INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5667, 11 September 1896, Page 5 (Supplement)

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

Another prominent Englishman has spoken in the United States on this subject^ ■which is just now engaging a large amountof attention. This time the speaker is the Eight Hon Joseph Chamberlain, and he is said to have expressed his opinions through the medium of a newspaper interviewer. The ways of the average] American interviewer are so well known that no great • importance need be attached to anything that percolates through him. In the case of the Chamberlain interview •at New York, the remark about England's Monroe doctrine being " hands off South Africa/' maybe set aside as, the "highfalutin'" effort of an imaginative reporter. There is no reason, however, to take otherwise than au serieux the observations attributed to the English Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject of international arbitration. ' Like Lord Eußsell, of Killowen, Mr Chamberlain iB of opinion that a permanent Court of Arbitration is an impossibility at present; but he thinks |that| a tribunal for conciliation could with advantage be set up. There is no need to quibble over terms, and we see no reason why there should not be a Court of International Arbitration to which the Powers concerned in any dispute might make voluntary submission, just as is done in civil disputes between individuals. If the tribunal were one that commanded respect, and if the Powers carefully weighed their position before submitting their differences to it, there is every reason to anticipate that its decisions would be loyally obeyed. As we should not approve of suoh a Court having power to enforce its decrees, it may be more strictly correct to call it a Court of Conciliation. Compulsory submission of all save certain specified disputes to such a tribunal would not work without considerable friction, but it would still be a process vastly preferable to war.

The agitation of this subject at present is in continuation q( negotiations that were started some twenty months ago with a view to setting up a permanent Court of Arbitration, to which disputes between England and the United States should be referred. The correspondence between the English and American Ministers for Foreign Affairs has disclosed wide divergences of opinion as to the basis of suoh a tribunalMr Olney, on belialf of the United States, wished to have out and out arbitration, if there were to be arbitration at all; Lord Salisbury was desirous of trying it, but accompanying it with adequate' safeguards against miscarriage. Both countries agreed to reserve from arbitration matters which, in the opinion of either State, affected its honour or the integrity of its territory, but Lord Salisbury would leave the decision as to whether such interests were at stake to the Executive, while Mr Olney would leave it to the Legislature. Lord Salisbury proposed to reserve to the Power which felt itself aggrieved at thV decision of the Court, the right of appealing against it to a Commission of Judges. Mr Olney would only allow this appeal in the event of there being differences of opinion amongst; the arbitrators, who should be experts. Lord Salisbury was disinclined to accept the principle of voluntary submission of disputes, while the American Minister was agreeable to either Power having the right to decline arbitration altogether. The American view seems, generally, to be the sounder. We believe in Parliament rather than Cabinet determining the weighty matter of denning the dispute 5 in voluntary submission; in making appeal possible only in very exceptional circumstances ; and in securing finality by a loyal acceptance of the arbitrators' finding. As there are only these differences on points of detail to adjust, wo are very hopeful that the two great English-speaking Powers will very shortly come to an agreement which will be worthy of their high position among the civilised nations of the earth. i-- • ■ ■ .