The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-10-23
A Surprising Decision.

The United States must and will stand
by the adverse decision of King Oscar of
Sweden and Norway in the Samoan inter-
national litigation between the United
States and Great Britain on one side, and
Germany on the other. The nation that
agrees to arbitration must be prepared to
abide by the most outrageous decision,
short of grave national injury. We do not
undertake to say that the decision in the
present case is outrageous, though we had
every reason to expect a different event.
1t is enough to say that the United States
cannot afford to submit to such a decision
as an international law precedent. The
government is following perfectly proper
course in paying the 100000 damages
without murmur, but accompanying the
payment with dIsavowal of the decision
as indicating the proper course of the
United States in future crises of a similar
nature. Both treaty right and propriety
demanded the intervention made under
the immediate authority Of Rear Admiral
kautz While it is quite true that per-
fectly correct use Of military force might
have resulted in some just claims for
damage, it appears that the damages sued
for In this case were such that their va
Iidity really depended upon the question
of the authority and propriety Of the
armed intervention. The allowance Of
the damages carries with It, the implica
ton, even If the findings on that point are
not specific, that the United States was
not justified in it's Intervention.
AS action in Samoa in 1899 was taken
under supposed treaty rights, similar ac-
ton for the preservation of life and prop
erty, where no treaty governed, would not
have ghost Of a show Of being sustained
by such court as King Oscar. AS the
disturbed affairs of many countries where
American citizens and property interests
must be protected by American armed
force, If at all, will give many occasions
for intervention in the future, it Is mani
fest that it is the highest wisdom for our
government to insist on the Samoan case
being considered by itself.
The result Of this arbitration should
warn the United States to beware Of spe-
cial arbitration by the head OF any mon
archial European state. The bias Of such
q ruler is likely. to be against the big
American republic. There is more promise
of unbiased decisions by The Hague inter-
national court. The decision should also
suggest caution in submitting to arbitra-
ton any question involving fundamental
national rights or national territory. Will
liam T. Stead would have even such ques-
tions arbitrated first and the decision re-
pudiated; rather than have no attempt at
arbitration. But the Olney-Pauncefote
scheme of referring such grave questions
to a board made up of an eual number Of
citizens of each country is better Then,
If one country. be clearly in the wrong, it
will be voted against probably. by one or
more of it's own commissioners. II the
uestion IS so delicate and so grave that
ensue, but all would have been done that
was possible to prevent it. In the Alaskan
boundary case the United States proposed
settlement Of the dispute along such lines
feeling confident that the plain justice
of the American case would win at least
one British vote. The outcome OF the
Samoan case proves the wisdom Of the re-
fusal of the American members Of the joint
high commission to submit to any form of
arbitration that would rest on the decision
of a European ruler. :.