New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-02-03
THE LIMITS OF THE TREATY
EX-SENATOR EDMUNDs EXPLAINS IT'S
SCOPE
WHAT MAY ,vp, MAY not BE SUBMITTED TO
ARBITRATION UNDER 1.-THE DIFFERENCE
prTyEFN RIGHTS AND CLAIMS.

,on Of the peeple Of the United States Much that
has been said against It must have ari9en from rom
want of careful attention 10 the PROVISIONS o. t,
| instrument 1t IL very simple in itself. ana only
takes a short step-impo ,ant and valuable though
It is-on the hghroad TO reign OF peace ana amt!
The substance OF the treaty provides In Article :
| persons Article 4 provides for similar pecunlary
claims Of larger amount and also for hr
which either Of the high contracting parties thhlI
rshs agan the other %ndsT me Tffy
| mattsrs Article provides for the determinations
1t viii thus be seen that the first branch Of the
treaty only personal claims when almost
been wiinr 10 refer to special commssions the
fourth article beyond this and PROVIDES ior th
have rights against the other; This phrasiss mas
been objected to under the idea that possibly II
question OF the policy of the United States In re-
| spect of the foreign ACKNOWLEDGEMENT on the west
sion Neither party has any rights. either IN mu-
niclpal international sense, against me 9ther
| in respect of any such policies Even In muncipai
government the rights Of one citizen against an,
other do not embrace the course OF acton una!
either citizen may take In respect OF controT is
| between either and third party. either OF aid or
opposition And In international aw all b",wee
| nations They show that the right or one nation
ternational law imports an obligation OF the other S
due 10 the party asserting the so-caled right Such
brace the subjects in respect OF which some OF our
| people have expressed socituda; may add oriehy
arbitration treaty does send to arbitration all
matters In diference-ony all matters In direrence
| parties shall have rights AGAINST the other uh ha
treaty or otherwise" otherwise can mean mo notml mn
but international law-nternational law holnR; Win
the exception Of treaties the only source of inter-
| national rights.
| RIGHTS THE BASIS OF ARBITRAL CLAIMS
No claim is arbitral in other words that does no,
| in the canons of International iaw ience; ,i a.,
matters OF mere 2ry AS to wnlcn el,ner ,in
whatever the views interests of the other. are
| outside the category of arbitral subjects - -
public law. no legal cause Of complaint arise
] by nation against the other:
| (a) BY any commercial policy.
| d, BY any system of customs regulations;
| &c, BY any warlike ornaments it may Keep on
Id Ry any for.ihcations # may erect NATHAN may
| enter into any relations Of amty or alliance WIN
| any other without infringing any right of third
Examples abound in the various alliances be
tween the different countries OF Europe mace u,
be deprecated or felt 10 be menace by any any
| Power such Power cannot object that any right
of It's own is violated. ,,.o. ~.
msnG ant dr d to s fam whn nf the Of
| the treaty. II is matter OF high policy as TO whch
the United states has perfect freedom OF action.
and tho establishment and maintenance Of when
violate no right Of Great t Brani States simply
makes itself the ally OF every South American
Power whose territory Is sought to be wrested from
diminish this policy as may seem wise. without in
ringing any right OF Her Majestys Government
Great Britain can more complain Of the Doc
rine or our acng ndfT I t herse Me eSnr with
or without a treaty, 10 Russia as against france
or to France as against Russia
In neither case is there anything TO arbtrate-ln
neither case can the alliance be resisted as OF
evarv indspeYdent nation is at liberty to act ac-
cording to It's cwn sense Of justice and interest
A CASE IN POINT.
Suppose. for example that the United States
today to make a treaty win every every Souta
agree to be bound by and to maintain the Monroe
Doctrine as respects that state. Great Britain
mi 46s not ae Sf B6 '% coad TF posby
contendsd that by such reaty the United STATES no
no arbitration could ensue under this treaty, since
IS limited in c terms n 0oS S hers r ri GiGr
against the other under treaty or Gher E beros
ThG to in point f"F I rss
claimed by the United States were involved IN that
controversy, namely its right TO exclusive IursdiG
or projection OF the herd. These questions OF
pGTersev to the tinted States by the Paris Tri
hunal of Arbitration Having been so decided me
Ing to the protection and preservation of the fur
seal herd wa matter Of p9sy as roPd @ SnuGd
only by their own assent They ana consent by tne
tribunal might prescribe such regulations.
But both Governments might have dissented and
have stood upon their strictly independent rights;
they might have held that such regulations Were
done so no arbitrai question could have arisen
under treaty referring to arbitration only matters
Of difference IN respect of which one party mas
rights against the other, under treaty or otherwise
TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES.
There remains of the fundamental parts Of the
treaty the question OF territorial boundaries. Such
questions have been often submitted to aspiration
and always to the great advantage OF both parties
although one must. OF course. give up It's preteh-
sions according to the decision OF the aroltrauon
tribunal Bat this In ninety cases IN one nun
dred. would he far better. in the narrowest ana
most selfish sense as an the cost OF war III 0'oo
1t ought to be borne in mind also. by those who
the arbitration tribunals excepting in the one in
stance of transferring question from one tribunal
to decide. but which belongs to each nation.
And therefore If 1t should ever happen that either
bitration the question that the other thought d!d
not fall within the treaty. It would haXe the entire
in the case of the Arbitration Treaty of ISL with
Great Britain. when. before the tribunal at Geneva.
proving it's so-called National claims; whereupon,
Her Majesty's Government las II had perfect
right to doJ declared that II had not Understood
the consideration of that subject. and declined to
proceed. The difficulty was then accommodated by
National claims were left out Of consideration. y
Was of the great Snaf Fae ns
against each other in the sense OF the international
cause 10 another IN the general and political sense
by the OF conduct that il pursues. not d.
rectly toward the nation injured but In respect OF
its notion OF its International interests In re-
gard TO others.
We need have no fears. then. In respect OF the
overcXtent of the treaty, or in respect OF any
questions that may arise as thsy d sye
can States or any other subject of Ike nature,
whenever and wherever IL may arise. All these
are left by the treaty be disposed of. peacefully.
| hope, when they shall specially arise.
THE MoDUs OPERANDI.
The modus operandl of the treaty deserves at
tention 1t is not easy to conceive Of a better way
OF selecting arbitrators than that named in the
treaty. In respect OF the mere personal claims
mentioned In Articles II and ". one far az Is
known. has made objection. But as II regards the
important subject OF "other matters In differ
ence IN respect OF which either OF the nigh con-
tracttng parties shall have rights against the