The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1902-12-29
THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL.
How It Is Constituted Sitting May
Be Hold in u. S.

Washington, Dec. 29.-Should Y-7e-
zuela name the United States as her
judge in the settlement of the present
trouble she must select at least two of
this country's four permanent members
OF The Hague court, Chief Justice Full
Ter, Judge George Gray. John w. Griggs
and Oscar S. Straus. 1t is assumed there
will be the least possible delay in get
ting the case before the tribunal and in
pressing it to a conclusion
The constitution OF the tribunal per
mits much expedition of procedure. as
Well as latitude of form. The trial may
be held at The Hague, London, Caracas,
or Washington. or at any place the dti-
giants NAV select. The special tribunal
itself may be constituted from the mem
bership of the permanent court in al
most anyway pleasing to the dlSputantS.
There seems to be no good reason.
therefore, why the case should not be
brought promptly to trial and to a de-
termination. The Hague convention pro-
VideS in article 26 for extending the
jurisdiction OF the court to controver-
sizes arising between powers signatory
and powers that have not signed it.
Germany, Italy and Great Britain are
represented in the permanent court by
members already appointed. 1t will re-
main for Venezuela to name her repre-
sentatives, and. as suggested. she is
likely to name the United States.
This method of constituting the court
treaty would, however. create a tribu-
nal in which the creditors would have
three votes to the debtors one.
Since the greatest latitude of proceed
ure is permitted by the treaty, the pro-
tocol in this case will doubtless provide
for a more evenly balanced court. The
convention nevertheless declares that
the arbtral judgment, when determined
by majority vote, shall be accompanied
by an opinion reduced to writing and
signed by each member of the tribunal.
Those members of court who are in
minority may, when signing, specify
their dissent The judgment duly pro-
nouncd shall decide the controversy
finally and without appeal
The reference of an American dispute to
The Hague tribunal does not open the
way for encroachments upon the Mon
roe doctrine. 1t is to be remembered,
however, that in signing the Hague treaty
the American delegates recorded and en-
tered a special provision that nothing
contained in the convention shall be 80
construed as to require the relinquish-
ment by the United States of America of
its traditional attitude towards purely
American questions.
We are not directly party to this con-
troversy nor to the arbitration. But
against the rendering of any decision
containing menace to the Monroe doc
trine there stands, first, the safeguard
of the Venezuelan representation in the
court, since any act in contravention of
the Monroe doctrine would necessarily
be harmful and dangerous to her; second.
the character of the tribunal itself.which
is Judicial, not political; third, the knowl-
edge of every European power represent
ed in the court that any attempt to en-
force a decision in conflict with the Mon
roe doctrine would encounter our pro-
test and resistance. 1t is open to any
European power at any time and in any
way it may choose to raise the issue of
the Monroe doctrine with US and the
present affair therefore offers no oppor-
tunities along that line that do not al
ready exist.