« PreviousContinue »
bays had been from the very first a subject of dispute; in fact the American rights in these bays had been the chief cause of the long controversy. As a result, both sides thoroughly understood to what extent their material interests were at stake and how seriously they would be affected by adopting the recommendations of the tribunal. So far as the delimitation of these bays was concerned, the recommendations were incorporated in the agreement without modification.
As to the non-treaty bays of Newfoundland, the situation was different. The rights of American fishermen in them had never been a serious subject of controversy, and, as a consequence, no one could tell what effect on future conditions the adoption of the recommendations would have. It would appear that neither the representatives of the United States nor those of Newfoundland were willing to bind their governments in these circumstances. Furthermore, the marking of the bays was not a matter of present importance since existing conditions would be in no way affected. It was, therefore, determined, wisely it would seem, to defer action upon these particular recommendations until need for such action arose, and so the agreement provided. If later the question of rights in the bays of the non-treaty coasts of Newfoundland should arise, another agreement will undoubtedly have to be negotiated, the recommendations of the tribunal forming the basis of the negotiation. But, since the subject has not been discussed for the past hundred years and there does not appear at present any reason to believe that it will ever be a cause of disagreement, the need of a further agreement seems very remote.
Considering the apparent simplicity of agreeing upon a practical application of the award to the non-treaty bays, it is fair to conclude that the length of the negotiations, which extended over a year and a half, were due to the difficulty which was found in reaching an agreement as to a method for determining the reasonableness of fishery legislation affecting American rights in treaty waters, which would be just to both parties. To find some method which would protect the treaty rights of American fishermen from the immediate operation of inequitable legislation by the British colonial governments without infringing upon the sovereign rights of Great Britain to impose reasonable regulations upon those engaged in taking fish in the territorial waters of her colonies was the difficult task which presented itself to the negotiators, and which furnishes a sufficient explanation of the prolongation of the negotiation.
Mr. Anderson, in his article, explains with much detail the provisions finally agreed upon by the two governments to remove this idea of suspended legislation, which was so obnoxious to Great Britain as a limitation upon her sovereignty, and to retain the idea that there should be time given to the United States to examine new regulations and obtain a judicial decision upon their reasonableness before they were enforced against Americans exercising their treaty rights. The skill with which this was accomplished is most creditable to the negotiators of the recent agreement, and the mutual determination manifested by the United States and Great Britain to harmonize rights seemingly irreconcilable by bringing them into accord with the spirit of the award inspires confidence in the efficacy of arbitration even when the practical application of the principles affirmed by an arbitral tribunal is beyond its jurisdiction.
From the first step toward the submission of the fisheries dispute to the international court at The Hague down to the final settlement of the last points of difference by the agreement of July 20, 1912, the statesmen of the two countries have evinced an earnest desire to have this time-worn cause of irritation forever removed. That they have accomplished their purpose, after diplomacy had failed, through the channel of arbitration is an eminent triumph for that mode of settling international differences, however stubborn the litigants may have been in maintaining their positions through many years of controversy.
ELIHU ROOT BEFORE LATIN AMERICA
The Cronista, published at Tegucigalpa, Honduras, on October 26, 1912, contained an article entitled "Elihu Root before Latin America," purporting to reproduce in Spanish certain fragments from a recent speech of Mr. Root, who is described as "United States Senator, former Secretary of State, and one of the most eminent personalities of the Yankee country."
The Cronista attaches very great importance to this alleged speech, which, if authentic, ought, as it says, to be known in Central America. Mr. Root is made to say that our position in the Western Hemisphere is unique and without example in modern history; that the United States is a greater and nobler Rome, placed by God to act as arbitrator not only in the destinies of all America, but in Europe and Asia (why leave out
Africa?), that it is only a question of time until Mexico, Central America, and the islands which the United States still lacks in the Caribbean Sea shall fall beneath its flag; that the Latin Americans are unfit for selfgovernment; and that progress is only possible in such quarters of the world under a protectorate of the United States.
It does not need Mr. Root's denial of these statements to stamp them as clumsy forgeries, for it is unthinkable that a former Secretary of State would be so undiplomatic as to express such views, even if he were base enough to hold them. Men in public life are accustomed to criticism of their motives as well as actions, and rarely dignify misrepresentations by taking note of them, much less by a formal repudiation of them. Senator Root's interest, however, in the welfare and progress of Latin America is so great and so keen that he has indignantly branded the assertions contained in the Cronista as utterly without foundation, as a failure to do so might in uninformed and prejudiced quarters either lead to the belief that he attached no great importance to the relations between Latin America and the United States, or that he was indifferent to the welfare and progress of the sister republics, which was a cardinal point of his policy when Secretary of State, and whose friend he has been in public office as in private life. Mr. Root therefore wrote and caused to be printed in the press of the United States the following letter, which was also sent through diplomatic channels to Honduras:
Washington, November 25th, 1912.
The newspaper, El Cronista, of Tegucigalpa, published on October 26, 1912, certain alleged extracts from some speech of mine.
These are impudent forgeries. I never made any such speech. I never said any such things, or wrote any such things. The expressions contained in these spurious and pretended extracts are inconsistent with my opinions, and abhorrent to my feelings. They are the exact opposite of the views which I have expressed on hundreds of occasions, during many years, both publicly and privately, officially and personally, and which I now hold and maintain.
(Signed) ELIHU ROOT.
To the friends of Latin America, both in the United States and in Latin America itself, these impudent forgeries, as Mr. Root properly terms them, must be a source of sorrow and regret, for there never has been an American statesman more genuinely interested in our neighbors to the South than Mr. Root. Through his forethought and initiative Latin America was invited to the Second Hague Peace Conference, where its delegates met and discussed on terms of equality the great
questions with which the conference was concerned, and came into close and intimate contact with the statesmen and publicists of Europe. This was no small service and would be of itself sufficient to show the appreciation and regard in which Mr. Root holds Latin America, and his desire to see it assume in the world the position to which it is justly entitled. But Mr. Root is not a disinterested observer of Latin America. First of American statesmen, he visited South America in the year 1906, attended the opening session of the Third Pan American Conference at Rio de Janeiro, on which occasion he delivered a notable address, and in the course of his travels delivered addresses in various parts of South America which could only have been pronounced by a sincere and generous friend of Latin America. In his address as Secretary of State and as Honorary President of the Third Conference, Mr. Root said:
We wish for no victories but those of peace; for no territory except our own; for no sovereignty except the sovereignty over ourselves. We deem the independence and equal rights of the smallest and weakest member of the family of nations entitled to as much respect as those of the greatest empire, and we deem the observance of that respect the chief guaranty of the weak against the oppression of the strong. We neither claim nor desire any rights, or privileges, or powers that we do not freely concede to every American Republic. We wish to increase our prosperity, to expand our trade, to grow in wealth, in wisdom, and in spirit, but our conception of the true way to accomplish this is not to pull down others and profit by their ruin, but to help all friends to a common prosperity and a common growth, that we may all become greater and stronger together.
Such is the statesman, and such are the views then held and now solemnly reaffirmed by Mr. Root in his statement of November 25, 1912.
THE CASE OF RUSSIA AGAINST TURKEY AT THE HAGUE COURT OF ARBITRATION
On November 11, 1912, a temporary tribunal of arbitration sitting at The Hague rendered its award1 (in this case properly termed a decision) in the controversy between Russia and Turkey regarding the payment of interest upon the indemnities due and overdue to Russian subjects for losses incurred during the Turko-Russian war of 1877-1878. The court held that Turkey was responsible for interest upon the sums overdue, as in the case of an ordinary debtor, but that interest would
1 Printed in Judicial Decisions, p. 178.
only begin to run from the date of notification of default and the demand for interest. Inasmuch as Russia, after the demand for interest, accepted subsequent payments on account of the principal without mention of the interest due, the court held such conduct as tantamount to the withdrawal or renunciation of the claim for interest.
The opinion of the court is excellent, not only in the handling of facts but in the reasoning by which the judgment is reached and supported. Portions of the diplomatic correspondence necessary to elucidate the facts are quoted, arbitral awards in point are cited, the authority of writers on international law-especially Heffter is invoked. The temporary tribunal appears to have acted under the sense of judicial responsibility. Its award is a judgment of a court, not a compromise of diplomatists, and is a model of what such decisions should be but rarely are. Such a result was not to be expected from the composition of the tribunal, for Russia appointed two of its subjects, Turkey appointed two of its subjects, and the umpire Monsieur Lardy, doctor of laws, member and former president of the Institute of International law, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Switzerland at Paris, member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration was the only stranger to the controversy. The decision evidently lay in his hands, and strong hands they must be to have dictated a decision impartial in every line, judicial in thought and expression, and without a trace of compromise. Article 5 of the Treaty of Constantinople, concluded January 27/ February 8, 1879, between Russia and Turkey, stipulated that "the claims of Russian subjects and institutions in Turkey for indemnity on account of damages sustained during the war shall be paid as soon as they are examined by the Russian Embassy at Constantinople and transmitted to the Sublime Porte. * * * Claims may be presented to the Sublime Porte beginning one year after the exchange of ratifications, and no claims will be admitted which are presented later than two years from that date."
The claims were duly examined by the Russian Embassy and presented by it to the Turkish Government, but the payments were delayed and only made under constant pressure from the Russian Government. The claims amounted in all to 6,186,543 francs, of which sum 50,000 Turkish pounds were paid in 1884, 50,000 in 1889, 75,000 in 1893, 50,000 in 1894, and a trifle over 42,438 in 1902, leaving a balance of 1,539 Turkish pounds, which the Turkish Government deposited in the Ottoman Bank to the credit of Russia, but which the latter refused to