New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-12-06

The movement for a permanent arbitration
treaty between America and Great Britain is
we'll meant, and is to be regarded with respect
Whether in all its details ii will command judi
cious support is another question. OF the de-
STABILITY and beneficence of arbitration, gener-
ally speaking, as a substitute for war, there
can be no doubt Nor can there be any of the
sincere attachment Of the United States TO that
principle. No other nation in the world has
shown itself ready as this TO submit disputes
10 arbitration. and 10 accept the result Loyalty,
no matter whether the verdict was for or
against il. But here. as elsewhere, IT is rec
Ognized by practical men that arbitration has
its limitations. 1t is also realized that one of
the gravest dangers TO the whole principle and
system of arbitration lies in a too jealous at
tempt 10 override and ignore those limitations,
and 10 apply arbitration 10 cases TO which it is
not suited. and TO make il do things which it
cannot properly do.
1t would, for example. be a great mistake,
and a mischievous one, 10 say in treaty that
all questions at issue between the nations shall
be submitted TO arbitration. There matters
which now and then arise which self-re-
speeding nation would should submit to arbi-
tration. To covenant that they should be thus
submitted would be TO bring about one of two
disqualification Of sovereignty by one Of the
nations or reputation OF the treaty There
must, then be discrimination between arbitra-
bic and nOn-arbitrable questions. and each ma
ton must be left the Judge Of each case in
which il is concerned. The voluntary principle
must prevail 30 far as entering the court is con-
cerned. Once in court there must be moral
cOmpulsion 10 abide by the result To saw that
nations must submit all disputes 10 arbitration.
but may accept or reject the findings of the
court would be worse than mockerv. The only
rational system is 10 let them 90 into court or
not, they please but, once having entered. 10
abide by the result
In more than one case the United States has
had the experience Of settling controversies nv
special negotiation more satisfactorily than II
could probably have done under hard and
fast permanent arbitration treaty Two such
were pending six or seven years ago when a
treaty was Intellectually negotiated between
America and Great Britain, and il was prob
ably In part because Of them that that treaty
failed Of ratification. One was the dispute over
the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty We suppose no one
will deny that the settlement Of il in the new
Hay-Psuncefote Treaty was preferable TO any
that would probably have come through arbi-
tration The other was the Alaska Boundary
dispute IT, too. has been settled satisfactorily
by a special commissions: and il was one that
the United States would not and should not
have submitted 10 ordinary arbitration IL is
10 be remarked, by the way, for the benefit OF
those few Canadians who are not yet recon
cied 20 that settlement and the way in which
Il was effected, that il was in pra ctical accord
nnce with that unratified arbitration treaty of
January, 1897. For that instrument which was
negotiated by Lord Pauncefote and approved by