The Dominion. FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 1911. ANGLO-AMERICAN ARBITRATION.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1113, 28 April 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 1911. ANGLO-AMERICAN ARBITRATION.

It is deplorable to find ,the London Morning Post saying that Mr. Taft's proposal of "unlimited arbitration" between Britain and America is a blind to divert attention from his "disruption" of the Empire through the reciprocity treaty between Canada and the United States. The Post's inexplicable frenzy of alarm concerning the proposed trade agreement does not excuse its imputation of a base and quite impossible motive to Mr. Taft. The proposed arbitration treaty may not do quite all that is expected of it, but it can do no harm, and it is truly amazing to find a journal of the Post's standing attempting to damn it in the hope of damning at the same time the prospects of freer trade between America and Canada. Most of the other London journals, Imperialist as well as Radical, have given a very cordial approval to Sir Edward Grey's response to President Taft's overtures for a strong understanding between tha United States and Britain. It is over a year ago (March 22, 1910) since Mr. Taft first broached his arbitration proposal, when, in a speech in New York, he spoke of the uses of a permanent court of arbitration, and proceeded to a vital extension of the idea of arbitration then current amongst Governments. "I have noticed," he said, "exceptions in our arbitration treaties as to reference of questions of honour, or national honour, to courts of arbi-

tration. Personally, I do not sec any moral reason why matters of national honour should not be referred to a court of arbitration any more than matters of property or matters of individual proprietorship." It is said that Me. Carnegie, subsequently visiting England, interviewed many prominent English politicians, including Cabinet Ministers, and came back to assure Mr. Taft that an unlimited arbitration treaty would find favour in Britain. Anyhow, in December, Mr. Taft made the following public statement: "If now we can negotiate and put through a positive agreement with sumo great nation to abide by the adjudication Of an international arbitral court in every issue which cannot be settled by negotiations, no matter what it involves, whether honour, territory, or money, wo shall have made a long step forward by demonstrating that it is possible for two nations at least to establish as between them tho same system of due process of law that exists between individuals under a government." It is understood that negotiations have since that date been proceeding between the American Government and the British Embassy in Washington. Tho speech by Sih Edward Grey which created so much enthusiasm in Britain was delivered on Marcn 13, and was entirely unexpected. ITc was speaking updn the Defence Estimates, and dealt at some length with tho "paradox" that the relations between the Powers should be friendly and the competition ■ in armaments keener' than ever. Real and sure relief would only come whsn the riatnns came to regard an appeal.-to law as the natural course in disputes. Sir Edward then referred to Mr. Taft's statements (quoted above) as "bold and courageous words," and discussed with great freedom the possibilities of an unlimited arbitration agreement: The- nations who made such an agreement Hiifrht be exposed to attack by a ;hird nation. This would, probably lead to their following the agreement up with another to join with each other in any case in which one of them had a quarrel with a third Power in which 'arbitration was refused. I do not think a statement of the kind made by a man of President Taft's position should go' without response. In entering into an agreement of that kind there would be risks, and you must be prepared for some sacrifice of national pride. If such an agreement was proposed to us, we should be delighted to have such a proposal—l should feel it was something so far-reaching in its possible consequences that jt would reciuire not only the signature of both Governments, but the deliberately decided sanction of Parliament. That I believe would be obtained. I know that to bring about changes of this kind public opinion has to rise to a very high ideal, higher perhaps than some people think it can possibly ever rise to. The minds of men are working for this, and if you look back into history you will find there do come moments tvhen public opinion has risen to a point, an altitude that was believed impossible—it was «o in the ease of slavery with all its vested interests—when the United States so rose not thinking or counting tlie cost in blood, money, or in risk of national existence. After such an enormous change some armies and navies would, no doubt remain—not in rivalry with each other,' but as tho police of their respective countries.

The question was quickly treated by the press as a non-party issue, and it was confirmed as a national issue by Mr. Balfour's speech on March 16.. Mr. Balfour was sceptical about the vision of a day when navies would no longer exist as war navies, but he failed to see any practical difficulty in adopting the immediate plan of Mr. Taft. He hoped that tho President's words represented the feeling of tho American people that the time had come when the two countries should be "bound by a mutual obligation to refer to some kind of arbitration tribunal all questions which might produce anything so horrible as war." On the following day Sir Edward Grey thanked Mr Balfour, in a speech which was useful for its explanation that what was contemplated was not a formal "defensive alliance." Under the treaty suggested, if one party were attacl-ed by a third Power, "there would be strong sympathies" between the contracting parties, but to introduce any stipulations concerning such a contingency would impair its chances. In Britain, as we have said, the response of the press was cordial, and oven enthusiastic—rather more cordial and enthusiastic than is warranted by the two greatest of the facts to be considered, namely, the fact that Britain should never be, or treat herself as being, unable to enforce her will upon the whole world without aid, and the fact that no amount of agreement with America, short of an alliance, will lessen the necessity for the two-Power standard. In America Sin Edward Grey's speech aroused much sympathy, but America has no enthusiasm to spare for an alliance of the sort' that_ Sir Edward .subsequently explained was not intended. The New York Post, a sane and thoughtful journal, sees immense possibilities in the new state of opini6n, not the smallest being the arrangement of a treaty of the TaftGbby kind between America and Japan. Such a pair of treaties, the ]

Post says, would "establish the peace of the world bsyond danger of a breach." The only discordant voices have been voices that are of negligible importance. Mr. John Dillon, Mr. Redmond's evil genius, is against the whole idea. He cannot bear that the America that supplies tho dollars for his party .should agree with accursed England on anything. In America the protests conic only from the. extreme anti-British Irish-American section. The Irish World—the organ of "Pat" Ford— rages against "a conspiracy to undo the work of the American Revolution by reuniting America and England in closest union." Before very long, there is reason to beliuvc, the proposed treaty will be presented to the Parliaments of the two countries for ratification.