| OCR Text |
Show 223 2122 have my "new mum actually trmlden. because of the eonllieting‘ \'lt'\\'.\ of equally careful scholan. we are .mmetinteN led to believe that with re>pect to very many problems ol~ international intercour>e there is no gcneral agreement of the family of natioin L‘aretul examination. bowe1eix ot the practice of enlightened Mates at the present time rereab a happier condition of attain. it shows not only that there are rulex of eonduet which nation< habitually ob>erye from a >en<e of legal obligation, but als~o that those rules are applied in textingy the propriety or legality of the conduct of each state in almo.~t every pha~e of its relations with the 011t>ide world. in a word, it \hows that international pram tiee ha; established a system of law which stamps upon almost every international act either a legal or illegal character. Attempts are constantly made to differentiate legal from it is sometimex' and that a controversy political questionsi relating to the policy of a nation ix. by reason of that faet. of a political character. in one senie this is true. That which has ‘1 o do with the poliey of a Ftatc is politieali Nererthelesa because a riit.erenee between nations may arike from a question of policy it tlUtN not follow that the controverfiy lacks a legal quality. 'l'he policy of a nation may call to" action tlatly in derogation of a well recognized right of another state. \Vltenerer it does. it 'es rixe to a legal problem. The attempt, therefore, to div tineuidi international controversies of a political Character from tht \e of a legal character. on the \ole ground that the former relati- to the policy of a nation, iK obriou>ly inadequate. On the, other hand. it is true. and ye ought to be glad that it is true. that legal ditl'erenew between Ktatex mzr. embrace in their <cope (tttt‘~ti<ttt> oi the most \‘ital national policy; for ltttUVltl‘tStatttllttg' very many eases where adjustment by diplomatic means has failed. settlement by judicial meanx has been possible \\ early ax‘ [785 John Jay, when Seeretary for Foreign Affairs, \ubinitted to the Congress a report on the eastern bound; ary. and >tated that in his opinion effectual measures should be taken to settle all di<putes with the Crown of ("treat ltritain. in that report he \ubniitted an elaborate plan for their adjustment. The plan provided for the appointment of an equal ntttnher of 1‘omnti<sioner< to be appointed by the l'niled States and the King. .'\ majority of the eomniissioners were to be. empowered to render a hunt and deri~iye judgment a< to the rightful ownership of the territory in dispute Till) report wax Ktiltinitted by in 171%,) .'\'o Htujg't‘s‘tiwtl. l'rerident \\Va\bin;;ton to the Senate arrangement wa.~ made in pursuance of itx 'I‘lte L‘uited Stattx did, howei'er. \lll)\(‘tttt(‘tttl)' seek a ~‘olution oi the various pha>e> oi the boundary dispute by judicial ax well as atnieahle means. john >la_ ‘. recommenda- tioth >ienit'y tttttt‘l] today. They indicate that before the clouot' the eiehtt-tntlt eentury an American Viuri<t and diplomat who wax alive to the feeling of antagonism preyailiner between linelantl and .\ttt4'ttt‘111 who was aware of the intpert'eetionx‘ in the dewription ot the nortltea\tern boundary contained iii the ,\nelo‘_\nteriean treaty «d 1733: who lotew the dilliculties then twining iii ~eeurine eyide tee of international law to guide any international tribunal; who appreciated the dillieulties alx'o of >1 curing rouraeetah and unbiaa-d iudeex neyertltelem did not lt\'\tt;tlt'ltt:ttl\l~t'.:t~tllt'lte\1tttt'uttKHt{ltlittrtltteflltt‘ttl'let‘It't'l‘i» torial dispute, itx nit-retire to a judit tl tribunal of lane‘lishmen and .‘\irierieau<. ln tb'oo. in the eourxe oi neuotiatiom with Secretary ()luey their magnitude. known 1‘11le of international law furnish a eoner-rnine a general g‘tnqltii.\meriean treaty ot‘ arbitration, Lord lllk'ltil> oi ~olution. That law ix not a System intended merely to teeure the orderly eondurt of minor :zft‘airx'. it is capable and ha~ proyen it~elf capable of promoting ittetice. even when con« iI'tr\t‘!'\lt‘< haye >ltalcen oppt <ingr states to their Very l‘ountlationa in order to a>eertain what legal problem< are capable of <etr tlemtut by arl-itratirtn. it i~ worth while to turn to the ethriet‘t‘t' ot' the litlltt‘tl Statex $inee the Declaration ot- lndependenre the inttrttationai prolden‘t» 1. 1 ch have confronted this {epublie have ~onietime> they have led to war. ln been dittieult and \' Sali~hury exprewed grave doubts ax to whether territorial (lis- putex were eapable of arbitration. lle toolc the pogition that the rules of international law applieable to territorial eontroyenies were not axeertained; that it \\a\ nnrertain what sort of occupa- ti< at or eontrol of territory wa~ nerevary to eye a good title; how long melt occupation or control xhould continue; and that the prof jertt'd procedure ~1tgge~ttd by Mr. (tlney would be full ol~ ~ttr~ ‘ Anteriean State Papers, l‘urt-ipn {t'lililtlll", l. N. |
