The Teton peak. [volume] (St. Anthony, Idaho) 1899-1904, 1903-12-10

II will be remembered that during the
second session of the last Congress Great
Britain Germany, and Italy formed an
alliance for the purpose of blockading the
norris of Venezuela aud using such other
means of pressure as would secure a set
Element of claims due, as they alleged, TO
certain of their subjects. Their en-
ployment of force for the collection or
these claims was terminated by an agree
ment brought about through the offices
of the diplomatic representatives OF the
United States at Caracas and the Govern
ment at Washington, thereby ending a
situation which was bound to cause IN
creasng friction, and which jeopardized
the peace OF the continent nder this
agreement Venezuela agreed to set apart
a certain percentage of the customs re-
ceipts of two of her ports to be applied
to the payment of whatever obligations
might be ascertained by mixed commits
sions appointed for that purpose to be
due from her. not only to the three pow
ers already mentioned whose proceedings
against her had resulted in state or
war, but also to the United States.
France Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Sweden and Norway, and Mexico, who
had not employed force for the collec-
ton of the claims alleged to be due to
certain of their citizens.
demand was then made by the So
called --ockading powers that the sums
ascertained to be due to their citizens
by such mixed commissions should be ac-
corded payment in full before anything
was paid upon the claims of any of the
So called peace powers. Venezuela, on
the other hand insisted that all her cred
itors should be paid upon a basis of ex
act equality. During the efforts to ad-
just this dispute it was suggested by the
powers IN interest that it should be re-
ferred to me for decision, but ] was
clearly of the opinion that a far wiser
course would be to submit the question
to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at
The Hague. 1t seemed to me to offer an
admirable opportunity to advance the
practice of the peaceful settlement Of
disputes between nations and to secure
for the Hague tribunal a memorable in
crease of its practical Importance The
nations interested in the controversy
were so numerous and in many instances
so powerful as to make it evident that
beneficent results would follow from their
appearance at the same time before the
bar of that august tribunal of peace.
Our hopes in that regard have been
realized. Russia and Austria are repre-
scented in the persons of the learned and
distinguished jurists who compose the
tribunal, while Great Britain, Germany,
France, Spain, Italy. Belgium the Meth
erlands, Sweden and Norway, Mexico, the
United States. and Venezuela are rep
resented by their respective agents and
counsel. Such an imposing concourse of
nations presenting their arguments to
and invoking the decision OF that higA
court of international justice and inter
national peace can hardly fail to secure
a like submission of many future con
troversies. The nations now appearing
there win find it far easier to appear
there second time, while no nation can
imagine its just pride will be essened by
following the example now presented.
This triumph of the principle OF inter
national arbitration is a subject of warm
congratulation and offers happy augury
for the peace of the world.
There seems good ground for the be
lief that there has been a real growth
among the civilized nations of a senti-
ment which will permit gradual sub
stitution of other methods than the
method of war in the settlement of dis
putes. 1t is not pretended that as yet
we are near position in which it will
be possible wholly to prevent war. or
that just regard for national interest
and honor will in all cases permit of
the settlement of international disputes
by arbltration but by a mixture of pru-
dence and ffrmness with wisdom we think
1t is possible to do away with much of
tHC ploNOtdilOll ana excuse Tor war. and
at least in many cases to substitute some
other and more rational method for the
settlement of disputes. The Hague court
offers so good an example of what can
be done in the direction of such settle
ment that 1t should be encouraged in
every way.
Further steps should be taken. In Pres
ldent Mckinley's annual message Of
Dec o. 1898, he made the following rec
concentration:
The experiences of the last year bring
forcibly home to us a sense of the bur
dens and the waste of war. We desire.
IN common with most civilized nations
TO reduce to the lowest possible point
the damage sustained in time of war by
peaceable trade and commerce. 1t is
true we may suffer in such cases less
IMAM other communities, but all nations
are damaged more or less by the state of
uneasiness and apprehension into which
an outbreak of hostilities throws the
entire commercial world. 1t should be our
OBJECT, therefore, to minimize. so far
as practicable. this inevitable loss and
disturbance This purpose can probably.
best be accomplished by an international
agreement to regard all private property
at sea as exempt from capture or de-
structlon by the forces Of belligerent now
ers. Inc United States Government has
Tor many years advocated this humane
ana benehcent principle. and is now in a
position TO recommend it to other now
ers without the imputation of selfish mo-
yves. L therefore suggest for your CON
sluefatlon that the Executive be author
lzed to correspond with the governments
oil the principal maritime powers with
view OF incorporating into the perma
hent law of civilized nations the prin
clple of the exemption OF all private
property at sea, not contraband of war
from capture or destruction by belliger
ent powers"
cordially renew this recommendation
Inc supreme Court. speaking on Dec
IL, 1899. through Peckham, j.. sand.
III Is, we think, historically aecurate
10 say that this Government has alwavs
oeen' IN IT'S views. among the most ad-
Vanced of the governments of the world
IN FAVOR of mitigating, as to all non
compatants. the hardships and horrors
OF war. 10 accomplish that object il has
Always advocated those Jules which
would In most cases do away with the
right to capture the private pronertv of
an enemy on the high seas"
advocate this as a matter of human
lty and morals. 1t is anachronistic when
private property Is respected on land
.nat II should not be respected at sea
moreover, 1t should be borne in mind tho,
shlpplng represents, Internationally,
speaking, much more generalized sne,
cles OF private property than is the casa