The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-01-30
COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE
WASHINGTON CONFERENCE IS
SUES A MANIFESTO.
POLICY OF ARBITRATION
IN FAVOR WITH THE PEOPLE OF
AMERICA FROM. THE VERY
BEGINNING.
Only the Most Cosent Reasons Can
Justify the Rejection oG the
Pending Plan.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 2s.-The per-
manent committee ON arbitration with
Great Britain, appointed by the confer
ence held at Washington on April %,
1885, has issued the following public
statement Of views concerning the
treaty between the United States and
Great Gritain, concluded Jan. Ii, 1897:
From Washington's administration down to
this day. arbitration has uniformly been
prominent feature Of our national policy. Act
ing upon the conviction that justice Is best
secured by judicial methods our government
has always stood among the nations as the
champion of law, and the pending treaty Is,
in a very definite sense. the result of our
initiative. In 1890 congress unanimously
adopt concurrent resolution requesting
the president Ito invite from time to time,
as fit occasions may arise, negotiations with
any government with which the United States
has or may have diplomatic, relations, to the
end that any differences or, disputes arising
between the two governments which cannot be
adjusted by diplomatic agency, may be re-
ferred to arbitration, and be peaceably ad-
justed by such means" The pending treaty
by which the two governments agree to sub
nit to arbitration, under certain limitations,
all questions in difference between them
which they may fail to adjust by diplomatic
negotiations" follows almost the precise words
of the resolution Of congress. None but the
most cogent reasons could Justify the re-
lection of treaty thus negotiated in direct
The objections to the treaty which have
come to the notice of this committee, have
received careful consideration. We believe
that they are almost entirely owing to an i'm
perfect study, or a misapprehension Of it's
provisions or Of their possible effect. 1t
seems to be supposed that the treaty may re-
quire the contracting parties to arbitrate
questions of policy. BY referring to the treaty
itself, it will be found that. the parties have
agreed to submit their differences to arbitra-
tion only in accordance with the provisions
and subject to the limitations of this treaty"
The questions which may be submitted are
all Included under three heads, viz: Pecuniary
claims, territorial claims and ''all other mat
ters in difference, in respect to which either
or the high contracting parties shall have
rights against the other under treaty or
otherwise. 1t is clear that no such agree
ment requires the arbitration OF matters of
policy. The term rights. as used in the
treaty, can only mean legal rights. The
words OF the treaty aptly define the agree
ment to arbitrate so as to exclude from its
operation all questions not suitable for judi
clal decision; and it could no more be held
by either party to require Great Britain to
arb1trate the principle Of the balance of power
IN Europe, or the United States the Monroe
doctrine, than it could be held to oblige either
party to arbitrate its standard of value or it's
tariff policy.
The appointment Of the third or fifth ar
bitra9or IN certain contingencies, by the king
OF Sweden and Norway, has been criticised
but no more acceptable Eaeans of selection
has been suggested. Leaving the choice OF
an umpire to lot, as has heea- done in some
OF our treaties, is open to far, ereyer obiec-
tions. A conclusive answer is found in the
TACT that this treaty provides that all terri
torial claims, and all disputes involving prin-
c!pies OF general Importance affecting national
rights, are to be dealt with by a court ex-
cluslVely composed of American and British
judges, and that such controversies cannot
pe decided against us unless two out of three
or our own representatives concur in think
ing us in the wrong.
A candid examination of the treaty will
snow that while fairly covering all subjects
proper TO be submitted to judicial decision it
has been drawn with unusual caution and
precision, so as to protect the Just rights
OF each country. For claims purely pecuniary
tribunals are provided having so-called UNI
plre, but all graver disputes are to be finally
decided without the presence of an umpire
and only by an almost unanimous vote unless
indeed, both paroles are satisfied with the de-
clSlon made by a less majority. It also ap-
pears that in case of final disagreement on
such important matters, before a resort to
hostile action of any description the media
tlon OF friendly powers must be invoked
wh1ch mediation in it's very nature will be
only advisory, and will leave the two parties
concerned entirely free iss the exercise of
their rights of sovereignty; and that, there
fore, the apprehensions expressed by some
that the treaty may involve a remuneration of
the Monroe doctrine in any acceptation of the
term, or of any of cur legitimate rights of
sovereignty, are entirely groundess
For the settlement of all disputes of greater
Importance than mere pecuniary claims, the
treaty simply furnishes ito the contracting
parties we'll devised opportunities for judicial
dlscussion OF the points in controversy, to the
end OF facilitating a peaceabie UNDERSTANDING
1t will prevent the prectpitate opening of
nosaluesc under the spursof Needless passion
1t will give sudden exciternents- time to cool
ana make way for ~ealnl reason II will dis
courage the advocacy of war for reasons that
cannot stand the seruti1ly of an unimpas-
stoned and we'll informed Judgment. While
not rendering war absolutely impossible it
VIII make 1T improbai1les; SO remote a con
tminSsnGy, TN thasewezshall' be- spared those waste
iul dlSturbances Of the business of the coun-
Try FWh1ch r.are. e.fsame metinesa caused by ground
fail, therefore, rtowbe strong safeguard of
peace between the two great nations con-
cer1ed Gi7l11 IN u andas the glorious example is
iIy pkely 10 be followed by other countries
blessing ito. mankind ,-~t 1s