Kansas City daily journal., 1897-01-23
ARBITRATION NO PREVENTIVE OF
WAR

|
In the course of an address before the
Kansas State Bar Association on Thurs.
| day, ex-Chief Justice David Martin de.
clared that system of international arbi.
| tration which would settle all of the diff.
| ferences between nations was an impossi-
plilty. War, he said, was the only final
| and satisfactory arbiter of serious differ
ences and in support of this he advanced
| the opinion that not one of the modern day
wars was over cause which might have
been successfully settled by arbitration.
Lord Salisbury expressed pretty much the
same sentiment to the English parliament
the other day in addressing himself to the
proposed treaty with the United States. 81
can only observe" said he that you must
not think we are indulging in millennial
anticipations if We hope that something
will be done by the treaty of arbitration
to diminish the risk of war. 1 do not say
1t will remove the greatest risks of war.
do not say it will restrain a NAPOLEON or
Bismarck. But diplomacy is full of a
number of small differences which are
caught by the people and press of both
countries, and if they are written upon.
exaggerated and enlarged, they tend to di-
minish the friendship between the coun-.
tries and give birth to a feeling of aliena-
tion and resentment"
1t Is the history of diplomacy that no
treaty ever stood for a moment when either
party to the compact felt itself seriously
aggrieved. Treaties among nations are a
great deal like international law, which
has existence as record of what has most
frequently been done under certain contin-
gencies, rather than as an imperative
code which must be obeyed. Nations over
turn so-caiied international laweat pleas
ure. and it is seldom, if ever that they
are held to any penalty.
II must not be considered, then, that the |
United States is irrevocably signing away |
any of her rights when she affxes her
signature to the Salisbury -Olney treaty of |
arbitration. The great unwritten law of
national honor stands above and beyond
any treaty of arbitration, and the power
Of war is ever at hand to enforce its pro-
cesses.
1t Is over the third article of the pro
posed treaty that the American people have
taken alarm. 1t provides for the arbitra-
ton of all controversies involving the de-
termination of territorial claims. IT is
vaguely apprehended that this is a waiver
Of the Monroe doctrine and that the treaty
seeks to binds us TO submit questions of
territorial limits to the ultimate decision
IL European neutrality-suspicious. such as
would involve the procurement by England
If additional possessions upon the Ameri-
AN continent. 1t does not seem TO be so
egarded by Salisbury, and even If If were
he American people would still have the
Ilternative, under historical precedent of
'rushing the treaty aside as so much
waste paper whenever the Monroe doctrine
eemed TO be impinged upon.
If the treaty works the ends which Sails
Jury claims for it, there can be no oues- :
ion Of its usefulness. There are constant
springing up little matters for adjust
lent which do not involve national honor ]
autonomy and a court for their settle
lent will come very handy, even If 1t does
ncounter the objection raised by Judge a
lartin that it is not the part of scientific 7
iplomacy to construct an arbitration tri-
lnal before the cause has arisen to which
is 10 give hearing. r