ARBITRATION AN UNCERTAIN REMEDY.
THAT arbitration as a peace proposition is but a temporary make-shift, is shown by the dissatisfaction of one or the other party that always follows a decision, despite the formal acquiescence in the award. It is noticeable also that arbitration is always an arrangement that is virtually enforced upon one side or the other, and enforced settlements never are satisfactory all around. This has been illustrated in the various treaties that have been entered into by the European powers concerning the “Eastern question.” The parties having special designs in that connection have submitted to the treaties with the well-known purpose of merely biding the time when they could safely evade their provisions. Referring to the recent arbitration conference, held at Lake Mohonk, N. Y. (the tenth of its kind), Hon. John G. Osborne, of Illinois, comments on the fact that the decision of the Hague Tribunal, in the Venezuela claim cases, has tended to impair confidence in that court, and consequently in the arbitration scheme itself. That decision establishes the rule that where there are several claims, a powerful claimant, by a sufficient display of force, may secure his claim whether the others get anything or not. Further on this subject, Mr. Osborne makes this general statement:— It is an easy, and, therefore, a favorite method with arbitrators to “split the difference,” giving to each party a portion of its claim. Anticipating this, the principals “load up,” and overload their cases, bringing in all manner of fictitious, extravagant, and unfounded claims and conditions, so as to secure a larger share of the award. These practices, if permitted or encouraged, will bring arbitration into disrepute, and may result in its abandonment. Arbitrators should relentlessly set aside all such inflated pleas and conditions, and at all costs decree impartial justice. Moreover, arbitrations are never sought by any nation that has sufficient power to dominate the situation and carry the point. In such case the arbitration is always sought by the weaker contestant, and if admitted at all, it must be through the influence of some friendly power physically able to influence the stronger contestant. Such a reed is a poor support for the proposition of universal or permanent peace. Some high American authorities are expressing doubts that it is safe to submit questions involving American interests to European arbitrators, owing to the increasing jealousy of America’s growing power and influence. Be this as it may, there is no reason to suppose that arbitration courts—being human—are more honest at heart, or free from sinister influence, than other human tribunals. Satisfaction of all parties concerned is the basis of real peace, and, whether a nation or an individual, no ambitious party is ever satisfied with less than all that is in sight. Arbitration may delay, but it never can preclude the general clash of nations, foretold in the Word of God. We might as well assume that some human scheme could forestall the edict that “the wages of sin is death,” as to expect that the universal preparation for war, and the universal lust for war, and the universal desire for supremacy, could end in anything but war. This inevitable result of persistent conditions was clear to the Infinite when the prophecies of a general clash at arms were uttered. In the last days the people will be prophesying smooth things and saying, “They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” See Isa. 2:1-4. But when the Lord’s prophet speaks of the time when the “harvest is ripe,” he tells a different story: “Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles: Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up; beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning-hooks into spears; let the weak say, I am strong,” etc. See Joel 3:9-17.