The great European War has brought into discussion the various phases of the duties and privileges of neutrals, the freedom of the areas, the effect and requirements of a block ade, the attack on merchant ships by vessels of war and the changes in the modern methods of warfare. This discussion and the spirit of retaliation on the part of the belligerents, which has led to a disregard of heretofore recognized rules of international law, will make necessary a re-examination of these questions on the re-establishment of peace.
One of the conspicuous features of the rela tions of the United States with foreign nations is its readiness to accept arbitration for the settlement of questions that do not prove sus ceptible of adjustment by diplomatic methods. It has been one of the foremost of the nations in advocating this method of arranging inter national complications, and in preserving peace by means of treaties of arbitration. The first treaty negotiated after the organization of the government under the Constitution — the Jay Treaty (q.v.) of 1794—was made with Great Britain to avert war which was then immi nent. It contained provisions for the adjust ment of three of the most irritating of the questions in controversy by a reference to arbi tration, and three separate commissions were created for that purpose. The year following, the second treaty negotiated by the new gov ernment, that with Spain of 1795, also con tained a provision for arbitration. The country was not so fortunate in its second controversy with Great Britain. The questions at issue were of such grave character that it did not seem possible at that day to settle them by any other method than a resort to war; but by the treaty of peace of 1814 four boards of arbitra tion were created to settle boundary questions. These all related to the frontier with Canada, which ever since the independence had been a source of almost constant discussion, often of angry controversy, and more than once had brought the countries to the brink of war. But in every instance when the usual method of diplomacy failed, arbitration has been resorted to with success.
During the two generations which followed the War of 1812 all questions of controversy with foreign powers, with one exception, have been settled by peaceful methods. In that period the United States created many courts and commissions of arbitration. The most of these have been with Great Britain, but more than 20 of them have been with other nations of Europe and America. The controversy growing out of the manner in which the British government enforced the neutrality laws during the Civil War for a time threatened the peace ful relations of the two countries. When the offer of the United States to adjust the ques tion by arbitration was made, the British gov ernment in the first instance assumed the posi tion that its national honor was involved, and that that could not be submitted to arbitration. But better counsels prevailed, and the Tribunal of Geneva was created to adjust the contro versy. It was the most important arbitration in which the United States ever engaged, and was one of the most august and imposing ever held in the world. It involved questions of supreme importance and pecuniary claims of great mag nitude; but its special significance was in the spectacle of two great nations being able to compose weighty matters, which had awakened the passions of their people to a high state of bitterness, by an appeal to reason and the arbit rament of friendly powers in place of war.
Next in importance for the United States to the Geneva arbitration was that relating to the protection of fur seals in Bering Sea, held in Paris in 1893. The decision of the tribunal was against the contention of the United States, and as a result it had to pay about half a million of dollars in damages and sustained a heavy loss in its annual income from the seal islands. Disappointment was felt over the result, but the mature judgment of the country is that it was a wiser settlement of the questions at issue than to push them to the extreme of war.
One feature of the many arbitrations in which the country has engaged is worthy of special notice. A spirit of equity and fair dealing has always marked the conduct of the government in cases where any suspicion of fraud or exaggerated damages has attached to arbitral decisions. The commissions with Ven ezu-la, Haiti, Mexico and other countries might be cited in illustration. They show that, though the government is sometimes misled by designing claimants or by the unwise action of its diplomatic agents, it has not hesitated when fully possessed of the facts to undo any in juries inflicted upon friendly powers by means of international commissions, and that fraud, once exposed, cannot reap the benefit of its iniquity under the cover of the finality of an award.
The Alaska Boundary Tribunal of 1903 is an instance of the settlement of a question not possible of adjustment by diplomacy and not deemed appropriate for reference to arbitra tion. A court was constituted, composed of three members from each country, and they were empowered to judicially settle the ques tions submitted to them. The danger feared was that there would be an equal division of the court, but in this case the matter was settled by an award rendered by a majority of the members which has been accepted by both governments.
This brief review shows that in its short career the United States has had an important part in molding the code of international law. The chief actors in the work done by this country have been the Secretaries of State and its diplomatic representatives abroad. But they have had worthy coadjutors in giving this code shape and permanence. The exposition of the law of nations, as set forth in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, has had a great influence in molding that law, and its opinions are recognized as of the high est authority by foreign publicists. Among authors in this department of law none carry greater weight throughout the world than Story, Kent, Wheaton, Halleck, Woolsey, Wharton and other American writers. When the services are recalled of these diplomatic, judicial and scholastic representatives of the United States, it is just to say that no body of men in any country have done more to improve and enlarge the principles of international law, or have exercised a more salutary influence on the affairs of the globe. See ARBITRATION, IN