New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-03-03
TIE WAYS AND MEANS or PEACE

Mr. Andrew Carnegie, in his letter which we
print in another column. reinslsts upon his anal
ogy between the relations Of individuals and
those Of states with an argument which seems
to us 10 react against his own case. Denying
cur statement that Individuals are not left free
TO choose other tribunals than tie courts for
settlement of disputes, lie declares that they are
free 10 do So and. in fact. do settle the great
majority OF their disputes without going to law
SO he would have international court, hut
would leave nations free To settle their disputes
without going into it and he submits that there
Twill he not one i0ta of difference in the status
"of individuals and nations in this respect" But
the freedom of choice Of individuals is limited.
first 10 civil suits and second 10 cases in which
there is mutual assent 10 extra-judicial settle
ment. Every criminal must go into court,
and 50 must every civil case in which either
party insists upon il. In very large and inn
p0rtant sense. therefore. individuals do not have
the freedom Of choice which Mr.. Carnegie
ascribes to them. To make the analogy complete
there would have 10 be some system of compel
ling any nation 10 20 into AN international court
with dispute whenever the other party 10 the
dispute demanded II.
Grant, however that nations, like individuals
are free TO settle their disputes without fighting
or even without litigation. as indeed individuals
are whenever they can agree 10 do So in civil
cases. There is. then. no need of any congresses
or treaties or anything of that sort. Nations
have always enjoyed the freedom which Mr.
Carnegie describes. and have often exercised it.
Scores Of times nations have voluntarily, by
mutual agreement, settled disputes without war
by arbitration. ana hundreds and thousands Of
times. no doubt. they have done 50 without arbi-
tration, even. through direct negotiations each
with each. There is no reason why they should
not continue 10 do so. without any treaties. If,
as Mr.. Carnegie insists, individuals have full
freedom Of choice. the completeness of the anal
Ogy which he seeks 10 draw requires that nations
shall have the same freedom and shall have il
without any compulsory conventions.
Mr.. Carnegie is doubtless quite right in think
ing that four or five of the great powers OF
Europe and America could compel the rest Of the
world TO keep the peace. But he himself per
ceives that, in order to do so, they would have
TO maintain armies and navies of sufficient power
10 overawe actually 10 subdue any and all
others. In such a case they could. OF course.
keep the peace, even if they had to fight for it.
1t is also true, Mr.. Carnegie says that In
forming such holy alliance" they would not
be abnegating nor impairing their own sover-
eighty. But the sovereignty of all the others,
beneath their dictatOrial cOmpulsiOn, would
surely be much impaired. Moreover, It is OBJ
viOus that the irenic league OF great powers
would be effective only so long as the powers
agreed and the experience OF ages has demon
strated the extreme difficulty Of maintaining an
effective concert of the powers" for any con
siderable time. Mr. Carnegie cites the expedl-
ton TO Picking as example of international
cooperation. The powers acted together because
their interests were for the time identical,
though even in that march there were grave jeal-
ousies and antagonisms. AS soon as the lega-
tions were relieved the interests of the powers
diverged again, ana soon two of the very pow
ers which had there co-operated were at war
with each other. 1t might be that the great
powers named by Mr.. Carnegie could and would
act together TO forbid war in certain cases. but
so long as human nature remains what it Is we
must doubt If they would do so in ali cases-in
a case, FOR example, where the selfish interests
of one or more OF them would be served by not
doing 50.
We are not opposing peace, but on the con-
trary have desire for and devotion TO 1t in
which we cannot concede precedence even to Mr..
Carnegie. Neither opposing arbitration,
which we have commended times without num-
Der and which we regard as often Of the highest
utility and bemefcence. But we do not regard
arbitration universally applicable 10 differ
ences between nations any more than ii IS to diff
ferenccs between individuals and we certainly
do not believe IN attempting to bind all nations
10 submit thereto all disputes, without discrim-
lnation. 1t would be nothing short of calam-
itOus 10 dragon every nation into court with
every controversy which might be trumpet up.
when I'm a great majority Of cases settlements
could be more quickly. simply and justly reached
through private negotation-and would be hut
for the temptation to litigation which an exag-
gerated scheme of compulsory arbitration would
afford. Peace, TO our mind is to be secured and