OCR Text |
Show 231 230 in the matter. notwithstandingr the fact that the differences between the two nations are based upon radically opposing sys- tems of legal interpretation. The question presented to the court is really in its tinal analysis-\Vhich of the two systems is correct? It may be observed also that the agreement to arbitrate the controversy is in pursuance of a general Anglo-American arbitra- tion treaty. which provides that the two contractingr parties shall not be obliged to submit to arbitration whatever affects the vital interests of either. At the close of 1903 the Colombian government presented to the Department of State a statement of grievances. contendin;r that they constituted a violation of an existing: treaty with ('olombia tconclnded between its predecessor, New (iranada. and the ['nited States in 1846). and requesting that they be submitted to arbitration before the Hague Tribunal. These claims arose from the intervention by the United States in November, 1903, with respect to Panama. The acts of intervention which constituted the basis of complaint consisted in the prevention by the l'nited States of the landing of armed forces on the Isthmus, the prevention of the bombardment of the town of Panama and the recognition by the linited States of Panama as a new nation Without any attempt to discuss the merits of the controversy. it suffices to observe that Secretary llay. january 5. 1904, declared that the urieyaiict's til (‘olombia were of :1 political nature, \tltl] as nations of even the most advanced ideas as to international arbitration had not proposed to deal with by that jrrwt .._ He said: "Questions of ion ipolicy and of the recogni- tion or H'tll-I‘lt‘ltgfltllltlit of foreign states are of a purely political nature. and do not fall within the domain of judicial decision." It i- not étjijvl'wtll'titlt‘ at this time to discuss the question as In lllk t‘.tt'<l‘.i‘tll"\ of declining: to arbitrate the questions then at issu ,\ll\llilHIl must lu- called to the fact. hovscver, that while lllt art» of the L'nittd States in 1003 may have been properly (l(~t't.lttl a possessing A political character. grounds for their instztitaim n mire ~trnebt in the proyisions of the treaty of IRtt'). 'lllt' l nmd Stabs contended that its position was a just one by mason oi a lc :1 right secured by that Compact. The real i~~fllt.1liilitHIt in i\\tt|1 ('olnnibia and the l‘iiitetl States involved ll)! llllttjrltlhlbdl vi that tr: . . The question was» one of a judicial character, and capable of solution by reference to wellknown rules of international conduct. The issues (lid involve interests vital to both Colombia and the United States. They did involve the freedom of action of two independent nations. Nevertheless, the rightfulness of the conduct of either, in so far as it was based upon their early agreement, was clearly capable of a true determination by neutral judges. Attention is sometimes called to the fact that the employment of arbitration has in many cases resulted in a miscarriage of justice. In the experience of our country there have been failures in the arbitration of both private and public claims. Such results have, however. usually been due to a lack of care in the choice of judges, or in the definition of the question at issue, or in the provisions relating: to procedure. Almost all are to be traced to the carelessness of the contracting parties in drafting the agreement to arbitrate. None of these defects are necessarily con- nected with arbitral procedure. They do not indicate that one class of disputes rather than another is incapable of adjustment. When a controversy arises affectingr the vital interests of two states a judge who may be a citizen of either litigant may find it difficult to rise above local prejudice and yield assent to an award adverse to the claims of his own country. Judges poss ssing every necessary qualification are, nevertheless, to be found today in every civilized state, and the names of many of them are already enrolled on the general list of judges of the Hague Tribunal. \\'e must look outside of American diplomacy for the most notable case in recent years where a difference involving the vital interests if not the honor of at least one state was adjuster] by recourse to arbitration. The issue was between Great Britain and It arose from th.‘ attack on October 22. 1904, by the Ix'ussian squadron on vessels belonging to the British fishing fleet while engaged in trolling: for cod off the Dogger Bank. There was submitcd to an international commission an inquiry into all the circumstances attending the disaster and particularly as to the resptnsibility for the disaster. The commissioners agreed unan- imously that the tishcrman committed no hostile act, and a majority reached the conclusion that no hostile torpedo boats were near the Russian fleet and that the opening)r of fire by that |