New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-04-28
Our Envoy to Russia
Elihu Root on the Foreign Rela.
tons Of America

Rt r.hl R.t Collected and Iditci ny Eoher
Es-ol and James Brown Scott Svo ~ Il. as
Harvard a,crly ln'ts.
This is one Of several volumes Of
the addresses and state papers Of Ehhu
Root which Ncssfs Bacon and Scott arc
to edit. As Secretary Of War. Secrc-
tary of State and United States Scna-
tor Mr.. Root played a cons picuous part
IN determining the policies Of the
United States government. He not only
reorganizcd the army after the war
with Spain. but he was largely instru-
mental iu determining this country
relations with Cuba, Porto Rico and
the Philippines lie was the author Of
the so-called Platt amendment, defin-
ing our nrctectoratc over Cuba, and OF
the first organic act for the govern
mcnt of the Philippines As Secretary
o. State he concerned himself with the
DEVELOPMENT Of our Latln-American pol
icy and with the promotion Of our in
forests In the Far East. In the Senate
he spoke as an expert on all questions
affecting foreign relations. He has
long been recognized as an intcrna-
tioral lawyer OF the first rank, and in
recognition Of his work i'm the cause
of international arbitration tho Nobel
Foundation awarded him its Peace Prize
for 1912.
The present volume consists largely
Of address cs delivered by Mr. Root IN
his capacity as president Of the Amer-
can Society Of International Law. There
arc ten of these one for each year
from 1907 10 1916. They make some
what pathetic reading now. when tho
world war has torn international law
20 tatters. Nowhere, before the war
broke out. was there a more buoyant
belief than here in the United States
that international law was the founda-
tion on which the worlds peace was to
be securely built. Our statesmen and
rublicists were convinced that war was
about to be abolished by the creation
Of Fl general system Of arbitration.
Reason and fairness were to replace
force in the adjustment of national DIS
putos and antagonisms.
II was a splendid dream But it
failed TO take account Of deep planted
ambitions cherished by "a great mill
taristic nation like Germany. When
those ambitions finally came into clash
with the restrictions Of international
law and civilized international conduct,
the vision Of a world governing itself
through justice and tolerance faded
away.
Our illusions on this subject were
manifold. I'm the address which he in
tended 20 deliver when receiving the
Nobel prize Mr.. Root says; "Stand-
ards of conduct are changing in many
ways unfavorable to war. Civilized
man is becoming less cruel
Yet. in the present war Germany
has deliberately returned 10 the savage
practices Of the religious wars which
followed the Reformation. She has VIC
lated all the laws made for the protec-
ton Of tine weak and defenceless-
women. children and -cOmbatants.
She has done things openly and shame
lcssly which even lilly might have
bluShed 10 do. In contrast to the Opt
mism Of his antc-war dcliyerances. the
pcssimism Of Mr.. Roots final address
to the American Society Of lnter-
national Law, delivered December p,
1915. is marked. The only consolation
which he can find is that vague and
uncertain as the future must be, there
j.. some reason to think that after the
terrible experience through which CIV
ilizatiou is passing there will he
tendency TO strengthen rather than 10
abandon the law of nations Let us
extract what comfort we can from that
guarded prophecy.
Perhaps the most timely Of these
papers is the one entitled "The Ethics
Of the Panama Question" prepared in
1904. It demolishes many Of the argu-
ments advanced for the ratification Of
Mr.. Bryan's Colombian treaty, with
drawn at the close Of the special ses-
sion Of the Senate last month. The
advocates of an apology to Colombia
alleged that the United States violated
its treaty obligations to Colombia when
il permitted the State of Panama to
secede. By the treaty of 1876 Colon
bia guaranteed to the United States a
right Of way across the isthmus, and
the United States in return guaranteed
the neutrality Of the isthmus and TO
Colombia lthen New Grenada) her
rights Of sovereignty over It.
This was guarantee against foreign
gression-sought by New Grenada
on that understanding. II was not a
guarantee against domestic revolution.
The United States acquired the power
10 police the transit line across the
isthmus. II merely exercised that
power ir 50 far as 1t prevented Colon
ban troops from crossing from Colon
to attack the revolutionary government
at Panama City.
The United States certainly owes
Colombia no apology. Nor is any
treaty carrying an apology, a la Bryan,
ever likely to be approved by the Unit
ed States Senate.