International Arbitration.

Hastings Standard, Issue 75, 23 July 1896, Page 4

International Arbitration.

Writes the American correspondent of the Sydney Morning Herald, under date 28th May : The Arbitration Conference held this week in Washington wa- attended by about 400 delegates, representing 46 States and Territories, and no doubt this will henceforth be one of the serious non-partisan issues in current politics. /.lost of the speeches, however, agreed in declaring that, while international arbitration would be a nice thing to have, it would be a difficult task, in the present state of the world, to get it. The plan suggested by the Xew York Bar Association was informally endorsed, and a committee waited upon the President by appointment to explain its main features. The proposed International Court would consist of nine members, each member to be a Judge of the highest Court of the nation he represents, and to hold ofneo during the pleasure of the Court appointing him. The Court thus constituted would frame its own rules, and fix for itself the times and places of meeting. The questions to be determined would be exactly set forth in each case by special treaty, and both parties would bind themselves to accept the decision as absolutely final. For the present only five European and four American Powers would be asked to co-operate—England, France, Germany, Russia, the Netherlands, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, and the United States; but other Powers would be permitted to present cases for trial upon agreeing to pay a fair share of the costs. At first only the smaller sorts of controversies would be submitted, but in time trie tribunal might by good conduct win for itself such high credit for learning and impartiality as to bring within its jurisdiction all but the very gravest occasions of difference. In the end, after a century or so of experience, the Powers might even agree to compulsory arbitration in all cases of every kind, and wars would become a mere memory of a vanished past. So runs the dream of these peacelovers, and the scheme has at least the great merit of allowing the end aimed at to be reached by progressive steps, instead of insisting upon compulsory arbitration in all cases at once. Diplomats by profession may look upon it with disfavor, perhaps, for it would take away from them the management of all those petty cases which form nine-tenths of their present business. But honest inen would have a much better chance than now to get well-grounded claims speedily settled, and, what is of even greater practical importance, each claim would be tried entirely by itself, on its own merits, and without regard to national prejudices. Merely for the purpose of assessing damages in cases of individual wrongs, such a tribunal, sitting permanently, might do a great deal of good. Perhaps, even if the European Powers hold aloof, the next Pan-American conference may agree upon such a tribunal for the States of this eonti- ; nent alone. Even that would be j better than nothing.