INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 889, 15 March 1889, Page 14

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ZEALAND MAIL. Sir,——Your articles previous to and after the lecture of Mr Jones seem to me and many others to avoid the real question at issue. The friends of arbitration do not mean to assert that as things are at present international arbitration can always be resorted to. What they claim is that it is becoming more and more possible -with the increasing culture of the masses in all countries. Mr Jones and all sensible men believe that in man there is an evolution going on, leading to greater love of justice and a kindlier feeling between the people of all nations. Our respected Governor thinks (C that

as long as human natiiro remains what It is war will be necessary.” There’s the point. Human nature has not remained as it was, and therefore will not remain as it is, but will contiuually evolve higher and tetter qualities, more or less dormant at present. It is the work of the Peace Society to bring to bear on all Governments this continually growing kindliness and love of justice, so that whenever any dispute arises it may at once come before an arbitration court. Time was when every individual settled his quarrels by coming to blows with his antagonist. It took a long time to put an end wholly to this state of affairs, and even now, as our court records can show, this method (although illegal) is occasionally resorted to. Now, the change in the individual that has taken place is just the change that is coming in the collection of individualities called a nation ; and by the some means, viz., the increasing culture of the people. By increasing competition in war expenditure, France, Germany, Russia, and Italy are every day coming nearer national bankruptcy ; while the United States have an overflowing Treasury and the smallest war expenditure in any great country in the world. Does the United States lose by this 1 Not at all. It is America that Germany fears at Samoa, not England. No nation in the world defends the rights of. its people more energetically than America, and is more successful ; and all this without (and just in consequence of the absence) the annual waste of resources in European countries. Preparation for war means inability in the end to carry on war, by exhaustion of the nations so doing.—l am, &c., VIR. [We deal with this letter in our leading columns. —Ed.]

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEW ZEALAND TIMES. Sir, —In commenting on my letter you ask —What are you to do if any nation refuse to abide by the result of an arbitration ? My answer is, do nothing but leave that nation alone. No nation can exist without more or less communication with other nations, and if an arbitration league of the Powers of Europe were once consummated, the easiest way to destroy any country would be for it to refuse to submit to the results of arbitration. Money would flee from the country refusing to the countries accepting arbitration, the security being better, as it would in the case of an individual. No man could carry on a business successfully who was ill the habit of using violent means to attain his ends, even if the law permitted it. No doubt a large proportion, but not more than one fifth or sixth, would defy the law in any well governed country with free institutions. The laws coine from the majority, and are raiely passed even if a large minority resolutely oppose. No member of the Peace Party expects that at once arbitration will bo successful .in evevy case, even if their propaganda is successfully carried out for another 50 years. What they expect is that minor questions at first will be referred to it, then more and more important as time goes on, until at last the uselessness of continued armament would appear to the representatives of every people. The great. evil is at present we take advice from military men, whose interest is concerned in maintaining a warlike policy. It is like taking advice from a thief as to the best way to put down theft.— I am, &c,, Vir.

(n.z. times.) Our corießpoudent “ Vir” returns to the charge on the subject of International Arbitration. Wo asked what was to be done if one of two nations that were partiesto a dispute refused ioabide by the result of an arbitration. He replies, “ Do nothing, but leave that nation alone.” He goes on to argue that no nation could long afford to be “ cut ” by its neighbours, and that the great point is to educate nations by degrees as to the preferableness of arbitration to war, so that ultimately they may all see the superior advantages of the former, and accept it wholly. Now this is a fair specimen of the arguments used by the Peace-at-any-price party. It will be seen at once that the sole point which we indicated as the insuperable difficulty in the way of International Arbitration is studiously evaded by our correspondent. When we ask what is to be done in the last resort if a nation refuses to accept an award, he says : “Do nothing ! ” But this is no answer at all. What we want to know is this : Suppose that France were to seize the English Channel Islands or Ireland, or that Russia invaded India or annexed New Zealand ; is it really proposed that we should do nothing— nothing ? That wo should meekly accept servitude to a foreign Power, and permit her to dominate over any part of the British Empire rather than go to war, seeing that our opponent will not submit to arbitration ? If France, for instance, were to assert that on the occasion when the French flag was admittedly very nearly hoisted before the British flag on New Zealand, the French really secured priority, and were to base on this assumption an imaginary title to this Colony—what then ? Let us say that the claim was referred to arbitration, and given againstFranee, but that France declined to abide by the result and seized New Zealand by a sndden coup do main. What then ? M ust we submit? Must England submit to see New Zealand and its English colonists pass under the rule of a foreign Power rather than strike a blow in defence ? Or if Russia insisted on India being ceded to her, and on refusal invaded the country in force, ought England to slink away like a whipped cur? Surely not! We do not know what the arbitrationists propose in such quite-possible cases as these, hut we do not hesitate to deolare that war, with all its frightful evils would be preferable to so base and ignoble and unpatriotic a surrender of national rights as that involved in the abandonment of any part of the British Empire to the tender mercies of a foreign Power. As to the desirableness of arbitration being substituted for war, nobody disputes that—there are no two opinions among sane men on that poiut. And there is a growing tendency to submit rniwo*' disputes to arbitration when war happens to be repugnant or inconvenient just at

that time. By all means extend that practice and educate everybody to prefer a peaceful policy when this shall be feasible without abnegation of patriotism; but that does not bring us one jot nearer to tbe solution of the problem : What are you to do if a nation won’t obey the fiat of an Arbitration Court? We can see no answer but one. If a boy disobeys bis schoolmaster —be gets a “ whackiug ” —or ought to get one. If a citizen violently defies tbe law—he is forcibly “ run in ” by the police and tapped on the head with a baton if he resists. If a number of people resist the law—the military are called out, and either sabre or shoot, obstinate ringleaders. And if a nation defied the award of an Artration Court, the only possible course ‘would be to compel its submission by force of arms—in short, by war. So that we should have to fall back on that rough and ready remedy in the last resource—just as we do now.