Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/205

 102

action of the President of the United States. My review of the part taken by our coun try in arbitration will not be complete unless I refer to the most recent adjustment in international controversies—the Alaskan Boundary Tribunal. Its consideration is the more desirable in view of the fact that there exists a strong opposition to making treaties by which the United States would pledge itself to submit all questions of difference with other nations to arbitration. It is con tended that there are some subjects which should not be submitted to that method of settlement. If, therefore, some other method of amicable adjustment is found to be prac ticable for such questions, it will be a great gain for the cause of peace. When the Alaskan Boundary matter was referred to the Joint High Commission of 1898, the British members proposed to sub mit it to arbitration upon the same terms as the Anglo-Venezuelan arbitration then in progress. The American members declined this proposal, being satisfied that such action would not command the assent of the Senate of the United States. The ground of opposi tion was not that a territorial question was not a fit subject of arbitration, for our gov ernment had repeatedly agreed to such a ref erence of controversies respecting the boundary with Canada. The refusal was based upon the fact that Russia and the United States had been in undisputed pos session of the territory for many years, and that Great Britain had permitted the United States to exercise sovereignty over it and its citizens to occupy and develop it, without protest or notice of any conflicting claim, until a very brief period before the proposi tion for arbitration. In this state of affairs a method of refer ence was adopted which was indicated in the Olney-Pauncefote unratified Convention of 1897. A tribunal of jurists was created, composed of three members from each na tion. The treaty required that these jurists

"shall consider judicially the questions sub mitted to them, each of whom shall first sub scribe an oath that he will impartially con sider the arguments and evidence presented to the tribunal and will decide thereupon ac cording to his true judgment." Much doubt was expressed as to any bene fit to result from such a reference, and this doubt was possibly as prevalent in the legal profession as in any other class of society. I find in the able report of the committee of the New York State Bar Association of 1896, it is stated that in time of excitement and unfriendly feeling between two countries "it is futile to expect that any beneficial result can be secured from a court evenly balanced between two contending parties." Happily, however, the experiment has proved a success, and by means of such a tribunal we have been en abled to adjust a most, perplexing contro versy, which threatened to seriously disturb the harmony of our relations with our north ern neighbors. It is an occasion of con gratulation to the bar that a subject which was not found susceptible of settlement by diplomacy and was regarded as not within the proper limits of arbitration, should be considered judicially by an evenly balanced court and an effective decision reached. In a very imperfect manner I have com pleted a review of the most important acts of the United States in respect to the peace ful solution of international controversies. It is a record of which every American may be justly proud. It shows that our country has stood in the forefront of the nations seek ing for peace, and that it has been the most influential factor among them in promoting a sentiment in favor of international arbitra tion. Since our independence was acknowl edged four generations ago we have spent only five years in foreign wars—too many for a peace-loving people, but a record which is paralleled by few of the nations of Christ