Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-12-24
SHOULD WE ARBITRATE

Committee calls our attention to an
article by Francis B. Sayr~, Professor
of International Law at Harvard Law
School. relating to the Mexican
situation, in which he insists that
the whole matter is 1usticiable in its
nature and therefore capable OF
settlement BY arbitration.
Prof. Sayre refers in his opening
to the peril" involved in our present
relations with that country, a situa-
ton which our Secretary Of State
terms extremely critical" If the
Mexican land la 3 become effective
January 1. "in such manner as to
violate the fundamental principles of
international law and equity and the
terms and conditions of the UNDER
standing arrived at in 1928" He also
refers to the note from Mexico. to
which our State Department has
made no reply. to the effect that she
will be disposed to repair" violations
OF American rights in all cases sin
which recognized principles of inter-
national law may have been violated
or may be violated" Prof. Sayre
then asks: as this an issue on which
American public opinion will tolerate
war? II not, now is the time for
public opinion actively to assert it.
self. After Jan. /, 1t may be too
late"
He then defines the issue. "Ameri-
cans and other foreigners have
acquired title to certain valuable oil
properties in Mexico. Under the
Mexican Oil Law, owners who &C
quire titles prior to the enforcement
OF the constitution of May /, 1917.
are required under penalty of for
fixture, to apply within one year for
confirmation of their titles and to
accept concessions for not more than
fifty years from the time exploita ton
work began. Thus, the Mexican
Government declares Mr.. Kellogg,
claims the right to convert unquali-
fled ownerships into terms of years
by the simple device Of requiring the
existing titles to be exchanged for
concessions of limited duration, Is
the compulsory transformation of a
freehold interest into q term for
years such a violation of interna-
tional law that foreigners have a
right to object, and has there been
such an agreement during the course
of the 1923 negotiations as has the
binding force Of a treaty?
The real question is not whether
America is right in the stand which
Secretary Kellogg has taken or
whether Mexico is right. Granting
that America is, if diplomacy fails
and Mexico refuses to accept the
American view, what then? Will the
American peop.a tolerate an ultima
tum?
One thing Is clear. Gaining ones
way by, ultimatum process is not the
American way. Up until 1914 Amer
lea has always stood strongly for
arbitration, and led the nations of
the world in that direction. In the
Alaskan boundary question, in the
famous Alabama claims controversy
in the North Atlantic fisheries dis
pute, in other instances of veXed and
heated controversy, America has
submitted the issue to arbitration. If
ever a question was justiflable and
Of legal nature surely this one is. 1t
Is the kind of question courts are
llLtl " dGCloS. ~ 10
a question of international law and
precisely the type of problem which
the Permanent Court of International
Justice, popularity known as the
World Court, was created to decide.
If America stands true to her
traditions the American people before
January first will make it known
to Secretary Kellogg in emphatic
terms that settlement of such an
issue by war or by sabre rafting
rather than by an international tri-
bunal of law will never be tolerated"
We believe any intimation that
there is disposition on the part
of our Government to indulge In
sabre rafting" is by no means just
flied. We believe our Government
it's rights in its attitude toward Mex
leo. We believe the attitude Of Mex
leo in that respect leaves much to
be desired. We believe that among
the unthinking in Mexico there has
been created a dislike of our country,
created largely by the political
leaders but which in this instance
has come home to roost and now
impels them to adopt a defiant at
titude toward us. We believe there
are interests In this country of ours
that would like to see Mexico pass
TO our control, but that these no way
represent the great mass of the Amer
lean people who believe in live and
let live and recognize that we have
now on our hands big job to govern
ourselves.
What Prof. Sayre has to say re-
specting our attitude toward arbitra-
ton prior to 1914 is pertinent. What
he has to say about our referring the
matter to the World Court as now
constituted does not seem so impress
sive. Arbitration of recognized and
acknowledged right If plainly at issue
Is seldom resorted to, but the ques-
ton at issue in this instance does
seem to be. while plain on the face
OF 1t. more or less involved in a
situation.
A phase Of this situation. outside
the merits Of the particular case, is
that the controversy ii between a
great, rich and powerful country ana
{,