Page:William Howard Taft - America Can't Quit (1919).djvu/25

 ama. Isn't that Article X? Was that unconstitutional? That was in 1902. Has anybody been heard to say that was unconstitutional? We guaranteed the integrity of Cuba; we guaranteed the integrity of other nations long before Panama in connection with the Canal. Isn't sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander? Why should it be necessary to lug in these imponderable constitutional arguments when precedent shows that they have no weight at all? So I am not going to waste time in pausing to make a further answer.

Then the third step forward is that which provides for the settlement of differences peaceably. That provides, if two nations have a difference, they shall arbitrate and the nations covenant to abide the arbitration. Then there is a specification in the words of Mr. Root as to what steps are arbitrable: The violation of treaties, international law, questions of international law, and facts needed to establish rights under treaties or international law. There is a provision for the organization of a court and the provision that an arbitration of the council may call for the advice of the court when organized and that the court may be used by voluntary submission as a tribunal for decision. For the decision of cases between states there is no obligatory provision as to arbitration, but if nations should disagree about arbitration then the question goes as of course for mediation by the council and if the council is not satisfactory, either party may ask that the assembly mediate. The duty of mediation consists first in trying to get the parties to agree, hearing the case just as a court would hear it, and ultimately if they cannot get the parties to agree, making a recommendation of settlement,—and if the recommendation of settlement is unanimous then it is the basis for a settlement in this form: The nations covenant not to make war until three months after the award or until three months after the recommendation of settlement and not then if the nation against whom the award has been made or the settlement recommended complies with the award or the settlement. In other words it is eminently drawn for the purpose of restraining the aggressive nation and limiting it to the remedies allowed by the recommendation of settlement of the nation against whom that recommendation is made complies with the settlement or the award.

If there is no compliance with that unanimous settlement, then the nations are to do nothing. There is nothing said as to the performance of that recommendation—I mean the compulsory performance of it, but the nation seeking it is allowed to pursue such remedies as it may see fit. In other words it can go on with the war, fight with that nation against whom it has a judgment, so to speak, and use that means of compelling it. But