Evening star., 1928-03-16
THE EVENING WASHINGTON, 1ARcH

THE EV Elm lNd
mitted to arbitration have not realized
the vital difference between tusticiablt
and political questions. Take. for ex'
ample, the question OF Immigration
which at times arouseS bitter feelings
between nations. On what principle
could a government arbitrate this ques.
ton. and what rules could be applied
to guarantee Justice to the disputants9
Cancellation Method Stated.
It seems to me we must realize that
so long as the world Is composed ol
separate, sovereign nations. only those
questions can properly be submitted tc
arbitration which. being tusticiable In
their nature. are susceptible Of determi-
nation by the application Of recognized
rules of law or equity. Nom -Justiciaole
or political questions must. II they
threaten to bring on hostilities. be ad-
Judged through other means. such as
conciliation, where disinteresteo
effort is made to reconcile conflicting
points of view without finding neces-
sarily that either party was In the
wrong. -.
It Is when arbitration cannot or will
ciliation treaties have their greatest
value for adjusting international trrita'
tions tending to infiame public opinion
and imperil the peace of the world. One
of the first of our treaties ESTABLISHING
procedure for conciliation was tho
so-called Knox treaty of 1911. That
treaty. which was also q treaty OF arbi'
tration. was never proclaimed by the
President because Of certain reserva-
tions attached by the Senate in advising
and consenting thereto. These reserva'
tions. however, did not affect the con.
ciliation provisions of the treaty ano
need not be discussed In this con-
nection.
Our next conciliation treaties were
the BRYAN treaties to which have al
ready referred. The first Of these was
signed In 1913 and there are 18 Of
them now in force. In 1923 We became
parties to two other conciliation treaties
namely, that signed at Washington or
February z, 1923, between the United
States and the five Central American
republics, and that signed at Santiago
on May 8. 1928. between the United
States and Is Latin American coun-
tries. Both of these treaties have beer
ratified by the United States. They
are similar to the Bryan treaties. the
principal points Of difference being as
to the manner Of constituting the COM
missions Of inquiry.
Provisions Of treaty.
The Bryan treaties provide. you will
recall. that any dispute shall. when
ordinary Diplomatic proceedings have
failed and the parties do not have re-
20 ortns%rot "a e1rhvvtfffAd fny
investigation and report to Permanent
International Commission, composed OF
five members. two of whom, national
and a unconditional. being designated
by each of the two governments, and q
fifth member by agreement. The COM
mission Is bound to report within O
year from the date on which 1t take:
jurisdiction of the case, and the parties
agree not to resort to any act OF force
prior to the commissions report. re-
serving, however, full liberty Of action
with respect to the report itself.
The United States has been q party
TO conciliation treaties for Is years. and
while there has never yet been an
occasion for invoking them. know oi
no reason why this country should OBJ
ject to an inquiry by a commission ri
conciliation IL war Is threatened. Il Is
claimed in some quarters that purely
domestic questions might be inquired
into by these commissions of concilia-
ton. While cannot conceive that any
government would feel justified In de.
manding an inquiry by the commission
into matter solely within the domestic
jurisdiction OF another government,
do not feel that the point is material
The object which Is sought to be at.
tanned by conciliation treaties Is the
prevention Of war. and In my opinio.
any government can well afford TO SUBJ
NIT to inquiry any question which maj
threaten to involve it In the horrors
of war. particularly when as In the
Bryan and other treaties I have jus,
mentioned. the findings of the com.
mission have no binding force and II
be effective must be voluntarily &C.
cepted.
The world Is more and more alive II
the necessity Of preventing war. and
think 1t Is significant that the Sixth
International Conference OF American
States which recently concluded 1t.
labors at Havana adopted two anti-wal
resolutions, one of which contains tht
unqualified statement that 1.-THE Ameri-
can Republics desire TO express tha,
they condemn war as an instrument OF
national policy In their mutual rela.
tions." which. 1t Is interesting to note
Is the language OF M. Brands origina
proposal to me.
Question Of Aggression.
The other resolution contains the
statement that war OF aggression con.
stituteS an international crime again q
the human species" and the declaration
that "all aggression Is considered Illicit
and as such Is declared prohibited" /
Is the former resolution that I regart
as the greatest interest at this timt
because, Of the 81 states represented O.
the Havana Conference, II, while mem.
bers OF the League OF Nations. were no.
prevented by such membership from
joining in an unqualified declaration
against war. This general resolution i