The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-11-05
pa tho Peace G Inference Further
Arbitrati n?

An authoritative exposition OF the work
performed by the Peace Conference is con-
tributed to the November number Of the
North American Rericlc by Mr. +. De MAR
TENS, u delegate from Russia to The Hague,
and the chairman Of the arbitrators by
whom the Venezuela controversy was re-
Gently settled. The article deserves utten-
ton, nasmuch as the treaty to which our
representatives at The Hague made the
United States party, so far as they were
competent to do SO, will be presently sub
mitted to our Senate for ratification
1t Is clear on the face of things that,
II Russias original proposals had been
accepted at The Hague. the decisions of the
Conference would not have commented
themselves to American public opinion.
Russia recommended that arbitration
should be made obligatory in certain
specified cases, but Germany opposed
the suggestion, and the idea Of COM
pulsory arbitration was completely set
aside by the Conference. Russia also
proposed that. for the purpose Of pre-
venting as far as possible resort to
force In international affairs, the s. ;natory
powers agree to direct all their efforts
the accommodation OF conflicts which may
arise between them. To this end, before
appealing to arms the signatory powers
were TO have recourse, so far as circum-
stances should permit, to the friendly
Offices or mediation OF one or more friendly
powers. The Russian project also con-
tanned provision to the effect that, where
the situation OF powers in conflict should
not allow them to agree upon the choice ~
mediatlng power, the neutral pvNurs
might offer mediation OF their own accord
This project was sanctioned to q GER
tain extent by the decision OF the
Conference that powers not involved
in the conflict may Offer OF their own free
will their friendly Offices and their media
ton 10 the dlsputing States. The Confer
cnce also recognized that the right to offer
friendly Offices or mediation belonged to
the States not involved in the quarrel even
during the course Of hostilities 1t was
added that the exercise OF this right should
never be considered as an unIrlendly act by
either OF the parties In litigation.
Provision was also made for kind OF "spes-
iaI mediation" which. in the eighth article
Of the treaty, Is thus Defined: I'm case OF
grave differences endangcring peace, each OF
the States In conflict may choose a power to
which it may entrust the mission OF enter
ing into direct communication with power
chosen by the other side, for the purpose OF
preventing the rupture o! pacific relations"
II is further provided that, during the
existence OF this mandate, the term OF
which. unless otherwise ordered, shall not
exceed thirty days the States in litigation
kan all a i.
on the subject OF the conflict, which shall
DO considered as submitted exclusively to
the mediatng powers. These mediators
are not to he arbitrators; that ID to say their
decision will not he binding, and it IL even
stipulated that tho acceptance OF such
mediation shall not have the effect, unless
otherwise prescribed. OF interrupting
retarding or impeding mobilization and
other measures preparatory To war.
Another OF Russia's proposals was ac-
copied in qualified form. We refer to the
assertion that, where a quarrel Is threat
ened between two States, as the outcome OF
some frontier incident. or OF n criminal act
such as the blowing up OF the MAINE" in
the port OF Havana, II 10 the duty OF tho
powers, between which the difficulty has
arisen, to send to the spot commission
composed OF members chosen by the two
parties. In tho original draft OF this pro-
posal, the institution OF such Joint com
mission Of inquiry was made obligatory
upon the powers concerned. The Con-
ference, however, changed the form OF the
provision in such a way that 1t reads
that the signstory powers Consider it USE
full that parties, which have been unable
To agree hya diplomatic exchange OF views,
shall, las far as circumstances permit" an
point an international commission OF in
quiry, each OF the disputant powers naming
two members thereof a neutral power may
be invited to name the President OF the Com
mission, who, by his vote, shall give the
final solution TO thu questions raised. Here
again we should point out that the Commits
sloners of lnquiry are not arbitrators; their
report is limited to a statement OF fact,
and Is not binding upon tho parties.
We have seen that. the notion that In any
circumstances, arbitration should be COM
nulsory was rejected by tho Conference.
OF what practical benefit, then, will 10 the