THE TREATY AGAINST BICKERING.
WE do not believe that the Treaty of Arbitration signed at Washington on Monday, though still awaiting ratification, will, when it is ratified, put a stop to war between Great Britain and the United States. As we read history, war has always arisen either from national emotion, or national interests, or the belief of a person possessed of the power to move armies that war would be beneficial either to himself or his people. The pretext for war has often been trumpery, and has almost never been the real cause for its declaration. We nearly fought Germany the other day because the people held the Emperor's telegram to President Kruger to be at once an insult and a threat. We fought Philip IL, Louis XIV., Napoleon, and Nicholas I. because those Monarchs were dangerous, not because they did this thing or that thing contrary to international law. Napoleon, on the other hand, fought most of his wars because in his ambition he willed to fight them, and could induce his people to obey his will. In none of those three classes of cases would arbitration have been of the slightest use, nor will it be if either Great Britain or the United States should grow intent on war. If the Union in some social emergency should desire the absorption of Canada, or if she should repeat the Mason and Slidell incident, or if she should feel insulted by some speech of a British Premier or King, there will be war if all the international lawyers in both States appeal to the Treaty of Arbitration. There is no supreme authority behind the Treaty which both parties must obey or be imprisoned, and neither party has anything to fear from breaking it except war, which, on the hypothesis, is precisely the thing desired. Neither the passions of men, nor the great interests of nations, nor the ambitions of statesmen and soldiers, are got rid of by treaties of any kind, and should they ever happen to be fully stirred there will be war, as there will also be if one of those questions arises for which there is no settlement except the ancient principle that the strongest shall have his own way. Such questions are happily rare as between England and America, but they have arisen—e.g., the Right of Search—and they may arise again ; would arise if, for example,. the Union blockaded all the ports of Spain, and England denied the reality of the blockade.
Nevertheless we heartily welcome the Arbitration Treaty, and think it thoroughly creditable both to Mr. Cleveland and to Lord Salisbury. We do not believe that Christianity forbids war in all cases—for example, its pre- cepts, taken by themselves, command us at this moment to declare war on Turkey, instead of forbidding us—but no Christian can maintain that war is a good thing, and a Treaty the central idea of which is that war is bad is a grand, even if only a theoretical, concession to a righteous principle. Brethren are to accept arbitration, and so dwell together in unity, instead of expending their energy in breaking one another's bones. Then it is an excellent thing that two nations should be compelled to consider whether they are required to fight, or whether a civil pro- cess would not do ; whether, in fact, a lawsuit would not settle that right of way much better than sending mobs on the two sides to pull down or to defend the offensive gates. Dandie Dinmont, though quite sufficiently ready for a " splore," considered the lawsuit on the whole the better method, and Dandle is rather a fine example of manliness and pluck. Then it is one of the perplexities of the nations that if their diplomatists cannot agree to settle a comparatively small cause of quarrel, there remain only two alternatives,—viz., war, or a long period of sulky spite- fulness such as has for many years degraded all French action in respect to Egypt. Henceforward there is a third course, at least as between England and America, which, even if not an ideally perfect one, is considerably better than either of the others. You need neither bite nor snarl, but can let your lawyers argue. A Tribunal will sit, will hear both sides, and will decide, and its decision can in all but the most extreme cases be accepted without derogation of honour. If it awards London to Washington as obviously a suburb thereof, London will fight, but then the Tribunal will know that beforehand, and be reasonable. In small disputes, therefore, even if they concern territory, the nations need not fidget themselves into fury as they do now, for there is a remedy for wrong, applicable within a reasonable period, and capable of being exulted over with- out insult or endured without ignominy. The advance is not quite as great as the advance from the right of private war to the right of bringing actions, for the right of war remains ; but still it is a great advance, and to Englishmen a specially pleasing one, because they hold that war with America is civil war, and on that ground sometimes endure more snubs and even wrongs than it is quite expedient to bear. Under this Treaty, however, they have a remedy which will not go against either their consciences or their feeling for kin. You may not like to punch your brother's head, but you can bring a friendly action against him in order to settle to whom the silver teapot belongs without being too much disturbed by your own want, or neighbours' opinion as to your want, of family affection. The arrange- ment is a step, if not a very long step, in the direction of rightdoing, and as such is to be accepted with congratulation.
Much of course will depend upon the Tribunal, which in small cases is to consist of two jurists with an umpire chosen by themselves, and in heavy cases of six Judges, three from the highest Court of each nation, who shall either choose an umpire for themselves, or, failing to agree, shall accept one to be nominated by the King of Sweden, who was chosen, we suppose, because he was the most dis- interested person available in a really high position. That is probably as good a Tribunal as could be obtained, and we shall see in the five years for which the Treaty is to endure how the Tribunal works. It will, we fancy, be for one thing a very costly Court; but we do not know that that signifies very much. Ironclads are costly too. British experience of international Tribunals has not hitherto been very happy, "influence" and even money having been suspected in more than one case ; but it is quite possible that inter- national Judges with the eyes of the whole world upon them may not only be impartial, but may so deport them- selves that their impartiality will be recognised. If that happens, and a Court is really created which both Americans and Englishmen feel they can permanently trust, an enormous good will have been incidently achieved, and the diplomatists who framed the Treaty will really deserve some of the shrieks of congratulation with which the Daily Chronicle repays them in advance. They will, in fact, have effected what diplomatists have long declared to be impossible, the substitution in all minor cases of a suit at law for a battle or a never-ending quarrel. We are not so confident as our contemporary either as to the impartiality of the Tribunal, or as to the certainty that the award, when given, will be obeyed. Foreign Judges have an incurable bias against Great Britain, based on their conviction that she always for- gives hostile awards, and foreign Houses of Parliament are slow to pay up—vide the Behring Sea case—when the decision is against themselves. We are, however, most cordially in favour of trying the experiment, and shall, if it succeeds, most heartily agree that Lord Salisbury and Mr. Olney both deserve to have their names recorded in the Valhalla which will one day be dedicated to benefactors of the human race. They will have taken a long step towards the ultimate ideal, which is the creation of a Tribunal absolutely impartial and absolutely world-wide in its authority, with the Seven White Powers behind it prepared to rain shells on any- body who disputes its decree. That would be a Vehmgericht of which the twentieth century might be proud, a Tribunal so perfect that the European world, under its aegis, might disarm,--and so leave itself ready to be conquered by the first yellow or brown Emperor with a million of riflemen and a genius for mobilising troops.
Previous page
