The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1897-01-22
FOR PEACE AMONG NATIONS
EX-SENATOR EDMUNDS BELIEVEs
IN THE ARBITRATION TREATY.

Analyses the Criticisms Urged Against It's
Observation-Disclosures Doctrine In no
Wise Imperilled-Neither is the Mica
ragua Canal Project mo Danger in Pro-
posed Selection of an Umpire.
Philadelphia, Jan. 21.-Ex-United
States Senator George F. Edmunds of
Vermont, one of the leading authorities
on constitutional law In the limited
States, and whose long service in the
senate well qualities him to speak on
the subject, has written to several gen
tlemen here who sought his opinion on
the arbitration treaty between the
United States and Great Britain. He
says:
The three principal criticisms Of the
treaty are:
I'D 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, it is said, have
suggested this objection, think 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 article
Nv as follows:
All other matters in difference, in
respect of which either of the high con-
tracing 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 es-
sentially and exclusively those things
that the law of the state enjoins upon
each in regard to the other.
This is the whole definition. Pre-
cisely the same is true in international
law and the centuries of intercourse
between nations. This, believe, all
writer's on national law and interna-
tional law agree in. To illustrate these
propositions: 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
the partition of Africa. In the case
of Turkey if we were to seize the whole
of Asia Minor and establish peace and
order there Gas the British have done,
in substance, in Egypt), we should
have invaded no rights Of any power
except Turkey.
"The same is of course, true in re-
spect Of our 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. 1t was then the clear
and perfectly understood distinction
between the rights of one nation
against another and their interests and
policies in regard to other nations that
doubtless led to a separate treaty in
regard to the Venezuelan question; for
both governments knew that the affair
could not possibly be within the scope
of the general treaty. You will see,
therefore, that the phrase of the treaty
which is criticised is the most apt pos
sible to mark the boundary of arbitra-
ton, and that it leaves the Monroe doc
trine unaffected.
"(2) The second objection is the fear
that the treaty may affect our attitude
in regard to the Nicaragua canal, in
which the interests of the United States
are SO deeply concerned. What have
already said disposes of that solicitude;
have not time to go into detail.
"(3) The third and last objection I
have heard is the supposed danger OF
leaving 1t to any European power to
name an umpire in certain contingent
cies. 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 dispute. In the great arbit-
ration 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 in the
same treaty we did not hesitate to sub
nit the very important question of our
boundary on the Pacific coast to the
Emperor of Germany.
IT am an intense supporter Of the
Monroe doctrine. I believe the build
ing Of the Nicaragua canal under the
auspices of the United States to be Of
urgent necessity. I believe most earn
estly in international arbitration to the
utmost extent that civilized, just and
self-respecting nations can go, and I
most earnestly hope that the senate
will ratify the treaty as it Is proposed.
as the first step is very great and aus
picious toward the attainment of peace
among nations"