The San Francisco call., 1897-08-29

Inasmuch as japan is reported to have
suggested the nomination of King Leo
pold to act as arbitrator in her controversy
with the United States on the subject of
Hawaii, it may be timely to point out the
reasons why this country should under o
circum stances consent to the selection Of
the Belgian ruler for the purpose, and at
tie same time to call attention to the in
congruity of submitting disputes in which
republics are concerned to the judgment
of monarchs. 1t is merely necessary to
glance over the list OF the eighty odd in
ternatio1aI dificulties-I leave out those
of minor hich have been
settled by arbitration since 1916 in order
TO perceive how far more frequently the
names of emperors and of kings are to be
found figuring as judges in the case than
those of personages of less exalted rank.
socially speaking. The late Gear, dullest
and most prejudiced of his line; the
drunken and dissolute King of Holland
the late King Victor Emmanuel, whose
financial irregularities are at the bottom
of the present administrative corruption
and sadly i'm paired credit of Italy; En-
peror Napoleon III, most unscrupnlous OF
after his accession to the throne as in the
days when he was still mere political
refugee; the late Emperor William, who
though a chivalrous gentleman and an ex-
cellent soldier, understood nothing about
international law; Dom Pedro of Brazil
and King Oscar of Sweden have time and
again been called upon to act as umpire
in international:compI pIcations.
incidentally it may be pointed out that
monarchial governments manifest a de-
cided preference for selecting non-royal
personages, and oftentimes republican
statesmen and dignitaries as arbitrators.
Thus England has in several instances in
voked the services Of the chief magistrates
of France and Of Switzerland in such m at
ters, while the President of the United
States has likewise been called upon by
crowned rulers to determine the right and
the wrong OF disputes in which they had
become involved. And in this they show
their good sense. For writing, not as ar
American, but as a foreigner, it is impossi
BILE to deny that there is far greater chance
OF just verdict being rendered by non
royal personages than by kings or en-
perors. These latter when a case is re
1erred 10 tnem either turn 1t over to som.
OF their legal advisers and take no furthe1
trouble about the matter, except TO afil
their signature to the legal opinion drawr
MP for their approval by the lawyer
or politicians whom they have EN-
ployed for the purpose, or else if they
take the matter in hand themselve
under the impression that their crown
has invested them with an abstrus
knowledge OF the intricacies of interna
tional law without ever having studied
the latter. they are apt to make the mos
ridiculous mistakes, as for instance whel
King William of Holland, on being asket
py the United States many years ago T.
determine the northeast boundary line
on the subject of which there was differ
ence of opinion with Great Britain, de
clined to accept either the American 0
the English views, and rendered decision
in favor of preposterous frontier line Q
his own devising, which was not only un
acceptable to both countries concerned
but absolutely impossible geographically
as well as politically. Indeed il is Difficult
to say which is the most unsatisfactory @
the two-the monarch who takes his um
pireship au serieux, and insists on regard