Слике страница
PDF
ePub

should not the convention of Algeciras of only six years since, which so fully recognized this general right, but which has so unfortunately and so unceremoniously been overturned, to the great detriment of the world's peace and international goodfellowship, be reverted to and extended to all the vast regions of half civilization and barbarism which have been appropriated by individual nations in, say, the last forty years. They have seized and enclosed what may be called the "commons" of the world. My suggestion is that whosoever may be the administrators, they should put nothing more in the way of other nationals than they do in the way of their own. If such an end should be reached by a conference such as suggested, there would be thrown open to free trade and equal commercial exploitation, more than six and a half million square miles of territory, which would include Morocco with its 219,000, the Congo State with 900,000, French equatorial Africa, with 806,000, the French Sahara with 1,544,000, German Africa with 931,000, Madagascar with 227,000, British equatorial Africa with 840,000, Tripoli with 398,000, Manchuria with 364,000, not to speak of Persia and much else. Nor would I omit the Philippines from such an arrangement. What has been mentioned would make an area twice as large as the United States. Much of it may now seem not over-valuable, but who can tell what minerals (which are the basis of the world's industries), may be hidden say in the Sahara, for example? In any case, segregation in exploitation means wars; the open door means peace, and if you want peace you must first make war upon this great evil of special spheres of interest, just as America is now engaged in war against special interior trusts.

It

This, it seems to me, is the natural course of reasoning, unless human reasoning is itself worthless, as it so often is, and must be. We do not know enough of the All-Powerful Mind to know all its workings by any means. The psychics of such things may lie much deeper than we know. may be that the struggle of races by war for racial reasons alone must go on yet for ages, as the Englishman first quoted thinks. But one thing would seem certain: that with the vast areas mentioned thrown open as proposed, no country, as Germany does to-day, would feel the need of expansion for strictly commercial reasons. Any crisis such as that of last summer (and which is far from having disappeared), could only

occur for very different reasons: nations would have to go much farther to seek a quarrel.

Undoubtedly there would be great difficulties in accomplishing such a proposal, but the fact that it was accepted in 1906 for Morocco is evidence that it is not an abnormality which cannot be reasoned about. That the Moroccan agreement was overthrown in the way it was, is no argument against its feasibility. Certainly one resultant would be an improvement in world character, and is not the building of character of greater moment than the building of great fortunes, and is not character the real aim of humanity if it has a real aim at all? In any case we have in our hands the means of reducing international antagonisms in very large degree and international statesmanship should be equal to the solution suggested.

The gist of these remarks is that we need a little more Christianity in the chancelleries of the world, that we need more of the brotherhood of man, and it is only by cultivating and encouraging this brotherhood that we are going to abolish war. Paper conventions will not do it. We have just seen how easily they are set aside. You have got to remove the causes, just as we have stopped yellow fever by the destruction of the cause. The deadly microbe producing war is "special commercial advantage." It is this for which the statesman works; it is for this that Ententes, and Dreibunds exist. I read in Arthur Christopher Benson's delightful book The Leaves of the Tree, that "The patriot, in his zeal for the well being of a nation, is forced to plan the downfall and I control of another nation. A Church that claims to win its inspiration from the following of Christ in one manner feels bound to work for the extinction of a Church which worships Him after another manner. And" he goes on to say, "these very hostilities seem to develop the highest qualities of the human spirit, courage, fervor and self-sacrifice."

That the first part of this thesis is true, at the present at least, would seem indisputable. Is it to continue so? The events of last year indicate no sign of a change as yet, but the thesis, although that of a son of an archbishop of Canterbury, certainly is not Christian.

There will be many things of a surprising sort in the coming centuries. We must take for granted that man has yet some time to live. There will yet be many shufflings of his scheme of life. Who twelve years ago

would have said that Japan would to-day be one of the great forces of the world, China a republic, and that we, with the extension of trade, as always the moving cause, should be an Asiatic Power? Let us turn somewhat at least from missioning the two former and missionize for a while the Christian Powers. They need it far more than China or Japan. If we are in earnest in our pursuit of peace, we cannot ignore this struggle for special commercial advantage which has resulted in fencing off by the Powers, in their own interest, so much of the world to which they have no inherent right whatever.

F. E. CHADWICK.

THE ARBITRATION TREATIES AND THE SENATE

AMENDMENTS *

Referring to the identic general arbitration treaties recently negotiated with Great Britain and France, President Taft remarks, in a recent magazine article: "They have amended the treaty in the Senate and have put in so many exceptions that really it is very doubtful whether the adoption of such a treaty will be a step forward." 1

It is the purpose of the present article to consider the Senate amendments to the arbitration treaties with a view to offering some suggestions upon the question which President Taft thus raises, namely, whether or not the exchange of ratifications and putting into effect of the general arbitration treaties with Great Britain and France, as amended by the Senate, will or will not be a step forward toward the goal of peace through justice. As a foundation for an intelligent discussion of this question it seems desirable to emphasize some points with regard to the purpose and fundamental theory of the treaties as originally drawn and the success with which this theory has been embodied in the language of the treaties.

There appears to be one thing about which nearly all the friends of the treaties may be said to have agreed, that is, that the chief value of the treaties, as negotiated, was indirect and general, not immediate and definite as between the contracting parties. They were chiefly valuable, not because these particular treaties would prevent war between the signatory nations, for "war between the United States and England or the United States and France was inconceivable if not impossible." 2 The great value of these treaties, as originally drawn, lay in the fact that they were to be models for other treaties between the United States

*This article is based on an address delivered at the Eighteenth Lake Mohonk Conference on International Arbitration. The considerations therein set forth have been somewhat developed and notes and references have been added, but the original phraseology has been substantially retained.

1 The World's Work for June, 1912, p. 174.

2 Senator Lodge's address in the Senate, Feb. 29, 1912, S. Doc. 353, 62 Cong., 2 sess.,

p. 5.

and other countries and were to afford inspiration for the conclusion of similar treaties between all the great nations of the world.3

So, in considering the effect of the Senate amendments to the treaties, it is submitted that we should keep steadily in mind this point of view, that the treaties are of no particular practical value in themselves as between the contracting parties, that their value lies in their future usefulness by way of suggestion and inspiration, and, therefore, if the Senate amendments have robbed them of that potential usefulness then they are of no particular value at all in their present condition and ought not to be ratified.

The Secretary of State, in describing these treaties in his Cincinnati address, pointed out their great underlying principle. We are constantly told that some things can not be arbitrated. The treaties accepted, as Secretary Knox said, the distinction between those matters

In President Taft's address to the Methodist Chautauqua, at Mountain Lake Park, Maryland, August 7, 1911, he said:

"Treaties with England and France are of the utmost importance, not in the actual prevention of war between those countries, because the danger of such a cataclysm as that is, thank God, most remote, but they are most important as steps toward the settlement of all international controversies between all countries by peaceable means and by arbitration. The fact that two great nations like Great Britain and the United States, or like France and the United States, should be willing to submit all controversies to a peaceful and impartial tribunal can not but work for righteousness among the nations, and for a willingness on their part to adopt the same means for the settlement of international disputes. (Addresses of President Taft on Arbitration, published by the Government Printing Office, pp. 42-43.)

See also President Taft's address before the Christian Endeavor Convention, Young's Pier, Atlantic City, New Jersey, July 7, 1911, ibid., p. 36; and his address at the Marion, Indiana, Branch of the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, July 2, 1911, ibid., p. 30.

In Senator Root's speech in the Senate, March 7, 1912, he said:

"It is not so much that I think these treaties will lead to the arbitration of questions between this country and Great Britain and France, which would not otherwise be arbitrated, that I want them ratified; it is because the moral effect upon mankind of the Government of the United States taking what is believed to be a step forward as compared with the moral effect of the Government of the United States refusing what is believed to be a step forward will make for the education of mankind along the lines of civilization or the retardation of their progress along those lines." (Cong. Record, Vol. 48, No. 73, p. 3050.)

See also Senator Lodge's remarks to the same general effect in his speech in the Senate, S. Doc. 353, 62 Cong., 2 sess., p. 10.

« ПретходнаНастави »