New-York tribune., 1911-12-24
FLOUTS "THE GOD OF WAR;
President Taft's Article on THE
Pending Arbitration Treaties.

| In n signed article in The Century Tor
January, President Taft discusses Inc
Pending Arbitration Treaties The Presi-
dent presents this subject. so near TO his
sympathies, in a new light when he appeals
I 10 the pride Of the American people, declar-
| ing that after nineteen hundred years the
opportunity is presented TO the United
| States TO take the lead in the great move
ment for universal peace. Its greatness
| its wealth of resources. and the demon
strated bravery Of its men. which preclude
/ even the suggestion that It is actuated by
cowardice. its freedom from entangling alli-
ances and it's comparatively insular posi-
| tion-all combine to make possible its lead
ershp I'm this great movement The people
of the world look to Us TO give this impetus
to the peace movement" Continuing his
argument. Mr. Taft takes up the peace
ideal" and says:
Recent events in China and Tripoli have
been cited as evidence against the pending
treaties. Both citations are, to my mind,
unfortunate. In the case OF China II is
urged that failure TO cultivate the military
spirit has been responsible, first for the
loss 10 China of various of its provinces
which, IN effect, have been seized by for
eign powers, and finally for the dire revo-
, luton from which that empire is now
suffering. The ideal for which sincere ad-
vOCates Of universal peace are striving IS
an International court of arbitration before
which a weak nation may summon one
more powerful when the weaker believes
its rights are being violated by the more
powerful II there has been unjust spolia-
ton OF China, such tribunal would have
disclosed the fact and would have forbid
den such spoliation.
II say a nation cam" writes the Presi-
dent, in answer to the question: Can any
ration properly submit to a joint commits
sion. or other partly foreign body, a ques
tion which affects its vital interests or,
worse still, It's national honor?" Indeed"
he adds, II would rather take my chances
of securing a just decision from a com
mission composed Of honorable men than
from the god of war" Mr.. Taft adds this
explanation:
Eut the pending treaties do not provide
for the submission to any commission OF
any question which affects the vital inter
ests or the honor of the nation unless such
question shall be deternnable by the prn-
ciples of law and equity. The question
which might he submitted To the proposed
joint high commission would be whether the
question at issue could be so determined,
end a decision Of that commission TO be
binding must be C6ncdfred in by two Amerl
cans-the treaties employ the diplomatic
term, "nationals"~-as well as by three other
I
II has been urged that il would be fool
lsh and wicked to submit to arbitration any
question which involved the vital interests
| or the national honor Of this nation. That
argument presuppOses that nation Is the
| best Judge OF q question involving it's own
rights, although human experience clearly
proves the contrary.
40 Just nation can desire other than an
equitable settlement Of such a question
| And II seems hardly necessary 10 argue
/ that an equitable settlement IS far more
/ likely TO proceed from just and impartial
| tribunal than from the inner consciousness
/ or from the popular and too often impas-
! stoned clamor Of one IF the nations whose
! interests are at stake
And even IL this were not so. TO what
/ can nations appeal when their vital IN
! terest or their national honor is at stake
! II the arbitration of an impartial court is
| to be rejected? To the arbitrament Of war?
| And IL to that, what guaranty is there of
! a just decision? War may demonstrate
which nation has the larger army. the more
! powerful navy, but does IL determine the
merits Of the case? If might makes right,
II does but If not. what does It settle cX-
copt where exists the greatest might?