The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-01-22
EDnUNDS' VIEWS.
Kindly Gives Them Concerning the
Arbitration Treaty Between the
United States and Great Britain.

Philadelphia, Jan. 21.-EX-United
States Senator George F. Edmunds of
Vermont, one of the leading authorities
on constitutional law in the United
States, has written the following letter
to several gentlemen here who sought
his opinion on the arbitration treaty
between the United States and Great
Britain. Mr.. Edmunds says:
The three principal criticisms of the
treaty are:
I. That it commits this government
to submitting to arbitration questions
that may arise in connection with the
Monroe doctrine. With sincere respect
for the gentlemen who il is said, have
suggested this objection, 1 think that
it is quite unfounded and that those
who have advanced it must have failed
to observe the careful language used
in the treaty. The words upon which
the criticism is based are found in art
icle ", as follows: All other matters
in difference, in respect of which either
of the high contracting parties shall
have rights against the other under
the treaty or otherwise What, then,
are rights against the other" In the
theory of the municipal state and of all
its autonomy the rights of one citizen
against another are essentially and
exclusively those things that the law
of the state enjoinS upon each in re-
gard to the other This is the whole
definition. Precisely the same is true
in international law, and the centuries
of intercourse between nations. This,
l believe, all writer's on national law
and international law agree on. To il
lustrate these propositions: L take it
that the United States has no rights
against Great Britain in regard to her
operations in Abyssinia, nor would she
have any rights against us if we were
to attempt to share in the partition of
Africa. In the case of Turkey, if we
We're to seize the whole of Asia Minor
and establish peace and order there,
(as the British have done, in substance,
in Egypt, we should have invaded no
right of any power except Turkey. The
same is, of course, true in respect to
cur relations and conduct with the
states of the western hemisphere under
the Monroe doctrine or under any other
policy that we may think it just to
adopt. II was, then, the clear and
perfectly understood distinction be-
tween the rights of one nation against
another and their interests in regard
to other nations that doubtless led to
separate treaty in regard to the Vene-
Zuelan question; for both governments
knew that the affair could not possibly
come within the scope of the general
treaty. You will see therefore, that
the phrase of the treaty which is
criticised is the most apt possible to
mark the boundary of arbitration and
and that it leaves the Monroe doctrine
unaffected.
The second objection is the fear that
the treaty may affect our attitude in
regard to the Nicaraguan canal, in
which the interests of the United
States are so deeply concerned. What
I have already said disposes of that
solicitude. I have not time to go into
detail about il.
The third and last objection 1 have
heard is the supposed danger of leav-
ing it to any European power to name
an umpire in certain contingencies. 1t
is enough to say that, so far as our
considerable experience has gone in
such matters, we have never had oc-
casion to complain of the action of any
sovereign in naming an umpire or in
deciding a dispute. In the great arbi-
tration treaty of 1871 we agreed that
three members of the Geneva tribunal
should be named by three sovereigns--
two of them European; and that if any
or all of these sovereigns should fail
to name these members, the King of
Sweden should name them all. And
ir the same treaty we did not hesitate
to submit the very important question
VI Jul DOuHudtS Oh the racine coast
to the emperor of Germany.
Il am an intense supporter of the
Monroe doctrine. l believe the building
of the Nicaragua canal under the aus
pices of the United States to be of
urgent necessity. 1 believe most earn
estly in international arbitration to
the utmost extent that civilized. lust
and self-respecting nations can go; and
most earnestly hope that the senate
will ratify the treaty as it is proposed
as the first step-very great and aus
picious-toward the attainment of
peace among nations"