New-York tribune., 1902-12-22

Disposed To Insist on Reference to
THE Hague Tribunal
la rELEGRArH ro rnE rRIRrNE.l ]


Roosevelt as are the offers of Great Britain and
Germany to refer 10 him the sole arbitrator
the questions at issue between themselves and
Venezuela there are weighty reasons which
dispose him to insist that the subjects should
be passed upon by The Hague tribunal In the
first place it is cOntended by officials Of the
administration that there is no valid reason why
the head of any nation should be called upon
to assume the ungracious role of arbitrator.
and subject himself to the criticism that is
certain to follow from the disappointed party TO
the controversy. since the great tribunal of The
Hague has been organized for the express pur-
pose of adjudcatfug such controversies and
stands ready to do so. with it's machinery all IN
working order. Another reason is. as has al
ready been said in The Tribune. that citizens
of the United States have claims against the
government Of Venezuela that stand on exactly
the same footing some Of the European
claims, thus making the United States an in
terested party TO the controversy and rendering
it difficult for this government to have the
claims of its citizens included in the same ad-
Indication with the claims of other nations. un-
less the case should be referred to The Hague
tribunal
AN IMPORTANT REASON.
A still more important reason why President
Roosevelt should not serve. according TO the
views of officials Of the administration, is that
the arbitrator the tribunal which is called
upon to settle this controversy must pass upon
a highly important and fundamental question
of international law-the question. to state it
briefly of whether each nation shall be the final
Judge of its treatment of the nationals of other
countries In other words when the citizen Of
one country goes into another country. are his
life and property absolutely at the disposal of
the government of the country into which he
goes? Does he abandon all right to appeal to
the government of the country of his national
| ity no matter how unjust the treatment TO
| which he may be subjected and is his govern
ment to be debarred from intervention in his
behalf?
The affirmative of this question represents
proposition which Senior Carlos Calvo. an Ar
gentinian writer on international law, attempt
cd TO estab bIish as a principle OF the law Of na-
tions It's mere statement is enough to show
it's repugnance to Americans and TO all Anglo
Saxon ideas of the duty of a government 70
it's nationals, matter where they may be
domiciIed. Yet it's enunciation by Senior Calvo
| vas eagerly hailed by the Latin-Amertcan gov
ernments and is at the base Of many of their
laws which discriminate against aliens and un-
dertake TO prevent Intervention IN thelr OendlL
| by their governments
| OPPOSITION TO CALvO DOCTRINE
The case Of Venezuela before the arbitrai
tribur al will rest largely the Calvo doctrine.
and the government of the United States Is so
| absolutely committed in opposition TO this doc
trfne and so vftaly interested in having 1t once
! for all eliminated from controversies as 10 the
! status of American citizens in foreign coun-
| tries that there is said to be manifest I'M
! propriety in asking the President OF this coun-
/ trv to sit as an arbitrator in any controversy
/ IN which IL is even remotely involved The
United states with the many claims of its cttt-
! zens against Latin-American countries con-
/ stantIy arising is II possible, more strenuously
| opposed TO the Calvo doctrine than Is Great
! Britain Germany any other European coun-
| try This government has repeatedly admitted
| the right of other nations to intervene in be-
/ half of their nationals in this country, and
/ has from it's foundation insisted on exercising
: that right in behalf OF American citizens
/ Recent notable examples of this were AFFORD
| ed in the arguments of Judge Penfeld. Solicitor
! for the State Department. before The Hague
| Tribunal in the Pious Fund case, and In the
! instructions of the Secretary Of State to Min
| ister Merry in the case of the Salvador Com
| rlercfal Company against Salvador In these
cases the governments Of Mexico and Salvador.
| respectively had attempted to establish the
Calvo doctrine.
DIVERGENCE OF VIEWS.
! Even more emphatically the position OF
| the United States declared in the second inter
| ma tionaI American conference which sat IN the
/ City of Mexico last winter. The committee on
/ international law in that conference reported a
/ project OF n convention the rights OF aliens
| which was founded on and undertook to
| NIT the American republics TO the Cslvo doc
| trine That there might be mistake to the
position of the United States. at the beginning
| of the discussion William l. Buchanan one OF
! the delegates Of the United States. rose in his
| place and said
| Il think every delegate here is familiar with
the position of the government of the United
States on the matters treated of in this project
and I rise merely to say. on behalf of the dele
CATION. that. inasmuch it will be impossible
| for US to assent to very large portion of this
| report. this delegation will abstain from taking
any part in the debate and from voting the
project in whole or in part
The absolute divergence of the views of the
government of the United States and the gov
doctrine is shown by the fact that this project
In the form OF a convention. received the
votes and the signatures of the represent
atives of every American republic except
those of the United States. Brazil. venez-
uela and Hayti- The absence of the signatures
of Brazil and Venezuela is accounted for by
| the fact that they had ceased to be represented
| Brazil by the death of her delegate and Venez-
i