The Irish standard., 1911-09-23
Believes in Limited Arbitration
but Thinks Unlimited Arbi-
tration Impracticable.
Designates the Provision for Joint
High Commission as Worse
Than Silly.
Treaties Also Criticized for Lose
ness of Wording and Lack of il.
Explicitness.

No opinion is so sound as that
which is formed after the question un-
der discussion mas been looked upon
from every possible angle. Mr.. Roose-
Welt, who by the way lost the good
will of the Irish people by his famous
Guildhall speech in England not long
ago, is outspoken in his opposition to
the peace treaties which he considers
dangerous and unnecessary. In order
to give our readers SIR. Roosevelts
point of view we append few eN-
tracts from his recent article in the
Outlook:
"It is one of our prime duties as
nation to seek peace" says Col. Roose-
yelt, 1T is an even higher duty to
seek righteousness. 1t also is our duty
not to indulge in shams, not to make
believe we are getting peace by some
patent contrivance which sensible men
ought to know cannot work in prac-
tice, and which, if we sought to make
it work, might cause irretrievable
harm.
"I sincerely believe in the principle
of arbitration; I believe in applying
that principle so far as possible; but
| believe the effort to apply 1T where
it. is not practicable cannot do good
and may do serious harm. Confused
thinking and willingness to substitute
words for thought, even though in
spired by an entirely amiable senti-
mentality, do not tend toward sound
action.
'The proposed arbitration treaty is
defective, in the first place, because it
is not Straightforward" the Colonel
continues. "It sets forth that all
.iusticiable' matters shall be arbitrat-
ed. The language both of the oppon-
ents and the defenders of the treaty
shows that even among our own peo-
ple, and before cause for applying
the treaty has arisen, there is hope
less confusion. as to what 'justiciable'
means. Such being the case, 1t can
be imagined how useless would be the
effort to define 'justiciable' when
serious conflict has actually arisen and
blood was up and passion high.
Treaty Loosely Worded.
'"The wording of the treaty is SO
loose, it so lacks eXplicitness, as to
allow one set of it's advocates to an
nounce that it binds us to arbitrate
everything and another set to say that
under it we would not have to arbi-
trate anything we did not wish to-
..Now, no moral movement is per-
manently helped by hypocrisy. Does
the proposal in the treaties, if entered
into with various nations, bind us to
arbitrate the Monroe Doctrine, the
Platt amendment with Cuba, the pay
ment of state bonds to European bond
holders, the question whether various
European countries are entitled to the
same concessions that Canada is tc
receive under the reciprocity agree
ment, the right of other foreign ma
tions to interfere in Panama, our owr
right to exclude any immigrants whom
we choose to exclude?
eff these questions arose I am sure
our representatives would privately OF
publicly inform foreign powers (and
indeed, would have to inform foreign
powers) that the American peo1 {
would never abide by an agreement t
arbitrate them: in which case the
only proper course to follow is thai
followed by the Senate committee ant
say in honest fashion there are GER.
tain questions which this nation will
not arbitrate at the dictation of ar
outside body. Critics of the Senate
in this matter talk as if it hat
tusurped' a right; in reality the Sen
ate had merely performed duty.
1.-THE fatally Objectionable feature o1
the proposed treaty is the clause pro
yiding that the Joint high commission
which may be composed exclusively
Of nationals of the two countries bu
which also may be composed exclu'
sively of foreigners, may, by unani'
nous vote, or by vote of all but one
of Its members, determine that any
given, question whatever must be ar.