The daily morning journal and courier., 1903-07-25

decision It was obvious that. treaty
 of arbitration, to fulfill the purpose of
 avoiding any break in the amicable re-
 lations between the two states at issue,
 must be general, obligatory and auto
 matic-in other words, the coming into
 operation of the treaty. if it was to
 serve the cause Of peace in time of
 great emergency, must be instantane- lous.
 The jurisdiction which had failed
 must ipso facto be succeeded by the
 new jurisdiction with its new men and 'new methods. The machinery of diplo-
 macy had grown up- from need of de-
 vices to avoid the calamity of dead
 locks, but the want of some further
 means than those provided by diploma
 cy had been shown on different recent
 occasions, when only the wisdom and
 stifling of their national pride by one
 of the parties had save us from war. The Anglo-American treaty was, based
 on a reasonable view of the difficulties
 which beset arbitration in the minds of
 statesmen where national questions of
 vital importance are involved. On the
 other hand, The Hague convention had dealt with all matters but this class of
 questions. Therefore. all that was now
 wanted to complete the work done at
 The Hague was to graft upon it some
 such provisions as those contained in
 the Anglo-American treaty.
 | At the conclusion of his lecture Mir.
 Barclay referred to a statement con
 tained in the daily papers, on the strength of an article in the Journal
 des Debats of Paris, that the French
 and British governments were on the
 eve of entering into negotiations for a treaty of arbitration in response to the
 demands of the chambers of commerce lof the two countries and other bodies.
 He did not think that the agitation had
 reached the point at which negotiations
 could be usefully entered into.
 At the annual meeting of the Interna- tional Arbitration and Peace associa- tion Professor John Westlake of Cam
 bridge university delivered an address,
 also touching on The Hague court of
 arbitration. Last year, he said, The Hague court of arbitration had had it's first case brought before it. True, it
 was not very important It was the
 case between Mexico and the United States as to the division of certain fundsra case which had been allowed to slumber for many years But the manner in which 1t was brought for lward was much more important than the case itself, President Roosevelt E had determined to bring in case to set the court to work, a circumstance for. which all who loved peace must be in debted to the president. Further, Eng land was now party to case before the court in the dispute with Venezue- la. Unfortunately, the part of the dis Dute submitted was infinitesimally small. The fault he had to find with the government was that the question submitted was not the whole of the claims. The first-class claims had not been submitted, while the second class claims were referred to a mixed commission, and all that was submitted to the court was whether or not the three cooperative powers were entitled to preference. What possible justifica- tion was there for not submitting the first class claims? The reason. he be- lieved, was characteristic of the dislike of many powers to submit cases for ar bitration.
 It was that when force had been ap-. piled to a state. as in the case of the acts for which the first-class claims were made, it was thought to be dis grace to apply to a court; the applica- ton of force was stain on the coun-' trv's honor that could only be wiped !out by the country's doing what it call- led justice for itself. That false sense of honor was the cause of the difficulty, and this society had to do it's best to ex- tirpate that idea. Moreover, they would lnever make progress unuess they made allowance for the feelings of others, such as those gentlemen connected with the various foreign offices, among the
 best of whom, he thought, those of this country might be ranked. They used their discretion honestly for what they thought to be best for their country, and naturally they distrusted new or der of things: they distrusted the pur- itv of motive and width of intelligence of arbitrators. But, nevertheless, they must consent to the reign of law, and he believed they might fully trust such a court as that of The Hague, composed of men accustomed to law and aetuated by professional feeling in addition to conscience. but alike leading them to give sound Judgments that could be keenly scrutinized. s # The third case for arbitration was that of the Alaska boundary, and he re-
 gretted that it had not been placed be- fore The Hague tribunal. Public epin- ion In the states was that they should yield no part of the territory. On the whole. the year had been a checkered one for arbitration, and there was much to be disappointed at. In conclusion, he referred with approval to the great and growing feeling of amity between this country and France. London Times