"ENGLAND'S INCONSISTENCY ON ARBITRATION."
By T.
UNDER the foregoing title the New York World says the following:— "The Peace Conference at The Hague agreed upon an elaborate scheme of arbitration, intended to prevent such wars as that which Great Britain seems now to be forcing upon the Boers. "It agreed that every effort to arbitrate should be exhausted before resort should be had to force; that the parties to every quarrel should invoke arbitration, and that neutral powers should be free to offer mediation without offense, even after armed conflict should have begun. "As an additional inducement to peaceful adjudication the conference agreed upon a permanent court of arbitration open to all countries, whether signatory powers or not, and a permanent bureau through which appeals might be made to that court. "There was no authority, of course, to compel any power to submit its case to that court, but it was agreed that all the signatory powers held themselves morally bound to do so in every case not otherwise arbitrated or settled by negotiation, except such as involved the national honor, independence, or sovereignty. "Yet almost before the ink is dry with which the British representatives at The Hague signed this agreement, Great Britain is forcing war upon the Boer republic in assertion of British right to control that republic's internal policy and domestic affairs. "The issue is clearly one of those that should be settled by arbitration, and the Boers have earnestly besought Great Britain to submit it to that kind of impartial adjudication, stipulating only that one of the five arbitrators shall be selected by an entirely neutral government—that of Switzerland or that of the United States preferred. "England rejects this proposal. Her excuse is that the Transvaal is not an independent State. But that is precisely the question in dispute, and no less eminent an English statesman than Sir William Vernon Harcourt says with emphasis: 'The Transvaal's independence is complete. Even in foreign affairs the only thing reserved is the final approval of the queen to treaties negotiated.' "And Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, who has forced the present issue, expressed the like view until he found it convenient to revert to the suzerainty doctrine as an excuse for intermeddling with Transvaal affairs fifteen years after the signing of the London convention of 1884, which guaranteed Transvaal independence. "These are facts which mankind will surely consider in making up its judgment upon England's course in South Africa." And to what the World says it might be added that these are also facts that men should consider when they try to make themselves believe that we are in the beginning of a reign of diplomacy that will establish a universal and permanent peace on this earth. We must look to another quarter for peace.