The daily morning journal and courier., 1907-05-23
JUDGE BALDWIN BEFORE LAKE MOll. a,lK CONFERENCE Chief Justice on Common Law and Common Courts
 of Nations. ARBITRATION CAUSE. Advocates Opposed By Many Not Unimpressive
 Arguments.
ARBITRATION CAUSE.

and Common Courts of Nations" He said in part:
 The advocates of international arbi- tration find themselves opposed by many not unimpressive arguments. There is that of the necessity and the justice of war under certain cir cun.stances; and l, for one, fully grant | 1t.
 There is that of the remedy afforded by diplomacy for the settlement of in ternational controversies. They say that this is cheaper, quicker, and better remedy than any court of ar bitration can provide, and I think we must grant that also. It is only when diplomacy fails that international ar bitrtion can properly come in. Every controversy between man and man does not result in a lawsuit. In 99 cases out of 100 they settle it between them selves, or their agents do. So it is and always should be in differences be- tween nations.
 | Another much more imposing objec- ton is that no people will trust the justice and fairness of arbitrators who have not been trained in their own ways of thinking and are not familiar with their own ideas of jurisprudence and social morality.
 l It is to this particular objection that shall address myself on this occas- ion, and I desire to do it by reference to what has already been accomplish ed in this direction.
 l In gatherings like this, in which our faces are set towards the future, we are apt not always to give to existing con- ditions and achievements the place that belongs to them in the upward movement of the race.
 | There is a grandeur to international law, the law between nations, that does not attach to the law between men, or between a man and a government. | Yet we have no surer foundation for international law and international jus tice than is given by that branch of the law between men which is already es- tablished as common law for all na- tions
 l I refer, of course, to maritime law. It Is the same on every. sea, and so ex- tends over more than two-thirds of the entire earth. Every ship on the ocean, whatever her flag, is subject to its au- thority, and the courts of every nation, into whose ports she may enter, will enforce 1t against her.
 Nor is this true simply in time of peace. Whether invoked between man | Io,, hnt 1,,I ernment, be it his own or foreign one, the laws of the sea will be applied in war, by one and the same rule when ever appeal Is made to the power of court of justice for protection. To those familiar with the practice of courts of admiralty, by which 1is law of the sea is administered, there has never seemed anything impossible in the project, often proposed, in pre- vious centuries, of setting up a single prize court for the world As thought out by such jurists as Azuni and Hub ner, it was to have its seat in one of the free cities, and draw it's judges from every maritime power 1 IA court of admiralty, we must re- member, has an effective way of en- forcing it's decrees, by a suit in rem It seizes the ship which is or was the theater of the cause of action as the first step in the controversy; and holds it to respond to the final Judgment. The doings of such courts have, of course, an interest for all nations. They are widely reported in law magazines and treatises. If they seem to de- serve it, they meet frank criticism. The judges know that their acts are to go before the world for it's judgment. Pride as well as duty therefore con- strains them to follow the standards which that law sets up
 i The political and legislative depart lments of the government to which such a court belongs have the power to abrogate or alter for their country the general law of the sea, but they sell dom do it. They, too, are restrained by the public opinion of the world, and by the fact that this law is a natural course of centuries.
 | I need hardly say that admiralty courts are not confined to cases where they seize ship. One man can sue an- other there or be sued by one. So can one government sue another before them, or indeed before any court to l which they may both agree to submit l their controversy. Nor are such sub missions by any means unknown.
 Here Judge Baldwin cited two cases. The first, in 1874, resulted from seizure of a French ship by Nicaraguan au- thorities in Nicaraguan port on sus- picion that arms on board were for Irevolutionists. France demanded in- demnity which Nicaragua refused. Af- 1 ter some five years, diplomacy failing, Nicaragua agreed to allow the highest court of France to determine the case did so, and accepted an adverse de- cision. The second case arose from American seizure of a Canadian seal l ing ship off Alaska in waters which Canada claimed were without Ameri- can jurisdiction. Diplomacy again fail ing, Great Britain agreed to submit the case to the United States Supreme Ieourt, and accepted decision favorabl | to the United States
 1 Judge Baldwin then continued:
 Here then are two diplomatic con- troversies between governments, that by the consent of one of the powers ! concerned were referred to the highest court of the other for final and con elusive decision, in the shape of an or ! dlnary lawsuit, to be conducted pre- cisely as if it were one between private individuals.