recognize that the international arbitration is suited to a limited class of cases. We go so far as the negative will go in declaring that no nation should or can bind it. self to submit to arbitrating it's own ex- istence on territorial integrity or ques- tions of internal policy involved in in- surrection or civil war.
 Nor is the issue as between a per manent court and a temporary court for we have no system of temporary courts; we have only the chance under the gravest difficulties of getting tenn porary courts. Now of course we do not contend that the difficulty of secur- ing temporary court is the same at all times. In minor cases the court may be erected sooner and with less trouble than it was with the Alabama case and in the recent Behring sea case. But we do maintain that grave cases, within the field of arbitration, where arbitration is most needed and where delay is most dangerous, the erection of a temporary court does become a mat ter of supreme hazard. The issue, then, is not general arbitration against special arbitration or permanent court against temporary courts, but permanent court against the uncer-
 @.s, ont of, low, lS,,o,, ,f,f
 Now it does not relieve the negative to say that eventually temporary courts have been set up. Eventually the Maine boundary, for over forty years source of great irritation be-
 tween England and the United States, was submitted to arbitration, though finally settled by treaty. Such delay furnishes opportunity to the jingoes
 and demagogues to play upon the pop
 ular hatred of Great Britain. It en-
 ables them to seize upon disputes,
 harmless in themselves, and to magnify
 them until they have created a verit-
 able war scare, with all its moral and material consequences. Further the
 practice of allowing cases, even of min
 or importance, to drag on unsettled
 only increases the irritation between the two countries and endangers the peaceful settlement of graver disputes.
 Out of this precarious and dilatory state of affairs flow the need of a per
 manent system. What are the advant- ages of permanent court of arbitra-
 tion?
 First, we should have the machinery ready. Second, a larger number of cases will be referred to arbitration earlier. This means not only lessen- ing of the irritation and friction be- tween the two countries, but also a
 saving of the material loss now pro duced by the mere apprehension of hos tilities.
 MIR. BALDWIN OF YALE Roger Sherman Baldwin of New York city opened the debate on be- half of Yale. After answering the ar guments advanced by AIr Seward in favor Of court of al bitration, Mir. Baldwin stated that the negative side of the question was it1 favor of arbi- tration but of a proper kind, and at a proper time. We do not 'le said believe in a permanent court of ar bitration between the United States
 
 believe that peace may be best per- manently maintained by such a court. ]" MT. Baldwin then give a brief nis- tory of former courts of arbitra sion and said by way of summary, All former plans for an international court have been rejected as imp-acri- | cable by practical statesmen. Even unions and confederation, with far more likelihood of success than can be attributed to such a court as the affirmative suggests, have invariably failed to prevent war. None of our recent wars could have been settled by arbitration.
 ''Of what avail then, would be the permanent court advocated by the affirmative? It would be mere | figurehead capable of doing no posi- tive good, but perhaps able to effect much positive mischief. You must | prove that your permanent court would | be practicable as well as desirable, and you must prove that in the light | of history your court, if established,
 would, at all times, and under the stress of all circumstances and in all | emergencies, prevent war.
 | Has the affirmative shown you such | a court?"
 MIR. SAYRE OF HARVARD. The second Harvard speaker, A. M. Sayre, went on to show what consti- | tutes an international court.
 | In discussing an international court l he said: we shall disregard all ideas of domestic tribunals. Let us look to | the sphere of international law alone. Notwithstanding any unsatisfactory | condition of international law, one l thing must be admitted, the usage of | nations does not make in a true sense a l law of nationas.
 "The tribunal which decided the Ala bama claims was called a court, and so called in the treaty between the con- l tracting powers. What would there | for be permanent court of arbitra- tion? Simply a court analogous to the | temporary bodies-analogou in all re- | spects, except in its duration and ju- risdiction. Why these two exceptions? The Jurisdiction of the temporary courts was defined by the treaty which creat- eded them, the permanent court must have it's Jurisdiction defined by the | treaty creating it. What Will that ju- risdiction be? The classes of cases will
 be carefully marked out, they will be questions of fact and questions of law excluding questions that involve ques- tions of policy. Such a court would in- clude questions of law such as the Ala bama dispute.