Evening star., 1927-08-07
Ceneva's Lesson First Outlaw War!

mediately seized upon as live topic for dis.
cussion, and it was thoroughly dissected here
and abroad. Some organizations which have
dedicated themselves to the task of insuring
international peace went to the extreme OF
preparing the draft of treaties, to demonstrate
that M. Brands proposals could be put down
on paper and still hold water. These drafts.
however, have gone the way of the Box plan
although the Senate did not consider 1t neces
sary to investigate what lay behind them.
But now the question is revived again.
Could "the spirit of Locarno" be extended to
the United States? Could this country enter
into an agreement with anybody to "outlaw
war? Can the United States, which has
more than one occasion affirmed it's belief in
the theory of arbitration Of international dis
putes, and which may be said to have revived
the practice of arbitration in modern times
stand aside while others extend this practice to
its ultimate goal--outawry of and COM
pulsory arbitration of all disputes between
nations?
To the diplomat there are number of
obstacles which suggest themselves imme-
diately.
The only violation Of such a treaty would
be war. The only recourse, upon such viola.
ton. would be war. Treaties are moral obliga
tions only, easily removed. and public opinion
usually be found to countenance their
removal tho grounds of morality and
righteousness. Bismarck once said. when the
power of Prussia is involved, know law"
and few years later. when German troops
crossing the border into Belgium, the
nviolability of whose neutrality secured by
three treaties. Won Bethmann Holweg. sue.
cessor, said. 1--WE are in state of necessity.
and necessity knows no law" History Is full
of broken agreements
A treaty with another nation to outlaw war
might be construed in the light of an alliance
to which this country is tradtionay opposed
A treaty to outlaw war might be considered
an infringement upon the constitutional powers
OF Congress to declare and to end A treaty
is the supreme law Of the land, but it cannot
transcend the Constitution. A treaty cannot
deprive Congress Of legislative power expressly
granted it by the Constitution. A treaty may
supersede an act Of Congress, but treaty may
be abrogated> by d later act Of Congress
A treaty to outlaw might counter
to the Monroe doctrine.
But there are ways to surmount all of these
obstacles. They exist either in theory only,
their existence might be made the subject of
special stipulation
Probably the most direct way Of getting at
the question is to review this countrys history
and it's policy in the matter Of arbitration. For
it is out of arbitration that the remuneration of
war as a new national policy has grown. Out
lawry of war is only natural development OF
arbitration. How far has the United States
been willing to go in the matter OF arbitration?
Has it now reached the point beyond which it
cannot go?
Cleveland, Mckinley, Roosevelt, Taft.
Wilson, Harding and Coolidge, all of the
Executives in the last 80 years have sought
to enlarge the scope of the principle of arbi-
tration. There has been some progress. But
the story Is of succeeding attempts by
the executive branch of the Government toward
the attainment of more altruistic ideals in the
settlement of misunderstanding without resort
to force. and of succeeding rebuffs the part
Of the legislative branch, jealous of its power
and fearful lest it slip.
The principle of arbitration in modern times
began with its application to specific questions
in dispute between nations. Then it broad
ened to include future questions. of a certain
class, which might later arise. Later still 1t
has come to embrace all questions eliminating
at Locarno and in number Of bi-partite
treaties between European and Latin American
countries, in which the agreement to arbitrate
all disputes is prefaced by mutual remuneration
Of war.
X X X
The United States has made good use Of
the principle OF arbitration. and since 1894.