Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

for not more than six years, and international controversies could be referred to that tribunal for the trial of cases. But the trouble with that was that it was not a permanent court, had no regular sittings, and had to be consitituted for the occasion, and when it delivered judgment it adjourned. It was not a continuous court. The members of the court were not necessarily lawyers, jurists or judges, but were men of political affairs or diplomats. Their decision was not a judicial decision, such as you expect when you hale your adversary into a court of justice.

Therefore the American delegation to The Hague conference was instructed to present the project of the establishment of a court to be permanent, to be composed of judges representing different systems of law, and to be appointed for a period of years; that the court should be open, free of access, and the expense be borne by the nations, not by the individual litigants. The project consisted of thirty-five articles looking to the organization of the court, its jurisdiction and procedure. As I say, that project was adopted on the last business day of the session of the conference, with a recommendation to the Powers signatory to adopt the project for the establishment of a court of arbitral justice; that as soon as agreement was reached for the appointment of judges and the constitution of the court, its jurisdiction was to be complete, as elaborately set forth in this project, and the procedure was outlined. The judges were not actually appointed, but for the purpose of harmonizing interests it was left in this way: that any nation could establish a court and select judges, who, when appointed, should serve a period of twelve years. So that it is free to our Government at any time it chooses to enter into negotiations with, say, half a dozen powers to establish this court at The Hague permanently, with the necessary clerical assistance.

As compared with the Board of Arbitration of 1899, we think this is great progress. Mr. Root thinks that it is one of the crowning acts of the conference, and he believes that in good time the court will be established. This project, although introduced by the delegation from the United States, elicited the warm support of Great Britain and Germany. Those three Powers, and others since the conference, have indicated a will

ingness to go ahead in an effort to establish this court in the course of the present year by the appointments of judges. So I think I may say that it is no longer a mere dream. The machinery is there for any who wish to set it in motion, and I am betraying no secret-because it was in the President's message— when I inform you that the Department of State is taking up the matter seriously, and hopes in a short time to have a permanent court, composed of judges, acting under a sense of judicial responsibility established at The Hague and open for the examination and adjudication of international disputes.

In 1899 arbitration was recognized as the most efficacious method of settling international difficulties. In 1907 it was declared to be not only efficacious, but desirable that nations should arbitrate disputed questions, and a project was introduced for a universal treaty of arbitration. But that was opposed by a small minority. For example, our project, the ordinary project for arbitration with reserved independence, the vital point of honor, received a majority of four votes in the conference consisting of representatives of forty-four independent States; but because of certain additions made to it, the majority for the final form as recommended by the committee was not so large. The minority consisted of Powers that refused to yield, and in the interest of conciliation, the project being open to amendment, a declaration was adopted by the conference unanimously, recognizing not merely that arbitration is efficacious and desirable, but acknowledging the principles of obligatory arbitration and unanimously pledging their support to incorporate it in a new form at some future time.

No State will hereafter, I think, hold a brief against obligatory arbitration, with perhaps some reserves. The Governments that were willing at that time to enter into such a treaty have since agreed to enter into special treaties, which are being negotiated at the present time, arbitration treaties based on the resolution adopted at The Hague last summer.

And finally I would like to say a word-as an academic person, because I belong to the academic world-I would like to say an academic word in favor of peace as against war. Peace is the normal condition of things. War is abnormal, conducted for the purpose of destroying an equilibrium which

has been jarred. When I went to school, not very long ago, battles were considered the great things; it was considered important to know who commanded on the one side, who commanded on the other, how many men took part, and how many men were lost. Why sensible and reasonable people should rush to arms and what was the result of their rushing to arms seem to have been forgotten. There is a tendency at the present day to consider the triumphs of peace, to pass over the mere brutal part of it, the mere conflict, and look at cost and results. There is a very strong tendency at the present time to consider peace as the normal method of solution of international difficulties as the hope for the future. Therefore, I hope this resolution will be carried, recommending to the universities of the country that academic instruction be given on the subject of arbitration, its development in the last century, the principle of it, what can be arbitrated, the history of arbitration, the best methods of selecting arbitrators, whether the court should be a temporary court, a permanent court, or a mixed court, and thus wean away a little, as it were, the devotees of war. As long as we are occupying our present status we must go through the form of killing our opponent, instead of reasoning with him and leading him to a reasonable conclusion; but little by little a spirit will be generated in favor of international peaceful conciliation, and I know no way to bring it better before the student at the formative age than by our recommending a course of study upon the theory and practice of arbitration, a course of study in our institutions of learning, and a recommendation from such bodies as this that such instruction be given would, I am sure, be a great step forward. When this permanent court shall be organized it will be free and easy of access, constantly in session, either having a full bench or provisions made for a smaller number, and then nations will not have the excuse of objecting to the constitution of the court or of the manner in which the judges were selected. The only possible excuse for not going into that court with a proper case will be that the Power is not so sure of its cause as to be willing to submit it to international jurists. [Applause.]

Mr. ESTES.—I would feel very much more mortified at the mistake to which Mr. Scott has called your attention but for the fact that our great authority, the New York Produce Exchange, is the really guilty party. [Laughter.] It should not be

wondered at that I, a delegate from the provinces, should be guilty of such a mistake, but I confess myself surprised that the newspapers of the country should not have familiarized this Exchange with the greatest achievement of a hundred years' arbitration. We would desire to amend that report by striking out the clause which is the mistake and by congratulating The Hague Peace Conference upon the fact that they had accomplished this great result, and would desire to commend to our State Department the propriety of taking every proper step to carry it into immediate effect.

Mr. DOUGLAS, of New York.—Mr. President, I did not expect to speak again on this subject.

The PRESIDENT.-We are always glad to hear you again.

Mr. DOUGLAS.—I think we all listened with great interest to the very lucid explanation of Mr. Scott. I think he made it very clear that no permanent arbitration had been arranged by The Hague tribunal. True, as he says, they went a step towards that attainment which we all so much desire, but I do not think his remarks have accomplished anything toward convincing us that that object has been attained. They simply made a short step towards the goal. I think I can still sustain the statement of the New York Produce Exchange that there is no such court yet established as a permanent court.

Mr. EDSON, of Washington.—Mr. President, I have had some information as to what has been accomplished. Some things have been referred to here with which I had not been acquainted, but I thought I had understood what had been accomplished at The Hague. The Hague Conference did say that the principle of an international court was desirable, and that one should be established. The disagreement was upon how the judges should be appointed. Mr. Scott, I have heard, was the man behind the guns, modest though he appeared to be. His services were so valuable that when he returned to

Washington he was tendered a complimentary dinner by the most prominent men of the Capital. The clause that went in as finally agreed upon was that when any two or more nations should agree upon a court, that court should be established. Mr. Scott has told you that three of the leading nations of the world had assented to that proposition, that our Secretary of State was communicating with others, and that at an early date there would be a court of international arbitration established at The Hague. I believe that within a year, or perhaps less time, five or six of the leading nations of the world will agree to the establishment of a court of international arbitration, and then other nations will follow. Then war, with all its machinery for the destruction of life and property, which has almost reached the limit of endurance, will be dispensed with. [Applause.]

The PRESIDENT.-Mr. ESTES has made a change in the resolution, and the Chair thinks it would be well if Mr. ESTES, as Chairman, would read the change so that all may understand just what it is.

Mr. ESTES.-In a moment. Let that be passed until after the recess.

PARCELS POST.

Mr. FERNLEY, of Philadelphia.-Mr. President, I have a request to make. I ask that the report of the Parcels Post Committee be made the special order for the beginning of the afternoon session to-day.

The PRESIDENT.-That request has been made to the Chair, but we have arranged it for 10 o'clock to-morrow morning. You have a minority and majority report, have you not?

Mr. FERNLEY.-Yes, sir.

A Delegate.—I would like to say that some of the members of the committee, who are on my side of the fence, cannot be here to-morrow morning, and it would accommodate us if we could have that taken up this afternoon.

« AnteriorContinuar »