Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-01-03
Leader or 0bstructionist.

| ports, after reading the American war
outlawry pact, drafted by tho State De-
partment presumably in response to his
! proposal. made on April 6. 1927. thai
! France and tho United states should
/ outlaw war by tho conclusion of per-
/ petual peace pact between the Two
/ countries. It is understood that
! French draft Of considerably more
| inclusive character has since been sub
| mitted by France to the American Gov
| ernmcnt for its consideration.
| The text of neither pact has been
| revealed. but il is generally understood
| that the American draft while men
/ tioning tho outlawry of war in its
preamble. dcvotes its principal clauses
/ to arbitration arrangements, excluding
| questions Of national honor and vital
! interests that is. applying arbitration
only TO the minor differences and this
only at the discretion of both parties to
the treaty. France il may be assumed
from the context of Foreign Minister
Brands proposal of last Spring, hopes
for much more binding and. be it ad-
mittcd much more practical agree
mcnt.
The United States has throughout its
history been more favorable than any
other nation 10 the broad and theorctic
principle of arbitration. The Jay
treaty of 1894 to which We were a
party. is generally regarded as mark
ing the beginning of modern arbitra-
ton. Between 1887 and 1856 thousands
of petitions in favor of arbitration were
forwarded to Congress from all parts of
the country. We took strong stand
in favor of arbitration Of the Alabama
claims against Great Britain in 1872
and finally won our point. The outcome
Of this arbitration. which favored the
United States. brought forth congress
sional esolutions-without the force of
LAWN favor of arbitration in general
We played our part in the establishment
of the Permanent Court of Arbitration
following the Hague Conference of
1899 The second American Conference
on International Arbitration was con-
vened in Washington in 1904 and as a
result the Hay arbitration treaties were
drafted and negotiated under the vigor-
Gus impetus of President Roosevelt In
lall-I2 President Taft sought to estab-
lish strong arbitration treaties with
Great Britain and France, but was pre-
vented by the Senate. In 1894 the
Bryan Cancellation treaties were ne
gotiated. OF these 81 are now in force
The relationship OF the United States
to the postwar treaties is so fresh in
the mind of the Nation as TO call for
no summarizing here.
A glance back through this record
establishes these truths: That the United
States has. since the birth of the mod
ern conception of arbitration. had a
strong. sentimental inclination favor
able TO the theory Of the peaceful settle
ment of international differences. That
we have evidenced an utter unwilling
iltSdS W AolAON, HuuNit itsS tHhI TIE tdu.
in the practical application Of that
theory. due largely 10 the Senatc's con-
sistent refusal TO ratify strong" arbi-
tration treaties. II should be SAID In
this connection that while In the past
great powers have generally felt that.
as between themselves. they could not
safely intrust the determination of all
and every dispute to arbitration, treaties
completely outlawing war between a
great power and lesser state are today
becoming increasingly frequent. Italy
has ten and France five.
The current negotiations between the
French foreign Office and our State De-
partment afford an excellent occasion
for sober consideration by those directly
concerned and by the American public
as to what the policy Of the Nation is
10 be in the practical matter Of outlaw
! ing war. Our position TO date may be
fairly summarized as follows:
We believe, sentimcntally, in the
theory which would substitute arbitra-
/ ton for war We are willing in minor
matters practically 10 apply that theory.
/ But in matters of great moment-nlat-
| tors Of national honor and Of so-called
vital inteyest-we insist upon our right
| as a Nation 10 determine for ourselves
! the course which We shall pursue.
The position OF those who would have
| us change this policy may be similarly
! summarized thus:
I The whole theory behind the effort to
outlaw war Is that war is too horrible
| in It's nature and awful in It's conse-
qiences longer 10 be resorted TO by civil
I lied nations. TO say that one VIII
! arb.trate minor matters but will reserve
the right 10 resort 10 war In matters OF
| vital interest offers no progress. for no
nation has eyer fought for what II did
! not assert 10 be- matter Of vital inter
| est 10 refuse 10 relinqLsh by one iota
a nations right ENTHUSIASTICALLY 10
/ determine It's own courses Of action IN
matters Of vital interest is iantamoun'
/ 10 refusing 10 admit the principle upon
/ which the whole theory and practice Gf
/ modern 1ociety, government, law, ethics
. and economy Is based that the inter
es,g ot all are greater than the Interests
If the individual To continue 10 de-
/. clare ones right to make war IL 10 In
sure the coming NJ the day when war
/ VIII be nade. 10 continue 10 point out
/ Tia; Congress alone exercises the power
10 declare war is beside the point ehen
the matter under consideration Is
/ whether this Ration WITH others can
devise a formula 81 agreement Which
W.ii actually abolish war.