New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-01-08
ARBITRATION AT PANAMA.

Mr.. Taft has indicated his attitude
toward the question Of tolls at Panama.
lie has also. as our cabled reports OF
British newspaper comments lndlc'ite'
potentially vindicated the good falth Oh
the American nation IN the eyes OF the
world Ii is not To he disputed or
overlooked that there are many VINO
disagree with his theory that discrimi-
ration in favor of our OWL coast snip
ping is compatible with the terms OF
! the Uay-Pauncefote treaty ana VINO re-
eret that he gave his approval to the
bin making such discrimination. But
at least he is not one Of those who ar
rogantly declare that the treaty mas
nothing TO do with the ease. or mat
treaty or no treaty. we have right 10
do as we please. He scrupulously re-
CARDS the obligations of this country
as he sees them. comedies that the
treaty i'm question is pertinent 10 the
case. and exhibits the full and fine
courage of his convictions in insisting
that as Il last resort the matter should
be submitted 10 arbitration.
IT is only thus that ihe good faith
If the nation is, in the last analysis
10 be indicated. or course. the mat
ter may he settled without need OF
arbitration. il is 10 he hoped that II
will be. But if not then there must
be arbitration. unless we want to re-
pndiate al our fine phrases on that
subject since Iamilton's time and 10
stand convicted Of being willing to ar
bitrate only when we feel sure or WIN
ming. aud of observing treaties only
1t is the verlest bubble to say that
the question is one of domestic policy
and therefore is not arbitrable The
fact beyond all question or dispute is
that il is matter of treaty interpre-
tatiOn. and that is the very kind of
question which we have been pointing
to as most conspicuously suited TO ar
bitration.
1t may he that question of domes-
tic policy is also involved. though not
necessarily. But what Of that: II we
deliberately make treaty which is
such as 10 affect some of our domestic
affairs. are we for that reason priyi-
legged TO play skittles with it? An apt
analogy is found in the case Of our
treaty of 1892 with Russia. We com
planned that Russia was violating II by
her domestic legislation and admins
tration. she replied that she could not
permit treaty 10 override her own
domestic policy: and that. treaty ar
no treaty. her domestic administration
was 10 business of ours. Thereupon
we protested against that attitude OF
hers and abrogated the treaty. Would
il not he self-StultificatiQn or self-con-
demnation. for MS now 10 take precise
~ the attitude which we have blamed
Russia for taking: And should we not
he doing that il we insisted that we
would make what laws we pleased. re-
CARELESS of treaties:
There is obviously much force in Mr..
| Taft's suggestion that the case should
not be sent To the Hague tribunal for
| arbitration but To special tribunal
constituted by Great Britain and he
| United States alone after the fashion
OF our arbitration before the tribuna
at The Hague was established The
| reasons for this. as set forth by the
| President. are clear and convincing.
and we doubt not that the suggestion
will he acceptable TO the British gov
eminent. The treaty in question ~
between these two countries alone. and
we have an abiding faith In their 8bil
| ity 70 settle satisfactorily and eqnitaby
all differences between them without
eXtraneOuS aid. We cannot believe
| that the final years Of century OF
peace will he married by the raising Of
dispute requiring alien mediation for
/ settlement