The Dominion. TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1911. ANGLO-AMERICAN ARBITRATION.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1152, 13 June 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, JUNE 13, 1911. ANGLO-AMERICAN ARBITRATION.

« On May 3 last the London Daily Telegraph said that it was probable that the arbitration treaty between Britain and America would be signed on behalf of the Governments inside a fortnight. It has not yet been signed, and it appears to be hanging fire in a very singular manner. That the preliminary negotiations had been well under way long before Sir Edward Grey first lifted a corner of the veil in March last is, of course, perfectly obvious. That lifting of the veil, it is equally obvious, was due to Sir Edward Grey's desire to allow Mr. Taft to see for himself the fooling of the British people. The feeling of the British people has been made resplendency manifest, and still the Treaty hangs fire. On May 2, four days - after the great Guildhall meeting, the Daily News announced that the Treaty would shortly, be

ready for signature, and printed a forecast of its terms. According to this forecast, the arrangement want very far. towards providing for arbitral settlement of disputes affecting "the vital interests, the independence, or the honour" of the contracting States, and was yet of a kind to soften the U.S. Senate's jealousy of its treaty-making rights —the jealousy that made impossible the comparatively mild HayPauncefote arrangement. It was "understood" that it was provided that each party would reserve the right of defining the matters in dispute on any occasion. The definition would be fixed, in the case of America, by the President and Senate; and, in the case of Britain, when tho matter in dispute affected the vital interests of a colony, by the British Government with the concurrencc of the dependency affected. It was further understood that the establishment of an Arbitral Court of International Justicc was suggested, and that in 1914, at the third Hague Conference, this Court would be in operation, its function being juridical rather than diplomatic, and its purpose the establishment of a definite system of "international equity."

Two days later the English papers reprinted from the New York World "the text of the tentative draft" of the Treaty _ "as thus far agreed to." This consisted of a preamble and eleven clauses, and differed in many important particulars from the earlier forecast. The principal provision was that all disputes affecting "the vital interests, independence, and honour" of the contracting parties should be held in abeyance "pending the selection and appointment by the respective Governments of plenipotentiary High Commissions accredited with all tho necessary powers to act as a mutual Court for the settlement of the dispute." While liberty was provided for the arrangement by cither party of arbitration treaties with other parties, yet, according to the forecast, there was a clause providing that during the operation of the Treaty neither party should become a s party "to any convention, treaty, understanding or alliancc with any Power or Powers except by consent of the other." The opinions of Senators upon this clause were obtained by the World, and there was discovered a strong feeling against anything that would give Great Britain a supervisory power over tho general foreign policy of the United States. Although Sir Edward Grey, when questioned in the House of Commons, declined to make any definite statement whatever upon the merits of this forecast, nothing can be inferred in favour of its accuracy, There had been, for some days prior to the Guildhall meeting on April 28, strong rumours to the effect that Mr. Taft had withdrawn tho offer of unlimited arbitration, but no reliable statement of any kind is available upon this point. It is nothing to tho detriment of the credibility of the rumour that Mr. Taft, some few days after the Guildhall meeting, renewed his praise of the idea of arbitration in a speech to the Baltimore Peace Conference. Indeed, although he referred to the Tnaty as being "still in the process of negotiation," it is possible to find significance in the care lie took to guard his praise of arbitration between the two countries as a step in the direction of universal peace. "But," he said, "it is only a step. We are dealing with a world that is fallible. Heforms that are worth having must bo brought about little by little, not by one blow."

The Morning Post, which a good while ago made up its mind that the offer of the Treaty was made by Mr. Taft only in order to facilitate the establishment of tariff reciprocity between America and Canada, is almost alone amongst the British newspapers in its hostility to the idea of any Treaty. The vital flaw in the Post's argument is its inability to realise that in seeking closer trade relations with Canada Mr. Taft is not thinking about the disruption of the Empire at all. To the Post a heavy blow at Tariff Eeform may seem to be a heavy blow at the integrity of the Empire, but it has no warrant for supposing that Mr. Taft thinks so too. As a matter of fact it is quite incredible that Mn. Taft could possibly desire to damage the Empire, and precipitate a new international situation that might be heavily damaging to the United States. But, even if the tariff arrangement with Canada were likely to damage Britain, which we cannot think is in any way probable, it is manifestly' a very foolish thing to retaliate by rejecting a second treaty proposal that cannot be otherwise than highly advantageous to everybody concerned. Even if, as many people believe— and it is a belief that has some foundation—there arc possible certain contingencies which would reduce any arbitration treaty to ashes, the case for the Treaty still stands. Indeed, it is an extra argument in its favour that the war that it does net avert will be proof of the futility of all our dreams of a universal peace. Ancl if those dreams arc futile, surely the apocalypse will be worth its dreadful price.