Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-04-26
'PACTS DISCUSSED
BY c. P. ANDERSON
U. S. Is Blocking Progress
Toward Arbitration Basis,
He Tells Attorneys.

The United States is distinctly block
Ing progress" toward establishment of q
common basis for international arbitra-
ton by entering concurrently into two
dEfsrent and inconsistent and inhar-
monious forms of arbitration treaties, -
chandler P. Anderson of the American
Mixed Claims Commission declared be-
lore the American Society of Interna-
uonal Law this morning
Mr.. Anderson cited the recent arbitra-
ton treaties with European and Asiatic
powers-the Kellogg psct-and the ar
duration treaty with American States.
as demonstrating the uncertainty and
confusion as to the position of the Gov
eminent of the United States on the
questions under consideration"
There seems to be no sound reason"
he asserted why we should pro-
vide" In the European and Asiatic
treaties, "for the exclusion of all ques-
tons within the domestic jurisdiction of
the parties and for the decision of the
questions submitted by the application
,of the principles Of equity as well as of
law, while at the same time, on the
other hand. in our arbitration treaty
with American States We exclude from
arbitration only those questions within
the domestic jurisdiction of the parties
which are not controlled by interna-
tional law, and provide for the applica-
ton OF the principles of law alone in
deciding the questions submitted"
Legal Effect Held Negligible.
.'Whatever may be the moral effect Of
the Kellogg pact" he said. 1T adds
nothing to international law, and its
legal effect is negligible"
Omission of the proviso in the Root
arbitration treaties that the questions
to be arbitrated do not affect the vital
interests, the independence, or the hon.
or of the two contracting states seems
to be quite effectively nullifed'' An
derson said, by the sanction given by
the Kellogg treaty to making war be-
cause of vital interests or in self-de-
tense.
Mr.. Andersors address was on the
theme, THE Scope and Character Of
Arbitration Treaties" which was dis
cussed by members of the society fol-
lowing his paper. Others participating
II the discussion were: Profs. Cullen
3. Gosnell of Emory University, Allan
"a, Philip G. JesSup of Columbia UNI
versity and Robert r. Wilson of Duke
University.
'"The scope and character of our re-
cent obligatory bi-lateral arbitration
treaties leave much to be desired" An
derson said. THE United States should
formulate and adopt, by and with the
advice and consent Of the Senate, of
course, standard form of arbitration
treaty suitable for use generally with
al nations.
ssfTt 4a alec J,try, 49,. t,..k A. -
eminent of the United States should
reach a definite conclusion as to
whether II prefers to have the principles
OF law or equity or both, or Of law alone.
applied In the decision of the questions
submitted to arbitration"
From the viewpoint Of the inter-
national lawyer, the Kellogg treaty,
while imposing moral OBLIGATIONS on
the signatories, discloses a serious legal
weakness which prevents it from being
a. law-Tnaking treaty. Such is the
opinion Of Roland S. Morris, professor
Of international law, University of
Pennsylvania, whose paper on the KEEL
logg treaty, with special reference to
iB meaning and effect in international
Law, was the topic Of discussion at a
meeting Of the society last evening.
Pointing yout that he was not dis
ctissfI1g the effect Of the pact In inter-
rational relations, Prof. Morris said
he preferred to accept the comment
OF DR.. Nicholas Murray Butler as de-
seriptive Of the meaning of the treaty.
The strength Of the pact Of Paris"
he quoted Dr. Butler as writing. lis to
be found in that characteristic which
cynics and legalists have pointed to as
its weakness. It Is no mere formal
legal contract--it Is a declaration Of
public purpose made on moral grounds"
Assuming that to be the meaning
Of the pact. he asserted that concern
ing its effect on international law the
treaty reveals one serious weakness"
It fails TO define what constitutes
the right Of self-denfense, leaving that
TO the sole Judgment Of each nation,
and thus In q vital point IL gives the
Law no material with which to grapple.
Discretion and Policy Cited.
THE law Is competent" he said.
70 deal with declared principles and
established instrumentaiities. It Is i'm
potent when 1t faces questions Of policy
or discretion"
Prof. Morris expressed the opinion
that the Kellogg pact does not pres
emily effect In any manner the estab-
lshed rules Of international law.
This does not mean" he said
that it may not mark the beginning
OF new era In international rela-
tons. 1t does not mean that the policy
IL its application may not develop
practices and principles and instri-
Tzlentalities which in due time will be
ifnbedded In the law of nations. It
simply means that as interpreted by the
primary parties to the pact, 1t reserves
such a wide discretion as TO take it
o.ft Of the fell Of positive Law"