New-York tribune., 1911-01-07
LIMITS OF ARBITRATION TREATIES

The first of the two paramount qu"
tions which arise concerning the pro-
posed scheme of arbitra ton between
tb,s country and Great Britain Is that
Of the scope and comprehenslveness OF
the process-whether all disputes shall
be declared 10 be arbltraole OF the
usual exceptions shall be made or mat
tiers involving the honor or vital inter
"ests" Of the parties concerned. Down
to q recent date those exceptions have
been almost universally conceded. They
were probably suggested by Vattel, IN
his chara cterization Of certain concelv-
able yerdicts as manifestly unjust, un-
rea sonable or absurd, and therefore not
to be respected. Suppose board OF
arbitrators. he said. should, by way
.of reparatiOn for some offence, con-
"demn a sovereign state to become SUD-
'iect TO the state she has offended, VIII
''anv man of sense assert that she is
bound 10 submit TO such decision
Hence. to guard against the possibility
of such extravagant verdlcts. there arose
the theory that all questions which
IllGIl VlNt ipi 'hN'' '''N''
be excluded from arbitration. Mr.. FIRE.
linghuysen in his scheme for arbitration
among the American republics noted the
sole exception of those matters OF dis
pute which in the judgment Of one OF
the nations involved in the controversy
might imperi it's independence.
There is. Of course, room for great
latitude Of opinion concerning the char
acter Of international disputes, and " Is
obvious that any state might declare
OF any question which II was purposed
TO arbitrate that in its opinion it In
voved its honor. It's vital interests or its
independence. and there would thus he
an end to all arbitra ton. President
Taft has strongly suggested that time
has been reached. or is close at hand,
when 1t should be possible to submit
anv dispute whatsoever 10 arbitra tiOn,
money, and il is assumed that the treaty
which is now being negotiated with
Great Britain is thus comprehensive. II
so. we shall expect TO see objection
made TO II on that ground, and to see
the point warmly debated, with prob
ability that the proposal to waive all
exceptions will have much stronger sup
port and less effective opposition than
II would have had few years ago. IL
will be urged, no doubt. that this coun-
try could not agree 10 submit to arbl-
tratiOn. for example. It's rights OF inde-
pendence. as declared in 1875 and as
conceded in 1888. and II will he replied
that II Is simply lnconcelvable. In the
first place. that any nation would make
so prepoSterOus a demand. or. In the sec
ond place. that any arbitrators would
grant II. ...
The other question is the constitu.
tional one Of the legality Of permanent
arbitration treaty which shall auto
matically bring all disputes under its
operation without a special treaty In
each case. One Of the chief recon-
mendations Of the tribunal at. The
Hague has been that II is always ready
for action and that II is therefore not
necessary in each case TO incur the
delay and labor Of creating a special
tribunal dd hoe Precisely the same
principle will be urged In favor Of this
permanent treaty, which would be de-
signed TO dispense with the need OF a
special treaty over each dispute and
therefore TO avoid the delay which
would thus be caused The question
really seems TO involve chiefly the divis-
ion Of diplomatic authority between the
President and the Senate and the pro-
priety Of the Presidents being empow-
cred 10 act under general laws. or the
deslrablity OF the Sennte's having SUI
pervision and control Of every detail.
Upon that point. too we shall expect to
see @ marked division Of opinion, with