The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1897-03-31
Transforming the Treaty.

WIN tue CuduBes mdue ny tne Oen-
ate in the arbitration treaty on Mon
day, and the other remarkable changes
then proposed and left for considera-
ton, Sir Julian Pauncefote and ex-
Secretary Olney may barely recognize
the agreement they originally drew.
The skeleton certainly is left, and yet
not quite all of that. A glance at such
amendments as have at last been abso-
lutely settled will show the radical
character of the alterations,
The first amendment made on Mon
day provides substantially that no
agreement to submit any question to
arbitration under the treaty can have
any binding force until it shall have
been laid before the Senate by the
President and t'concurred in by two
thirds of the Senators present." This
provision apparently meets the objec-
ton raised to the original agreement,
that it infringed upon the constitutional
power Of the Senate to ratify interna-
tional compacts, the Senate of to-day
signing away prerogatives properly be-
longing to succeeding Senates, in this
matter. When it is added that this
fundamental change proposed by the
committee was made after only an
hours discussion in the Senate, and
without even a division, the Stiffness of
those New York resolutions which re.
Gently called for the ratification of the
original treaty, "as drawn" is mani
fest.
Next, the article making King Oscar
Of Sweden and Norway the umpire in
specified cases where the arbitrators
appointed by the two parties cannot
agree disappears utterly and finally.
That is a radical change of great i'm
portance, for we should want no
European monarch thus picked out to
throw the casting vote where the rival
interests could not agree on an umpire.
The very failure to agree practically
presupposes that the question involved
is not n for arbitration.
Again, in Article III, each side was
to nominate in certain disputes, one
arbitrator. AS amended, each side
dominates two arbitrators, and in addi-
ton the Presidents selections must be
regularly concurred in by the Senate.
Once more, in Article vi the Amer
lean a%rbitrators, instead of being
Judges of the Supreme Court of the
United States OF Justices of the Circuit
Courts" as the Olney-Pauncefote
agreement prescribed, are to be d" iur-
lists of repute." In Article VIII, to
the provision allowing the President to
appoint as mi arbitrator a judicial of a
State or Territory specially concerned
in a dispute, the words by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate ="
are added. The substitution of jurists
of repute for Supreme Court Judges
not only gives a wider range of choice,
and avoids the chance of weakening the
bench at a time when all its working
force is needed, but also takes into
view the suggestion that a member,
when legal points are involved, may be
influenced more or less by previous de.
cisions of his own.
These changes, in short, are all pal
pably made with a view to protect
American interests, and to guard those
rights of the Senate which the original
ageement proposed to take away.
But radical as are some of these
changes, other were proposed on Mon,
day which also demand attention. One
proposition was that for each case oil
arbitration a distinct court should be
N0oiShouOu anu uiduo suUJtCt W hppIO
val by the Senate, lest a court good fol
one main question should be less suit
able for others grouped with it. But
a specially striking amendment was Of
fered by Senator Chiffon. The treat,
opens with the declaration that "tht
high contracting parties agree to sub
ject to the limitations of this treaty, al
questions in difference between then
which they may fail to adjust by diplo
matte negotiations" The amendmen
makes this agreement cover " all ques
tions which the Senate may then deem
fit for arbitration"
1t has been said that this amendment
strikes at the very life of the treaty
But if 30, does it not show that the LII,
ought to be struck at? Why shoul,
not the Senate as constituted, for ex
ample, in the year 1900, decide wha
questions are then fit for arbitration
instead of having them decided before
hand, and in the dark, by the Senate a
constituted in 1897? Which is the bet
ter fitted for judging of the matter, tn
body that cannot forecast what the sub
jects are that may present themselve
for arbitration, or the body for whom
they exist as subjects of the hour?
This amendment, in fact, puts pith