New-York tribune., 1901-10-12
1.-THE PRESIDENTS PAN-AMERICANISu"

1.-THE PRESIDENTS PAN-AMERICANISu."
Our special Washington correspondence, which
first announced that the President had COM
| mendably referred to his legal adviser the ques-
| tion of granting a franchise for telegraphic
! cable TO Manila now reports that the Attorney
| General is considering the matter with excep-
tional care and caution, and is not yet ready TO
! EXPRESS an opinion upon it. This is gratifying,
! in view of the important issues involved and
the lack of precedent for certain features of the
case, and it presents a striking contrast to the
! hasty and unconsidered outbreaks of some or
the administrations critics. Note, for example,
the "Berliner Tageblatt's" fling at President
| Roosevelt, already reported in our columns.
| His "Pan-American- tendency" it said, was
| shown in his request that the Attorney-Gen-
eral would give an opinion as t0 whether con-
ceSsiOn for n cable to Manila might be granted
to United States company without violation
of the Treaty of Paris; and it added that the
Attorney Generals opinion would probably be
favorable TO the concession, since s;'Amercans
"have always excellently understood how to
interpret treaties" That is TO say, in the eyes
of this Berlin newspaper, il is an offence for
an American President to incline toward Pan
Americanism; it is still more offensive for him
to seek the best legal advice concerning the
Interpretation of a legal instrument. and it is
most offensive Of all for Americans to presume
TO interpret treaties to which they themselves
are a party All Of which will in part promote
the gayety of nations. and will in part cause
the judicious TO grieve,
After the amount Of talk, and more than
talk there has been ever since the Holy Al
lance about the concert of Europe and the
allied powers" the Triple Alliance" and the
Dual League" "Pan-Germanism" and Pan
Slavism" it is entirely too late in the day for
Europeans to protest against the Pan-Ameri-
can movement Especially is such the case
when we remember that nearly every such
European organization or movement has more
or less contemplated conquest or coercion, while
this American movement is quite void of such
intent Is it offensive to Europe for American
States to seek 10 settle their disputes through
arbitration instead OF through war? Is it
menace to Europe for them to improve their
sanitary and commercial regulations? Have
they not as good a right TO make reciprocal
trade treaties as European countries have TO
engage in tariff wars? One would think. from
some European comments, that the PAM Ameri-
can movement aimed at aggression upon and
the conquest of Europe The fact is that in
its entire programme there is not a single item
which even indirectly hints at unfriendlineSS
to Europe or to any European power. Its sole
aim is the Improvement of international rela-
tons among the American States-and in con-
sequence. the advancement of their domestic
welfare To regard that as offensive to Europe
would be to say that Europe desires the Ameri-
can States TO fight among themselves and to be
backward in civilization. The mOnstrosity of
such a view-whlch we cannot believe any
lightencd European seriously takes-may be APP
preciated through suppOsing the United States
should seek To promote its selfish interests by
fomenting quarrelS and wars among the Euro
pean powers.
The remaining counts in the "Tagebatt's'
indictment are even less convincing. 1t might
be proper in some land of arbitrary despotsm
for the chief of state to act without regard to
law In the United States, however. all men.
not excepting the President. are subject to the
law, and before taking action upon a matter
involving legal issues 1t is their fitting practice
TO get the best legal advice obtanabe. so as to
shape their actions in accordance with the law.
Had the President assumed to decide the
Manila cable case offhand, without regard TO
the law. he might have laid himself open to the
"Tageblatts" censure In seeking first the
counsel of his constitutional legal adviser he
pursues a course entirely above criticism AS
for Americas Interpretation of treaties, it may
be that it naturally incllnes toward the side of
American interests. We have yet to learn of
any nation which instinctively aims to interpret
treaties against it's own welfare. But 1t is not
difficult to recall a noteworthy case in which
the highest German authority decided unhesi-
tatingly that in international dispute
America right and her Interpretation of
treaty was just.
Each nationals each man-regards these
matters from its point of view, a point
established by tradition, by heredity and by in
stitutiOns and practice. monarchy cannot he
expected to see things republic does. So
nations which from time immemOrlal have been
waging military. diplomatic or commercial
wars against each other and which have been
forming offensive and aggressive alliances
necessarily take different views and make diff
ferent interpretations from those of nations
which have ever consistently sought peace
friendship and commerce with all and entan-
Cling alliances with none. Yet even with such
allowances made, the intimations of the Der
against this country must be regarded with
surprise, perhaps with some amusement and
certainly with some regret 1t must not be ac-
counted improper for Americans to pursue an
American policy, or for the administrators of
law to seek to understand and TO interpret the
law Alright; and he who rails at them for so
doing indicts not them, but himself
|