HomeBritish trade restraints and peace prospectsPagina 9

JPEG (Deze pagina), 767.57 KB

TIFF (Deze pagina), 6.95 MB

PDF (Volledig document), 10.63 MB

rights of its critizens and where there are matters of
doubt to resolve them in favour of the citizen in order
that they may not be lost by aequieseenee but may
be saved by timely protest for future arbitration or
ï diplomatie adjustment.
" y The position of the United States regarding these
W questions has, as was stated by Secretary Bryan in
his formal eommunieation to Senator Stone, not been
a eonsistent one but has varied somewhat aeeording
K to whether it was a belligerent or a neutral.
From this brief resume it will be seen that the
U questions between the United States and Great A
Britain are difiieult, intrieate and eomplex questions
of law as to which lawyers and eourts may well enter-
tain divergent views. There is no fundamental
question of humanity or of elementary right involved.
· A neutral naturally wishes a striet eonstruetion of
" belligerent right. A belligerent naturally desires an
" . enlarged eonstruetion of sueh right, espeeially if
possessed of a dominant fleet.
The law of bloekade and eontraband is founded
rather upon eonipromise and usage than upon
prineiple, and, therefore, the deterniination of these
questions is exeeedingly diffleult. We have two
arbitration treaties with Great Britain, one negotiated
by Mr. Bryan, providing for a eommission to aseer­
tain the faets and for a year’s delay before the parties
enter upon hostilities, and a further treaty negotiated
_ under the Roosevelt administration for the arbitra-
. ‘ ment of all disputes whieh do not involve national
" S honor or vital interest.
l Here arises, to my mind, a eardinal distinetion.
A These doubtful legal questions involve neither
national honor nor vital interests and are peeuliarly
suitable for arbitration. They are, in other words,
justieiable questions, that is, questions properly sub-
` l