Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Professor THEODORE P. ION. I should like to say a few words in regard to the neutrality of Belgium. Dr. Scott told us that England was not bound to go to war on account of the treaty. I think a statement of that kind of course, my memory is not so fresh about it now was made at one time in the House of Commons by Mr. Gladstone, that England was not bound to go to war, but that it was a matter of expediency I think was the expression. However, I think there is another point in that matter. In the House of Lords, I think, a few years after the conclusion of the treaty guaranteeing the treaty of Luxemburg, the question came up, and Lord Derby made a speech and distinguished the guarantee of Luxemburg, which is a collective guarantee, and the guarantee of Belgium, which is a simple guarantee, and he said that England and the other Powers were not bound to assist Luxemburg unless all of them went together, whereas, in the case of Belgium, as the guarantee was simple, each of them was bound to assist Belgium. I think that was the distinction he made. As far as I remember, that distinction between the treaty of Luxemburg and the treaty of Belgium was criticized, and criticized very bitterly. Mr. Geffcken criticized Lord Derby bitterly for this distinction, and some of you may remember that, in the Blue Book published by Great Britain, Sir Edward Grey referred in one of his dispatches to this distinction, and I think he said that Great Britain was not bound to go to the assistance of Luxemburg, because, in fact, Germany violated both treaties, and therefore Great Britain made that distinction. I think he simply said in that dispatch that he approved or indorsed the opinion of Lord Derby or of Lord Clarendon. Any one who will read the speeches at that time will understand that was the distinction made by Lord Grey. I do not know upon what Dr. Scott bases his argument, unless he refers to that statement made by Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons. Of course, Mr. Gladstone is a great authority on many questions, but in the last dispatch of Lord Grey that distinction was made. Great Britain in the present war never said she was not bound to go to the assistance of Belgium.

Mr. SOTERIOS NICHOLSON. Mr. Chairman, I think that the arguments made against and in favor of the League to Enforce Peace are both, in one sense, futile, for the reason that war will always be with men unless nations are brought together in a federation. A federation of nations is necessary for the future permanent peace. Such international government should have absolutely nothing to do with the internal affairs of any nation. The election or appointment of a legislative body to codify international law, the establishment of an international tribunal, and

the contribution of a federal army and navy to enforce the decrees of the court, are the first steps that we should endeavor to accomplish. Only in the same way that the United States protects the forty eight States can the international government protect the family of nations from future wars. For as Dr. Scott pointed out, the League to Enforce Peace can at any time break the treaty and be divid d into alliances, like the belligerents on the two sides that are fighting to-day. It is, therefore, imperative that a world federation be formed, and the sooner we realize and advocate it, in every corner of the globe, the better it will be for the world.

Mr. SCOTT. I do not rise at all to continue the discussion, but merely to say that the authority for the remarks I made was not Mr. Gladstone, great as his authority is, but the treaty itself. There is no obligation placed on the nations, signatories of the treaty of 1870, to use force or to take forcible measures in order to preserve the neutrality of Belgium, but merely an obligation, as I see it, on each party to the treaty not to violate its terms. There was a collective guarantee in the case of Luxemburg. If confirmation were needed of these facts, I should simply submit the treaties of 1839 and those of 1870, respectively, between Great Britain, on the one hand, and Prussia and the North German Confederacy and France, on the other, by the terms of which each guaranteed that it would not violate the neutrality of Belgium, and if one of them did, that Great Britain would ally itself on the side of the other party at war, a fact which would not have been necessary if the treaty of 1839 had been I take it, one not merely recognizing a status, but a pledge to use force in case of a violation. However, one may be wrong and one may be right on that. The fact is, whether there was a treaty or whether there was not a treaty, the maintenance of neutrality was a matter of interest, because Belgium was nearer to Great Britain and in the other instance, it was not of such interest to Great Britain, because Serbia was a greater distance away. The vital interest involved in one case was not involved in the other, and hence the difference.

Professor ION. That very point came up for discussion in the House of Commons, and it was very thoroughly thrashed out. There have been many discussions about it, and it affords very interesting reading. It was distinctly and very clearly stated in the House of Commons that the second treaty did not at all have any reference to the first treaty; that the second was simply a repetition of the first treaty; that at the time, as Mr. Gladstone said, France or Germany or Prussia were trying to violate the neutrality of Belgium, and it was decided to make a second treaty.

Mr. ARTHUR G. HAYS. On one point, I am inclined to disagree with Dr. Scott, although I do so with great, diffidence having studied under him for some time in the law school. I think, when it comes to a question of vital interest, nations will probably disregard treaties; but otherwise when nations enter into treaties, they ordinarily will observe them, sometimes even to the point of going to war, regardless of whether it is to their interest or not. I question whether this country is in the war because it regarded only its interests. The mere fact that there is a treaty is an important consideration.

I recall that when I was in England recently, the general opinion there expressed was that England was in the war- and this was, I think, the general understanding of fully ninety per cent of the people - wholly on account of the Belgian question. If that is the basis for the big recruiting campaign that has been going on in England, to bring people into the war, why is it not possible to arouse the interest of people generally to such an extent as to bring about the observance of treaties generally, even though apparently only other nations are concerned?

I remember asking a number of men at a dinner whether they thought England was actually at war because of the invasion of Belgium, or, to put it another way, if Belgium had been in another part of the world and England's interests were not vitally affected, would England have gone to war? They said, of course she would have gone to war; that a violation of a treaty was something that they could not stand for. I suggested one or two cases where I thought Great Britain had stood for that. I asked if Belgium had been Morocco, and there had been a similar treaty, if Great Britain would have gone to war. They all agreed that possibly they would not have gone to war except one man, who stated he was too much of an idealist to believe this. The recruiting posters displayed throughout England announce the fact that England is in this war on behalf of other people, on behalf of Belgium, and that stirred up great enthusiasm. If that is sufficient to make this strong appeal in that instance, it does seem to me that it is possible that people can be aroused to the point where they will live up to the obligations of their treaties, perhaps for other nations, even though their own vital interests are not affected.

Senator HENRI LAFONTAINE. Mr. Scott has said that there is no hope that a nation will be faithful to its treaties where its interest is not involved. He has stated that Great Britain went to war because its selfinterest was involved.

Mr. SCOTT. I do not believe I stated that.

Senator LA FONTAINE. You said that Great Britain went to war only because its interest was involved.

A MEMBER. You will be quite accurate if you will omit the word "only."

Senator LA FONTAINE. He said a nation will not remain faithful to its treaties if it is not to its interest. He cites the case of Italy, but I disagree with him. It is not possible to establish such an organization as has been suggested, and have inside of it nations who will organize for war, if necessary, to enforce treaties which they have entered into.

Mr. Scott seems to think that the only disputes which will arise among nations are the kind of disputes which arise between individuals inside of a nation. But, we know that there are many different kinds of disputes which arise between nations which do not arise between individuals composing a nation, and I think, if the time arises where force is necessary, in order to urge compliance with the obligations of treaties, that the nations composing such a league should be prepared to enforce them by some means of constraint. I stand very strongly for that proposition.

Taking the history of the world, it is well known that we have changed our minds about many things. We have changed our minds about lawful institutions and lawful practices. Torture used to be a lawful process; it lasted during centuries, but it is now never used. Slavery was a legal institution in this very country, in the sixties, but it is no longer perImitted. Why should the world not change its mind about war, as about dueling? Dueling was lawful, but dueling is not allowed any more in any of the nations of the world. If war in the future is considered as an unlawful process, then the use of the forces of the nations against a warlike people is as natural as to use the force of a nation against a criminal or a band of criminals, or to use force to quell disturbances, arrest burglars, etc.

Mr. SCOTT. The last speaker presents some very difficult questions for me to answer. For instance, he suggests that such and such may be the situation in the future. I am not the authorized spokesman of the future.

I want to call attention merely to one thing that I said, or that I thought I said, namely, that injustice, the breach of treaties and acts in violation of treaties, were not to be cured by force or to be stamped out of existence by collective force; that the hope of the world, as I see it, is not in leagues or combinations, but in a change of the standard of conduct of mankind, and, therefore, of nations through a gradual, long, and painful process of education, appealing to the intellect, appealing to the heart,

and not to the right arm which has ruled the world from the beginning to the present day, and which is still ruling it. I look to a reform and a change in the standard of conduct in the thought of men, in the creation of a public opinion which will insist upon better things. If that public opinion is not created, treaties are scraps of paper, judged by the history of the past not that I want them to be scraps of paper now or in the future. My method and my panacea is education, and the raising of men, women, and nations to the highest standard, by bettering their spiritual nature and not by forcing them into leagues in order to redress wrongs.

Mr. S. K. HORNBECK. I have such great respect for the opinion of Dr. Scott that when I find myself not in agreement with his views, I hesitate to express myself on the points where I find that he and I differ. What I wish to say, I shall put in the form of interrogatories and be brief.

Dr. Scott has referred to the Supreme Court of the United States to-night, and he has referred much more extensively to it elsewhere. I should just like to put this question, and I hope we will get Dr. Scott on his feet again: Does Dr. Scott believe that the Supreme Court of the United States would have had that eminently successful history which it has had, had there not been organized, at the time it was put into existence, an administrative and legislative body with the three departments, Executive, Judiciary and Legislature, working together?

Dr. Scott has referred also to history as demonstrating the futility of reliance upon certain institutions. Might I ask Dr. Scott whether he will show us in history any place or any system in which law and order have been established without there being behind the law the sanction of some variety of force? Has it not been the history of bringing order out of chaos, among groups of people, that there has been the setting up of law, with force behind the law, to see that the law is observed, or if not observed, that the breakers of the law are punished?

Will Dr. Scott also, in referring again to the Supreme Court, tell us whether he believes any controversies between the States which have been adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the United States have been controversies of such a type that they would have led to war between the commonwealths between which these controversies existed? Has it not been true that the controversies which have been adjudicated by the Supreme Court have largely been controversies of the character which we have found settled by arbitration between the nations: matters, for instance, of boundary disputes and the use of waters, etc.?

I am a very great believer in the possibility of some sort of an organi

« ПретходнаНастави »