Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-01-31
Arbitration.

Popular reaction to the Robinson
resolution recommending arbitration
with M&Nico finds "A sharp division of
opinion throughout the country as Ia
the practicahilitN III the proposal,
Ssluted by many IA hunt animation
from the Senate TO the Executive that
arbitration and not force must he used
in the adjustment OF our troubles with
our Southern neighhor the resolution
is held by many others TO have been
little more than gesture which,
while affirming our theoretic adherence
10 the principles of arbitration. an
nounced our conviction that those
principles were not applicable in the
ease in point.
Certainly the resolution was eN-
tremely vague as 10 just what is to he
arbitrated. For prior to the sugges
ton that Controversies with Mexico
relating to the alleged contiscation or
impairment of the property of Amer
lean citizens or corporations in
body. which shall apply the principles
Of international law" II declares that
our national duty to protect the lives
and property of our citizens on foreign
garded."
With the many who hold that
arbtrat ton may not be applied In the
current Mexican controversy, The Star
believes that the matter of whether
this Nation is obliged to- protect the
life and property of its nationals on
foreign soil is unarbitrable. 1t believes
that the right of Mexico retroactively
to appropriate property belonging to
citizen of the United States is
unarbitrable. 1t believes that the
established principles of international
law are unarbitrable.
But with those who hold that
arbitration can and should be
utilized in the Mexican controversy, 1t
believes that the matter of whether
or not Mexico is today in fact
threatening the lives and property of
American citizens whether she today
is in fact proposing the retroactive
appropriation of our citizens prop
erty; whether she is in fact guilty OF
violating the established principles of
international law, should be submitted
to the unprecedented consideration of
an impartial tribunal.
The Government of the United
States has, since the birth of the idea
Of international arbitration, been its
stanchest prepayment. 1t stands to-
day in the position of a plaintiff. max
ing Mexico the defendant under the
charge of confiscatory seizure of prop
erty which is not hers. 1t may say
with consistency and justice that if
this charge against Mexico is held by
an impartial jury to be true it
cannot submit TO that jury the right
to determine what it's subsequent
course of action will be. But it can
not say, with either consistency or
justice, that it reserves TO itself the
right of being the judge of Mexican
guilt under a charge which it brings
itself as complainant.
1t is the insistence upon that right
which has, since wars of aggression
became unpopular, resulted in the
horror of war. 1t is the relinquish
ment Of that right, the right of in
dividualistic determination of when
and where a nations honor is offended
az well as the appropriate steps to be
taken under these circumstances, to
which our past stand on arbitration
| today commits US. Let us be very sure
that the justice. OF our cause is estab
| lished i'm the eyes of the world by the
! findings of an impartial tribunal, be
fore we make that cause the basis
| for whatever action we shall take.
/ -s-@%s-S-