New-York tribune., 1902-10-24
NO PRECEDENT N THE SAMOA CASE

NO PRECEDENT II THE SAMOA CASE.
There appears to hc no adequate ground for
the fear that the decision in the Samoa
will establish a precedent or a principle in in
ternatiOnal law which may hereafter prove
troublesome 10 the United States in dealing
with countries or communities which eudanger
the lives and property OF American citizens. II
has been suggested by some that i'm holding this
country responsible for the damage done by the
bOmbardment in Samoa the decision may also
hold il responsible for damages in Hayti and
Colombia, and thus restrain the government
from further Intervention I'm those and other
like countries The suggestion cannot be
garded well made. The text OF the decision
is not yet before us But there is not the slight
est reason to suppose that King Oscar has at
tempted 10 lay down any permanent principle
of international law. For him to have done so
would he extraordinary and unprecedented en-
tirely transcending his functions as an arbitra-
tor. He was chosen umpire TO decide this one
SPECIFIC case and nothing more and ii is 10 be as
sumed that he has done so. He certainly was not
invested with authority TO formulate permanent
principles Of international law for universal ap-
plicatiOn. If another case precisely like that OF
Samoa i'm every detail should arise and should
be arbitrated his decision in this case might he
quoted before that arbitrator as an argument
but II would not necessarily be binding upon
him. Benehcent as these separate and individ-
ual arhitrations are, there is in them no neceS-
Sary and assured continuity of either practice
or principle. Each arbitrator is specially Sc
lecied by special treaty. for a special case and
is practically a law unto himself. not bound by
precedents and not imposing precedents upon
others
In mat fact Is a strong argument in favor OF
the change Of system for which we yesterday
expressed hope. 1t is one of the great advan-
tages OF such tribunal as that at The Hague
over the old system Of special arbitration bv in
dlNlduaI sovereigns that II is permanent body
with hXed rules and with continuous and con
slsteht practice. Each OF IFS decisions will
form a precedent which may govern it's sub
sequehl action In other cases just as do the de
eisions Of our State and national courts. That
VIII he The more logical and acceptable because
the court Is composed OF expert international
Jurisis verSed in the existing codes Of interna.
tlonal law and by common consent qualified to
add thereto AS occasion may require The
chahge "f systems will he change from en-
piricsm 10 science
The impossibility Of the present dccroo.s
causing us embarrassment in Hayti CoIomb{o
or elsewhere Is further emphaSizcd i'm tho cir
cunStance that in not one of those countries *
the case identical with or even similar ia that
III samoa so that even If the Samoa decision
dld CONSTITUTE a precedent il would nor Inc an
plcaDle 10 one Of them. Apart from various
MINOR but essential differences * this sunrepc
One-that in Samoa we vere actinc, ,ndor ,
rlparite agreement, while i'm these other conn
tries we are acting alone. with no one TO reckon
WIN nut the one power concerned That trinIc
oohuoi III Samoa was always n wretched thinr
III conceived embarrassing and full of nerIl
ms hauo1 Is now happily rid of il and l. not
iiAe'H '.e' "sdIh To get into such an entanclo-
Inent. >" tar as Colombia is concerned If is 70
be observed that we have repeatedly and con
0iusNci' i"iu>eh 10 admit any other mower IN n
sn'ie W "i' guarantee Of neutrality. Thot is
the "lse course. and il it had been souor.., :
Samoa We should have been snarod ,,i,o .s.,.
VI our tl"upies and vexations in those islands
"a'iH' ana most important of all IL rno,. ho
said mat no arbitra verdict no, an, -.
cree can ever be recognized ne imnnoY,i,,,. ,ho
risnt of the nation to protect its c,,izan. IT..
IIsut J. pltnentary and fundamental to govern
nhe"'' nat Marcy described as "tbe right .,
any Slaie To protect It's citizens from, r7ro,,.
ana injuries from arbitrary acts Of onnressior,
~ '"''on OF property is not 10 he relip-
quisned nor regarded as q suhie., =, ..st...
.ou y simply impossible that King Oscar
nDean' 10 challenge IL for ii was not invo,red In
the issues presented TO him for deteruin.t,on