« AnteriorContinuar »
are evident in the discussions and resolutions adopted by various Legislatures.
The first steps were taken in America. As early as 1835 addresses advocating arbitration were presented to several of the State Legislatures. In 1851 the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate adopted a resolution in that sense. Two years later, on the proposal of Mr. Underwood, the President of the United States was urged to include in future treaties a special clause providing for arbitration in cases of disagreement arising out of such treaties. In 1873 Senator Sumner proposed a resolution urging the President to adopt arbitration in his relations with foreign States. And in June of the following year a resolution was carried by Mr. Woodford, calling upon the Government to make provision by treaty for a system of permanent arbitration.
The name of Richard Cobden is indissolubly associated with earnest and noble labours in this cause. His first proposal in the House of Commons, on June 12, 1849, was defeated by 176 to 97 votes. Subsequent efforts had no better result, until the successful issue of the Washington Treaty enabled Mr. Henry Richard to carry, after a long debate in July, 1873, a motion in favour of arbitration. In July, 1887, the Marquis of Bristol proposed in the House of Lords, but had to withdraw, a motion for the establishment of a permanent Court of Arbitration.
These efforts brought about a co-operation of the Legislatures of the two countries, with results that will remain memorable. On October 31, 1887, a deputation of ten Members of Parliament and three representatives of the Trade Union Congress presented an address to the President and Congress of the United States, signed by 234 members of the House of Commons and expressing the utmost satisfaction at the proposal introduced into Congress, urging the Government of the United States to conclude with Great Britain a treaty for the adjustment of all differences by means of arbitration. President Cleveland referred the address to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in February, 1890, resolutions were unanimously adopted in both Houses authorising the President to invite negotiations for that object with all foreign Governments.
"Thus," it was explained, "the response of the United States was wider than the invitation.”
At that date the Pan-American Conference, which was convened for the first time in October, 1888, had again assembled at Washington, the representatives of eighteen Republics sitting under the presidency of Mr. Blaine. Its objects, which were far-reaching, included a customs union. But it resulted in an agreement (April, 1890) to accept arbitration as a means of settling all differences which might arise, and drafted a treaty to that effect. This treaty was ultimately signed by ten of the eighteen States represented at the conference,* its 4th Article stipulating the important reservation that no State was bound to submit to arbitration any matter which, in its opinion, might imperil its independence.
In October of that year the United States Government brought, by a circular dispatch, the resolution of Congress and the text of the treaty to the knowledge of the European Governments, and thus, though it addressed no formal invitation, it afforded an opportunity for similar negotiations. However, no such negotiations took place; but on June 16, 1893, Mr. Cremer moved in the House of Commons that the step taken by the United States should be responded to by a formal resolution, which, after a remarkable speech by Mr. Gladstone, was, on his amendment, adopted as follows :
" That this House has learned with satisfaction that both Houses of the United States Congress have authorised the President to invite from time to time, as fit occasion may arise, negotiations with any Government with which the United States has, or may have, diplomatic relations, to the end that any differences or disputes arising between the two Governments, which cannot be adjusted by diplomatic agencies, may be referred to arbitration and peaceably adjusted by such means; and that this House, cordially sympathising with the purpose in view, expresses the hope that Her Majesty's Government will lend their ready co-operation to the Government of the United States upon the basis of the foregoing resolution."
The efforts made by the British Parliament and the American Congress found a ready response in almost every other European Legislature, and the practical unanimity on the principle
* Several treaties for closer union and friendship, in which arbitration is a prominent feature, had already been concluded between the Central and Southern American Republics, beginning with that of February 17, 1872, between Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Salvador.
of arbitration thus established, resulted in the formation of the Permanent Parliamentary Committee in favour of Arbitration and Peace, which met for the first time in Paris in 1889. Its membership, then some forty deputies, principally French and English, showed a considerable increase when it next met in London, and it already amounted to fourteen hundred in 1891, when the Committee assembled in Rome.
Of course, no exaggerated importance should be attributed to these manifestations ; yet their real weight cannot be ignored. Beyond the morally beneficial influence which they undoubtedly exercise, the practical good they produce may perhaps be safely gauged by the increasing number of disputes which have been referred to arbitration, and by the frequency of the insertion of the arbitration clause in treaties.
The latter provision appears for the first time, in a political compact, in the Guadalupe-Hidalgo Treaty of 1848, between Mexico and the United States; and later examples are cited. Since the Treaty of Washington, however, it is constantly met with, not only in Commercial, Postal, and Consular Conventions, but also in the Berlin African Treaty of 1855, and in the delimitation treaties of Portugal with Great Britain, and with the Congo Free State, of 1891.
With regard to the disputes referred to arbitration during the last twenty years, suffice it to say that the great precedent of Geneva had so powerful an effect upon this manner of treating international differences-except, of course, such as touch the honour and the vital political interests of nationsthat the number of instances of arbitration increased rapidly, and included questions of all kinds, from disputed territories and delimitation of frontiers, to cases of individual indemnity and of shipping. Two modes of procedure have become customary in dealing with such questions, namely, by agreeing to refer the matter in dispute (a) to an arbitrator chosen by common consent, or a court of arbitrators established ad hoc; and (b) to a mixed commission composed of delegates of the two contracting parties.
Since 1872, nearly forty cases have been settled by arbitration, both the above modes being applied in equal proportion, more or less : the large majority of these cases refer to
differences between American Republics, or of European States with American Republics. At one time, no less than seven Commissions were occupied with the claims of as many European Governments against Chili, for damages arising out of the war between that Republic and Peru. The United States referred ten disputes to arbitration, and England eight; and of these, four were between England and the United States.
The fact made manifest by the foregoing inquiry, that a readier disposition for arbitration is noticeable in America, must be ascribed to two causes-special political conditions, and the existence of an institution which is practically a permanent tribunal of arbitration. The Supreme Court of the United States* is constantly called upon to settle differences between the sovereign states of the Union-disputes regarding frontiers and other weighty matters. And although these disputes differ considerably, in their fundamental nature, from those which arise between countries under a distinct sovereignty, yet such a mode of dealing with them disposes the American mind to view arbitration as the only just and reasonable way out of every difficulty.
But the United States are so exceptionally favoured in their political circumstances, in relation to other countries, that no fair comparison can be instituted between their readiness arbitrate and the readiness which European States may manifest, hampered as the Old World is with complex political interests and delicate diplomatic relations, the historical growth of many centuries. Therefore an impartial observer would be disposed to give the credit for what has already been accomplished in the advancement of arbitration rather to that
* M. Calvo (Droit International, iii, 477) sees in the Federal Court of Switzerland an even greater argument in favour of a permanent international tribunal of arbitration ; since the Swiss Court decides between Cantons alien to one another in language and race, and held together only by the tie of common federal institutions.
† "I am bound to point out that the greatest difficulty does not lie on that side of the water. It is the complexity of foreign relations on this side of the Atlantic which constitutes the principal difficulty in this question" (an arbitration treaty).—Mr. Gladstone's speech in the House of Commons, June 16, 1893.
European State which had most to risk and least to gain by favouring the frequent application of that principle.* As Mr. Stansfeld said: “Great Britain has given more hostages to fortune than any other country.”
Yet her statesmen have not been backward in advocating this good cause. The following words of General Grant have often been quoted with regard to arbitration :
“Though I have been trained as a soldier, and have participated in many battles, there never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not have been found to prevent the drawing of the sword.”
These are memorable words; but the same ideas had been expressed long before, almost in identical words, by one whose experience was political. Lord John Russell said :
“On looking at the wars which have been carried on during the last century, and examining into the causes of them, I do not see one of those wars in which, if there had been proper temper between the parties, the questions in dispute might not have been settled without recourse to
The late Earl of Derby, one of the least emotional of men, went even further in contemplating what is generally considered an Utopian dream. When referring to a difficulty with Spain, he said :
Unhappily there is no international tribunal to which cases of this kind can be referred, and there is no international law by which parties can be required to refer cases of this kind. If such a tribunal existed it would be a great benefit to the civilised world.”
And Mr. Gladstone, in his speech already referred to, said :
“Although a treaty of arbitration is undoubtedly a novelty-an object which in former times it would have been wild to dream of—I confess I do not think it is beyond the reach of reasonable hopes that such a treaty might before long, under favourable circumstances, be concluded between this country and the United States.”
Favourable circumstances, however, can only be created by the careful use of that which is at present attainable, and by the assiduous encouragement of conciliatory dispositions. No flights of imagination should be allowed to disturb a selfdeveloping principle ; no rude shock should come to check the expansion of a beneficent tendency. It is impossible to over
* On the same occasion Mr. Gladstone stated that from 1822 to 1885 England was interested in fourteen arbitrations, out of which three, or at most four, were given in her favour.