GREAT BRITAIN AND THE TRANSVAAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11200, 21 October 1899, Page 1 (Supplement)

GREAT BRITAIN AND THE TRANSVAAL.

WAS ARBITRATION POSSIBLE? [BT DR. GILES.]

It is surprising to mo that anyone can seriously maintain that the controversy between Great Britain and the Transvaal should have been referred to arbitration. The objections to that course are obvious. There ore many questions which may with advantage be settled by arbitration, e.g., the right to a strip of territory—provided the dispute does not involve the possibility of abandoning the interests 01* subjects or allies whoso rights there is an obligation in honour to maintain. But in this Boer business the honour, the welfare, and even the integrity of tho Empire are directly involved. An empire must soon begin to go to pieces if it does not show itself strong to resist all disintegrating processes, and resolute to maintain its unity and coherence against all attacks. When such interests are at stake, tho State itself must bo the sole judge of the right method of conserving them; and when a spreading ulcer is eating at an important part of the organism, it cannot be left to a_iy outsider to pronounce when the time has passed for expectant treatment, and the knife or cautery lias become necessary.

Moreover, it seems hardly possible to find a suitable umpire in a case of this kind, whero tile question involves so many subtle and farreaching considerations, which are quite outside the mere interpretation of a clause in a convention, or of any objective facts which could be submitted to a legal tribunal. The judge of a Court of law may decide in a purely abstract manner upon the rights of parties under a bill of exchange, a charter party, or an insurance policy. It matters nothing to him whether one of the parties is likely to be ruined or not by his award, nor whether that party is a great merchant', or petty huckster, or an incorporated company, or a widow, or an orphan. To the judge the parties have no more personality than to many Algebraio symbols, a and b, or x and y. But could, or should, an arbitrator ignore tho personality tho term may be allowed —of the British Empire, or of the Transvaal Republic? If he did ignore it he would leave out of his account the most important features of the case; and if he took these features into account, lie must necessarily be partial and biassed; for where could you find the arbitrator who would regard the British Empire with nbsolute indifference—feeling towards it neither jealousy and dislike, nor sympathy and admiration?

And lastly, supposing we had got our award, what would he the use of it? Could any award compel the Boer Government to treat the Uitlanders with generosity, humanity, or eiven decency; or preventing it taking away indirectly with one hand what it formally bestowed with the other? And if the award declared the British claims to be unwarranted, would that render the situation more tolerable? It would in every way be aggravated, and the sword, the ultimate arbitrator, would have to be appealed to after all. The long and short of the whole matter is, that here is a quarrel in which both parties feel that most important interests are at stake, and since no agreement can be come to, there is nothing for it but to fight it out. The recognition of tho fact that the war is a necessary war, saves on ocean of controversy and of casuistry.

Garston, Mauku, October 18, 1899.