AN HISTORIC EVENT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 28, 18 September 1911, Page 8

AN HISTORIC EVENT.

ANG LO-AMEIUOAN 'J'IIEATY. “Some of the greatest _ historical events have been marked by an absence of pompous ceremonial, and this was the case on August 3, when the East Room of the \Vliitc House at Washington was the scone of the signing of the Arbitration Treaty by the representatives of the United States-and Great Britain,” says the “Westminster Gazette.” “The only furniture in the room, according to the details telegraphed, was 'a flat-topped mahogany desk, on which stood an inkstand surmounted by a golden eagle with outspread wings and a vase of golden rod, the American national flower. On onh side sat Mr. Knox and on the other Mr. Bryce, and these two signed the Arbitration Treaty betweoh the United States and Great Britain on behalf of their respective countries. “Also, on the same day,, in the French Foreign Office in Baris, the Franco-American Arbitration Treaty was signed by Mr. Bacon, the American Ambassador, and M. Jussorand, the French Ambassador to the United States. Between America and Franco there is the link of grateful memory of past history ; between America and Great Britain there is the link of blood kinship and a mutual regard and understanding which have blotted out all past quarrels. Mr. Bryce’s Triumph. “It wars in happy accordance with the eternal fitness of things that Mr. Bryce, the brilliant historian of the American Commonwealth, should have been in the proud position,,of acting for Great Britain in' Washington, whilst in Paris'M. Jusserand, whoso knowledge of Anglo-Saxon social and historical life is unequalled,' was the representative of Franco. Botii in the White House at Washington and in the Foreign Office in Paris simplicity was the order of the proceedings. The scones will live in history as happy auguries of a peaceful future.” What the Prove Say.?. “That American newspapers express,” says “The Times” correspondent, “unqualified gratification at the signature of the Arbitration Treaties,, while fully recognising their, limits. The ‘New York Tribune’ says:— “ ‘Yesterday’s event does not make war impossible even among the three signatory Powers, but does mark the practical ending of the danger of acrimonious controversies among them, and is a long step towards the confirmation of universal peace,’ ‘‘Similarly, the ‘New York Times’ describes the Treaties as putting triple _ brakes upon the wheels of war, adding:— “ ‘The work already done has made the heavy armaments of. the nations less necessary. If the cause advances in the future as it lias done in the past eight months the establishment of peace between all the nations controlled by law is in sight.’ “Even the ‘Staats Zoitnng,’ on behalf of the Ge rman-Americans, blesses the work, and Mr. Hearst’s newspapers, which count thousands of Irish-Americans among their readers, declare ‘that a great benefit lias fallen upon the human race.’ To Mr. Taft credit for the achievement is nnstintingly given. It is called his crowning achievement, his imperishable monument.” Provisions cf the Treaty. “ ‘Arbitration Treaty’ hardly, describes the Agreement which is shortly to be signed between Great Britain and the United States,” says “The Times” Washington “A Treaty to, .standardise the Settlement of International Disputes” would be an aptor title. If by arbitration is meant attempts to' settle disputes by the adjudication of neutrals, the Agreement does little or nothing to increase its scope. Its object is rather to provide for tiie settlement of all disputes possible by nationals of the contracting parties. Ths “Ccmmisslcn of Enquiry.” “The Treaty which Mr. Knox and Mr. Bryce have negbtiate'd preserves the principle of Commissions, and extends, indeed, its scope; but in such a way that it is almost inconceivable that even the most suspicions of Senators will believe that his privileges, are in the slightest degree jeopardised Heretofore questions insoluble by diplomatic negotiations have either oeea left unsolved, or in recent .years have been submitted to The Hague Tribunal. Between diplomatic negotiation and reference to . arbitration there has more than once been an awkward gap. Such, for instance, was the case over the Atlantic Fisheries dispute. To obviate that gap, and to give the nations an opportunity of settling difficulties witiiout the expenditure of money, time, trouble, and perhaps temper, involved in a reference to The Hague, the new Treaty arranges for the appointment of an International ‘Commission of Enquiry’ to deal with questions that diplomacy has failed to settle. This will consist of any‘nationals that the contracting parties like to appoint. There is no reference to membership of The Hague Tribunal as a qualification. Before the Commission will go disputes that may hereafter arise between the contracting Powers. How Disputes Arc to Be Settled. “For the purpose of submission, questions will be divided into two categories—those which are deemed to have an International character and those which have not. Questions in the former category will, if the Commissioners so recommend, lie appealed to The Hague Tribunal, unless by special agreement some other tribunal is created or selected—a reservation no doubt prompted by the strong hope that Washington entertains of tlie ultimate adoption by the Powers of its project for a Court of Arbitral Justice. It is n'ot, however, expected that such an appeal will often ho made. In most cases the' Commission will probably he able to present a solution .acceptable to the two Governments. “In regard to disputes not of an International character the Commission will have power to make recommendations for their settlement; and should it decide that such a dispute was after .ill susceptible of arbitration, and recommend that it go to arbitration, the contracting parties will recognise its verdict and recommendation. To Give P'.rNio Opinion Time. “The Treaty further provides that it tiie request of cither Government the Commissioners shall delay their findings for a year. The reason for this clause seems to bo to give.public opinion time, in the ease of some particularly vexed question, to cool off, so tiiat tho Commission’s finding mas rqr the least danger possible of being wrecked upon tbo waves of popular agitation, and the principles of the Treaty may avoid being discredited. The document is, of course, worded so as to exclude from the field it covers matters of domestic policy, such as the Monroe Doctrine, for instance, and questions arising out of their r.n.forcomt-nt and interpretation. A Step tc Universal Arbitration. “IF it docs not provide for iniro-

strictcd arbitration, the Treaty would thus seem to provide mechanism lor tho settlement ‘out of Court’ of practically nil disputes that can reasonably arise between friendly nations. It constitutes, apart from its practical side, a broad and simple expression of pacific policy. By omitting the clause which most similar arrangements at present contain, reserving from arbitration questions of national honour, but without necessarily including questions obviously unfit for arbitration, it can hardly but contribute to the cause of International good will.”