Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-12-23

W contested during the eHtlEe ~ WtSiNs
of oral argument.
The pending arbitration treaties
were taken up in detail by the speak
or. He said in part:
During the past century several hum
dred arbitrations took place, to 56 of
which the United States was a party.
Matters of great pith and moment,
which either presaged immediate war
or threatened to become sources of
disagreement which in some moment
of excitement or irritation might re-
suit in war, were anaicably disposed Of
The heated feeling between Great
Britain and the United States, grow
ing cut of the depfedations of the Ala
bama and 10 other privateers was al
layed by the Geneva arbitration under
the treaty of 1871. BY the terms of
that same treaty provisional arrange
ment concerning the long mooted
question of the Fisheries was made,
which. resulted in the Halifax arbitra-
ton The fur seal controversy in the
Bering Sea and the Alaska boundary
disagreement were likewise adjusted,
In the early days, the st. Croix river
boundary and the Northeastern boun-
dairy questions were amicably dealt
with
Each of these arbitrations took place
under the terms of n special treaty of
arbitration concerning the precise
| matter. But following upon the sign
ing Of The Hague convention in 1907
] and pursuant to its recommendations.
| treaties We're made by most of the
powers signatory thereto. the United
| States alone having made upwards of
81 such treaties.
Under these treaties the powers
| bind themselves to arbitrate questions
| Of legal nature, especially those con-
| corning the Interpretation of treaties.
| but exclude from their operation mat
| ters involving Vital Interests and
National Honor"
The vice of these exceptions is the
xagueness of the language employed.
Inc discussions, during two eentu-
ries of the possibility of arbitration,
had all recognized that nations would
not bind themselves To arbitrate ev-
erythine and various forms had been
suggested TO cover the difficulty.
The form agreed upon at The Hague
was supposed to be.as definite and as
yet as elastic as the coneensus of
| opinion warranted. The difficulty was
that 1t was too elastic. What is Ma
tienal honor and what are the vital
| interests of a nation?
In times of peace and good will no
| difficulty would result in their inter-
| probation. Questions of boundary and
Iof the citizens living within disputed
| territory were at one time supposed to
he questions of the highest honor and
1 !. ha INT haa
| said that more wars have resulted
| from disputed boundaries than from
any other single cause, but it was
| found that they could be adjusted ac-
| cording to law and the Interpretation
of documents and treaties.
No clearer cut decision, based upon
full weight of evidence, has ever been
made by any court than was made
by the tribunal which settled the St.
Croix river boundary. The settlement
of the Alaska boundary was equally
according to law and the reason of
the thing, the chief justice Of Eng
land uniting in the decision in favor
of the United States.
Questions of national conduct were
often times of so sensitive a oharac
ter that it was felt that the national
honor was involved Lord John Rus
sell in 1868 refused to arbitrate a
question of the fitting out and the
escape from British ports OF Confed-
crate privateers, because that was a
matter that concerned the honor of
Her Majesty's Government and of
that honor only Her Majesty's gov
eminent could be the judge, but in
1871 it was found possible to submit
that question to the arbitration of
tribunal, one member of which was
an American and four members of
which were non-nationals of Great
Britain. The settlement of the terms
of that arbitration and the adjust
ment of the many mooted questions
between Great Britain and the United
States at the end of the Civil War
was the work of joint high commits
sion, composed of five Englishmen
and FIVE Americans, men of the high
est reputation and judicial tempera-
ment.
The fisheries arbitration, of which
I have already spoken. gave another
and most significant example of the
possibility of adjusting questions in
volving national honor of the highest
degree.
The United States contended that
under the treaty of 1918 Great Brit
ain had given to the inhabitants of
the United States a servitude in the
treaty waters of the North Atlantic
and that Great Britain or its colonies
could pass any laws or make any reg
ulations binding upon those inhabi-
tants without the consent of the
United States; in other words it was
contended by the United States that
British sovereignty in the treaty Wa
tiers had been abrogated. No matter
of national honor is of higher degree
than the sovereignty of q nation with
in it's own admitted jurisdiction and
yet Great Britain found it possible to
arbitrate this question before a tri-
bunal one of whom was an Ameri-
can and four were non-nationals of
Great Britain.
1t was reserved for the United
States to propose a further forward
step. President Taft a little over
year ago in a public speech declared