Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1897-02-12
George =. EdmundS on the Arbitration

George y. EdmuudS on the Arbitration
Treaty.
Ex-senator Edmunds contributes to the
New York Independent an article on the
proposed arbitration treaty with Great
Britain in which he expresses his views in
much more extended form than in the short
letter of approval which he wrote to the
provost Of the University of Pennsylvania
In the first part of this article Mr. Edmunds
shows why the treaty does not affect in any
way the rights of the United States under
the Monroe noctrine. His ground, briefly
stated, is that the treaty does not send to
arbitration all matters in difference be-
tween the two countries, but only those
matters in difference Sin respect of which
either Of the high contracting parties shall
have rights against the other, under treaty
or otherwise" "Otherwise" in this con-
nection can mean only rights under inter
national law, and international law has
nothing to do with the Monroe doctrine
This is because the Monroe doctrine is
simply a matter of "high policy" on the
part of the United States, and we have
precisely the same freedom under it that
Great Britain has in making alliances
with foreign countries.
Mr.. Edmunds then proceeds to an ilu-
minating discussion of the general princi-
pies of the treaty, and of the rule of right
and equity upon which it is founded. The
opponents of the treaty have held that
60 -, r IL.
in difference mentioned in the treaty
that is, matters other than those of per-
sonal nature-and for disputes in respect
of territorial claims, the provisions of the
treaty are not safe for the United States
From this view Mr.. Edmunds emphatically
dissents. He holds that the provisions for
forming tribunals. in case any matter of
dispute arises are strictly fair and impair
tirl. For considering the "other matters
in difference the treaty provides that the
tribunal shall consist of five members, two
each to be appointed by Great Britain and
the United States, and the fifth to be agreed
upon by the four, or, in case of their fail
ure, by the two governments; and, in case
of their failure, the king of Sweden is to
appoint. In this arrangement Mr.. Ed
munds can see no hidden danger lurking.
He then continues.
1--WE have no right and no wish (if we
are honest) to obtain a tribunal that is or
ganized to decide in our favor. If we are
really for arbitration at all, we must sup
pose it possible that we may be sometimes
wrong in our p-etentiOns, and that an i'm
partial tribunal will, in such a case, decide
against us. AS to disputes in regard to
territorial claims, the treaty provides for a
tribunal of siX-three to be chosen by each
patty; and IL requires a majority of five to
one for a decision; so that the United
States cannot suffer unless two of our own
three members decide against us. Can we
not afford to run the risk of submitting to
this? We certainly can, unless We mean
to have our own way, right or wrong, all
the time. If such are our sentiments, we
ought never to agree to any sort of arbtra-
tion, and ought to stand on the ground
that the will of the strongest is the only
test of justice and right. This is barbar-
ism pure and simple
1.-The treaty observes most carefully the
clear and definite distinction in pub
lie law between the rights and claims
of each nation against the other, and their
political interests and policies, as it regards
other countries. This leaves the Monroe
Notwithstanding the Nicaragua canal
matter, which is simply an incident under
it-and every other doctrine and policy
either nation may entertain, just where it
was before. This very important line of
distinction, it is true, makes the treaty a
narrow and circumscribed one. But it
does something, it does much, as the first
step along the great highway of peace in
the hopeful future, not alone for the two
great parties to it, but as an example and
suggestion and inspiration to other nations.
However small it may be, it will, if finally
concluded, mark the dawn and the coming
sunshine of justice, confidence and good
will among the nations of the earth-a fu-
ture that all our Christian civilization has
taught us to hope for. The great warrior
president said thirty years ago: Let us
have peace Let us now take the first
great step-great, short though it may be
toward keeping it between these two pow
erful and kindred peoples"
This certainly seems very much like get
ting down to the foundation of the whole
matter-to the fundamental idea of right
and wrong and of the proper settlement of
differences between nations as well as be-
tween individuals. No man doubts the ro-
bust quality of Mr.. Edmund's American
ism. 1t has been the delight of his oppo-
nents in the past, moreover, to picture him
as stickler for little things in matters of
broard public policy-"a man who could
see fly on barn door, but who could mt
see the door itself" With a reputation
like this TO back his statesmanlike views
the ex-Senators opinion of the treaty will
go far to convince Vermonters, at least,
that the treaty ought to be ratified, and
with no essential change from the form in
which it was drawn and submitted to the
| Senate.
Think About Your Health.