New-York tribune., 1910-01-11
IAN INTERNATIONAL COURT
Several Questions Asked and An
sWered.
To the Editor of The Tribune.


To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: The editorial. "An international
Court" states that nations have already
signified their willingness to submit to an
International court questions concerning
the seizure of vessels as prizes in war
VIII the gentleman who wrote this be good
enough to furnish the readers of The Tr1o-
une with the name of a single state which
has ratified the draft of the convention
providing for the prize court, and the date
of such ratification?
What authority has the gentleman for his
statement that the arbitral tribunal pro-
posed by Secretary Knox will "be In fact a
judicial tribunal? VIII the gentleman
point out what he considers the tunda-
mental distinction between an arbit1al and
a judicial tribunal?
Where does the gentleman find any au-
thority for his proposition that arbitratorS
are not bound to reach their decisions by
the application of legal principles? He
talks of good natured compromise. Can
he cite single example? The United
States and Great Britain agreed TO waive
the decision of the King of The Neither
lands on the Maine boundary because the
award was based on a principle OF compro-
mise rather than that of law.
Not l per cent of the cases which have
been arbitrated between states have been
submitted to 'sovereigns or other dignl-
taries. The vast majority have been de-
cided by tribunals composed of men trained
in the law and selected with as much care
to eliminate involuntary partially" as the
natural jealousy OF nations permits. The
gentleman seems to imagine that this quail
ity of national Partially is TO be sud
erlyy CT aCid in nr,1a
by bestowing upon the arbitrators more
permanent tenure OF office. Did he ever
read the cases OF Pelletier and LaZare sub
mitted by Hayti and the United States 70
the decision of william Strong. an ex-jus-
tice of the United States Supreme Court!
Let US have the facts to look at, and then
let us look at them. National bias anu
other defects, hitherto experienced In inter-
national arbitration, are not likely 10 De
much lessened by giving to group OF ar
bitrators more permanent tenure or ONCE
What Stiffness solemnly to declare that
our government was not, OF course, the
inventor of international arbitration Does
the gentleman know how many times in its
history the United States has absolutely
refused TO submit it's differences with other
states to the decision of arbitrators? Does
he know that Lord Pauncefote initiated
and actually proposed TO the nrst Hague
conference the present so-called Perma-
nent Court of Arbitration?
The national Dragging which so often
wilfully disregards the most apparent mat
ters of fact and the ''holier than thou at
titude which comes from an overzealoas
belief in the superiority of our national in
stitution and purposes does more to delay
the peaceful settlement of international
he has Sis Of
and justice than perhaps any other single
element l would like to see one American
editorial writer on foreign affairs cast
aside national exultation and assume an
attitude of international fair-mindedness.
Let us stop Growing like cocks and look at
the problem as one of International govern
ment, in which the question of individual
and social self-control is paramount.
GEORGE WINFIELD SCOTT.
New York, Jan, l. 1910.
1.-THE Tribune did not say that the
prize court treaty had been ratified. But
since that treaty was, under instructions
from the governments represented,
adopted by the practically unanimous
vote of the congress at The Hague. and
since it is well known that it's ratihca-
ton was refused on purely technical
grounds and not because of opposition to
it's principle. The Tribune regards the at
titude of the nations toward it as suffi-
ciently indicated. Authority for charac-
terizing the proposed tribunal as 'in fact
judicial tribunal is found in Secretary
Knoxs description Of it as "a court of
arbitral justice" and as IAN international
juridical body" The Tribune never made
the proposition that "arbitrators are not
bound to reach their decisions by the ap-
plication of legal principles" 1t would
be vain to cite examples of compromise,
because the character of a verdict in
that particular is obviously a matter of
opinion, subject to infinite controversy
1t is cheap subterfuge to say that many
cases have not been submitted to SOW
ereigns or other dignitaries for arbitra-
tion when in fact they We're submitted to
unpires selected by sovereigns. Our cor
respondent admits that national bias
and other defects have been hitherto
experienced in international arbitration"
1t seems TO US that such evils would be
less likely to appear in cases submitted
to a permanent tribunal of impartial
jurists than to a special tribunal COM
posed of special pleaders for the con-
tending powers with a supposedly neu-
trail umpire to cast the deciding vote
between them.
1t may be Stiffness solemnly to de-
clare" that our government did not in
vent international arbitration. So it
might be regarded as Stiffness to declare
that two and two made four; yet such
Stiffness necessarily occurs in nlathe-
matical demonstrations. International
arbitration prevailed widely in the Mid
die Ages. as every schoolboy should
know, But it declined during the four
teenth and fifteenth centuries and, as
Merignhac reminds us, from the end of
the sixteenth century to the French
Revolution had almost disappeared from
international practice" The Tribune has
scrupulously avoided the national brar-
ging" which our correspondent denre-
Gates. But does our correspondent lxnor,
that after the lapse of arbitration in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries n
was Franklin who suggested its revival
in 1880 and Washington. Hamilton and
Jay who made that suggestion effective
in 1874? Does he know that, accord,r,.
to Professor John Bassett Moore do,,..
to flve or six years ago the United States