New-York tribune., 1885-01-31
GOVERNNENT BY TREATY FAILS

The treaty-mak 'ng policy has come to grlef.
In the Senate the defeat OF the Nicaragua
treaty, which was probably stronger than any
other before that body, foreshadows the failure
of the Spanish and other commercial treaties
also. and indicates that if the Senate were TO
vote again upon the Mexican treaty 1t would
probably be beaten. In the House repeated re-
fusals to take up the Mexican Treaty bill, not
withstanding the urgency OF Mr.. Hewitt ana
others. shows that there is no reason to expect
the legislation nece ssary to give vitality TO any
commercial treaty, at least until new Congress
and q new Administration have come In.
II would be out of place to criticise the Pres
ident for negotiating and submitting these
treaties His leaning toward the tarIn notions
| which Secretary McCullOch represents naturally
| led the President to think little OF the
objections which strongly influenced many
| Republican Senators against the commercial
treaties and the desire to gain ecldt by the
| foreign policy of the Administration, after the
| not creditable abandonment OF the pODcy IN
augurated by President Garfield, was natural
enough Instead of promoting union OF inter-
ests between American Powers, as President
Garfield had contemplated. the present Admin
istration sought to get commercial advantages
and glory by negotiating with other nations,
and. as was inevitable, was invited to isurren-
der in part the benefits of the protective policy
in exchange for those advantages. Not so did
Germany succeed in drawing many States into
a union of interests against the world Ger
MANY sacrificed nothing of its strength or lnde-
nendence, but welcomed other States to par
tcipate in these advantages. The commercial
treaties, on the contrary, begin by sacrlilclng
the impregnable position of the United States,
in order to get the assent of European Powers.
1t is not sound policy, and ought not to sue
ceed.
The Nicaragua treaty had to aid ii a different
| and more potent set of forces. 1t was an asser-
ton that the United States would no longer be
bound by q treaty which President Garfelds
| Administration had urged Great Britain to
modify. The persistent refusal OF Great
| Britain, on this matter. might well have served
ga q warning to us not to bind the United
States again by treaties which sacrifice any
part of its independence. The Senate evi-
IDENTIFY concurred with Senator Sherman Ill his
opinion that the Clayton -Bulwer treaty should
not be thus set aside by one OF the parties to 1t,
for it adopted the condition precedent that
consent of Great Britain to the abrogation OF
that treaty should first be sought, and this
amendment essentially altered the character
of the Nicaragua treaty, for which twenty three
Senators afterward voted. But even with tina t
modification, it was not strong enough.
IfPresident Arthur had been influenced who'll
! ly by desire to put Mr.. Cleveland's Admins
tration into great difficulties, his submission
of these treaties at the very close OF his term
was eminently successful. Already some jour
nails which supported Mr. Cleveland most vo-
cferousy, and declared that he was the one
supremely capable Moses who could lead the
Nation out of any wilderness, are belaboring
him because he did not command Democrats III
Congress to ratify the treaties. They remain a
legacy to his Administration, even if rejected,
for they have friends who will insist that
Democratic President must do at least as mucll
for foreign trade as was proposed by president
Arthur. The pending treaties, moreover, were
beaten by Democratic votes, and those votes
have been cast, it Is evident, mainly on the plea
so forcibly made by Mr.. Bayard, that it would
not be right so to hamper the coming Admins
tration. We shall see, in due time, what the
coming Administration is competent or willing
to do for itself. Meanwhile, the defeat of the
commercial treaties will remove one cause OF
uncertainty and depression in business, and
may tharefore lead to good results.