Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Third of a Century.] WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1913. TREATY OBLIGATIONS.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LXV, Issue 11648, 23 April 1913, Page 4

Wairarapa Daily Times [Established Third of a Century.] WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 1913. TREATY OBLIGATIONS.

If the attitude of the British and American peoples towards each other were coloured by anything iike the same feeling as that which unfortunately has characterised Anglo-German relations for some years past, nothing is more certain than that the extraordinary speech delivered by Senator Chamberlain a day or two ago in introducing "a. Bill for the abrogation of tho HayPauncefote and Clayton-Bulwer treaties" would be magnified into an international incident of the first importance. According to the cabled summary of his remarks printed in our last issue, the fire-eating Senator declared that "if Britain intended to protest step by step against United States legislation, then the only course open to the United States was : to annul the baaal legislation. . . . If Anglo-maniacs were continually to plead the British cause against the United States, it was time they were given something to think about. ,. This utterance reminds one of the equally uncompromising and un-

diplomatic declaration of another Sen-; ator some months ago, who, said that the British protest against the terms of the Panama Canal Tolls iAct was a matter not for arbitration but for war. It is in decided contrast tp the more conciliatory attitude of President Wilson, who last week was reported to have intimated to our Foreign Office that he expected "to be able to interpret" the Act iv the. sense desired by Great Britain. We do not know in what way President Wilson intends to interpret tho Panama Canal Tolls Act, but we are at a loss to understand how he is able to interpret plain treaty obligations in any other than their plain sense. . The first part of tlio cable message quoted above —that part which refers to the Bill introduced by Senator Somewhat obscure,.,as is not infrequently the case with Press Association cablegrams; It is difficult to understand why hie Bill should pose to abrogate, the ; Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, seeing that it was superccded by the Ilay-Pauncefote Treaty. However, that may pass. The .second portion of the message is plain enough, and seems to indicate that Senator Chamberlain is endowed with the mind of a. theologian. The theologians long ago diecovercd the theory of progresive revelation, or of the progressive evolution of doctrine. This ingenious theory enables them' to contradict themselves with impunity. The divine of oue age propounds beliefs and formulates creeds which to the ordinary man appear to be diametrically opposed to those upheld by the divines of a preceding age. But when he is taxed with inconsistency, he protests that there is none: his "interpretation" is merely the product of "the progressive evolution of doctrine." The advantage and charm of this principle resides in the fact that it enables you to prove (to yourself) anything you please. If the other man remains obdurate that is because he is not endowed with those finer perceptive faculties —with that spiritual nature—which are sensitive to progressive revelations. We admit that the theory is not the exclusive property of the theologians. It is sometimes commissioned to other uses. Senator Chamberlain has imported it into politics. The Hay-Pauncefotc Treaty, lie says in effect, defines the agreement between Great Britain and the United States regarding the navigation of the Panama Canal. The Panama Canal Tolls Act \r< the interpretations of that Treaty by progressive revelation. There is no conflict between the two. The former says that the ships of all nations shall be on an equal footing. The latter says that preference shall be given to American ships. But this is merely the evolutionary interpretation of equal treatment. Tf Britain cannot see that, it is because she is not endowed with the proper perception, and it' she continues to evince such a shocking lack of adaptability the United States will be very regretfully compelled to abrogate the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.

Not being of the elect, we shall continue io look upon the Panama Canal Tolls Act as a gross violation of definite and quite unambiguous treaty obligations set forth in the Treaty in the plainest of plain language. The Act was passed in defiance of every ascertained principle of international law. Further, we take leave to remark that the Bill now introduced by Senator Chamberlain embodies another breach of the law of nations. One party to a treaty cannot, "without some special and exceptional circumstance which in the present case does not, exist, annul such treaty without the consent ef the other party or parties thereto. ■ This simple fact, which is based upon an elementary principle of contract law. seems to have been overlooked by Senator Chamberlain. Yet it wa.s very clearly enunciated, as we pointed out in another connection some time ago. by the Congress of the Powers in IS7I when they met to consider Russia's denunciation of the Black Sea clauses of the Treaty of Paris of !ST< : . Their .joint and unanimous Declaration upon that occasion was ''That the Powers recognise it as an essential principle of the law of nations that no Power can liberate itself from the engagements of a treaty nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting parties by means of an amicable understanding." The principle is not a difficult one to understand. It is just a. question of honour and good faith amongst nations, and it was recognised and expressed long before by the French sage Fenelon, who, in his "Directions pour Iα Conscience dun Roi," said that "in order to import some measure of certainty and moral consistency iuto the relations of States," it is necessary "before everything else," that, "every treaty sworn between two princes should be inviolable," and that "it must be interpreted simply in the most natural sense of the words." We commend that highly moral sentiment to the attention of American Senators who might further note that Fenelon is also of opinion that "immediate effect" ought to be given to such treaties. The jurist Hall comments upon the "perilous looseness" of some of tho doctrines laid down by certain international lawyers on the subject of the voidability of treaties, which, he says, is especially unfortunate at a. time when there is a ! "growing laxity" in the conduct of governments, and a "curious tolerance" of "gross violations of faith" by the public. It is "more necessary than ever," ho adds, "that jurists should use with greater than ordinary care such small influence as they have to check wrong and to point out what is right. . . . Neither party to a contract can make its binding effect dependent at his will upon conditions other than those contemplated at the moment when the contract was entered into, and.on the other hand a contract ceases to be binding; as soon as -anything which formed an implied condition of its obligatory force at the time of its conclusion is essentially altered." If such is ■ the case, it is Obvious that nothing has transpired to justified the United States in denouncing the Hay-Paunenfote Treaty, and all the sophistry of the American Senate cannot prove the contrary.