The Irish standard., 1911-06-24
ROOSEvELT'S PECULIAR LOGIC

very blunt views on the question of
international arbitration. He believes
there are certain questions Of honor
which mother a seit.respecting indi-
vidual nor a self-resyect!ng nation
can submit to q court for settlement.
THE United States" he says, Ought
never specifically to bind himself to arbi-
trate questions respecting it's honor,
independence or integrity. Hypocrisy
never pays in the long run. Even If
the Indifference of the majority of the
nation should permit a specific agree
ment to be made to arbitrate such
vital questions, that same majority
would promptly and quite properly re-
pudiate the agreement the moment it
became necessary to enforce it. No
self-respectng nation, no nation worth
calling a nation, would ever in ac-
tual practice consent to surrender it's
rights in such matters"
To make his contention appeal to
the people, Mr.. Roosevelt endeavors
to argue by analogy thus: "To re-
quire any public official, or private
citizen who takes an oath to obey the
laws of the land, to include in that
oath the specific statement that if
his wifes face were slapped he would
not do anything other than bring suit,
would be rather worse than an absurd
lty. In just the same
way, the United States ought never
specifically to bind itself to arbitrate
questions respecting it's honor, indie
pendence and integrity"
To begin with the last quotation
Mr.. Roosevelt says that for a man to
subscribe to an oath that if his wife's
face were slapped he would not do
anything other than bring suit, would
be worse than an absurdity. This
statement is not as SPECIFIC as one
would expect from a man of Mr..
Roosevelt's legal training. II he means
that it would be absurd for a man to
subscribe to an oath not to defend
his wife in case some one slapped her
in his presence, then he is quite right.
For reason tells us, and the principle
is embodied in both civil and Canon
law, and it is allowable "ta repel
force by force with b.ame1ess moder-
ation." But if he means that it would
be absurd for a man TO subscribe to
an oath that he would not personally
revenge a wrong done to his wife,
then Mr. Roosevelt Is quite wrong.
Law, we are told by the greatest philo-
sopher of the Middle Ages, is promul-
cation dictated by reason for the COM
mon good The man who avenges
wrong done to him flaunts defiance in
face Of this principle. Hence it is
that those who revenge wrongs done
to them, as for example those who
take part in lynchings, are criminals
in the eyes of the law Certainly Mr..
Roosevelt would not say that citizen
did right, who, on hearing that his
wife had been slapped went straight
way and sought out the offender and
entered into a fistic encounter with
him.
Now as to Mr.. Roosevelt's analogy:
He says the United States ought new
err specifically to bind itself to arbi-
trate questions respecting it's honor,
independence and integrity. Certain
ly if ship or any possession of the
United States were suddenly and un-
justly attacked, as in the case of the
mans wife, that ship or possession
would have the same right to defend
itself. 1t is true no nation should for
felt. nor can any nation be reasonably
expected to forfeit it's right to resist
an unjust intrusion. But after an in
jury has been done why should ma
ton any more than an individual have
the right to say This is a matter
which concerns only me and my Of
fender. No other nation has any
right to interfere" Mr.. Roosevelt be-
lieves in national law which is direct
ed to the welfare of the whole people
of the nation. Why should he not be-
lieve in international law which is
directed to the welfare of the nations
of the world? If the principle is valid
in the one case it must be valid in the
other which is but an extension of the
scale of its application.
But Mr. Roosevelt says, mo nation
worth calling nation would surrender
it's rights in such matters" meaning
matters of national honor. Here Mr..
Roosevelt is assuming as an argument
against unlimited arbitration just the
thing that arbitration is intended to
correct. He says mo nation would
surrender it's rights in such matters"
Certainly no nation is expected to sur