Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-01-26
Its Objection to Arbitration
Treaty With Great Britain.
Question Of Selecting Final Arbiter
Monroe Doctrine in Jeopardy.
Claims that Personal Feelings Do Not Ente Z
Into the Opposition.


arbitration treaty recently negotiated be-
tween the United States and Great Britain
Secretary Olney was before the senate com
mittccpn foreign relations n few days ago
for the purpose Of explaining the details of
the treaty. That he did his work well there
can be no question Cor Mr.. Olney is n
shrcwd lawyer, and he had u big stake in
the success of this convention. Upon this
and the successful termination of the Nenc-
zuclan affair, and also upon the influence
which he cxertcd while attorney general
upon the settlement of the Chicago strikes
of 1884, Mr.. Olnoy's chief claims to dis
tinction us Il cabinet officer must rest. He
is therefore, along with the president, OK
cccdingly anxious to have the treaty rati-
fed before March t. In this connection it
is only fair to say the general opinion in
Washington is that Mr. Olncv has been the
one great success of Mr.. Clcvcland's second
administration II is common gossip here
that he is the only man who has enough in
fiucnce over tho PRESIDENT to bo able to
carry his POINT almost without exception.
Olney is Il fighter and Mr.. Cleveland likes
that kind of /, man.
Olncy and Cleveland.
I heard a distinguished senator explain
this a few DAYS ago. 'sOlney knows Mr.
Cleveland like hook-like a lawbook, -
he said. "Instoad of purring around and
sort of half begging that the things he pro
poses be adopted as administration policy.
Olney lust sets ND his stake. He SAYS that
is the right thing and intimates that Mr..
Cleveland can take it or leave it. as he pre-
fcrs. The result is that Mr.. Cleveland
walks around it. looks at it, razes at it
from all points of view, and then ends by
taking it,
The chief objection to the arbitration
treaty, as urged by senators. was that it
left a foreign sovereign, King Oscar of
Sweden and Norway. the final arbiter in
cases of territorial dispute These senators
siild they dld not IKE the IDEA or leaving
10 KING, 10 European, TO one linbued
througn ana through with monarchlcal
1deas, tne rlgh5 TO select the umpire IN
case Wnlch mlght aHecG the honor OF the
United states Secretary Olney pointed
OUT 10 tnese senators Chat they were mis-
taken, tnat Chere We're no stcn provisions
III the treaty, anu ne was surprised that
members OF Jne foreign reiatlons commit
Tee should DC so ignorant OF the contents
or document which had been published
by the newspapers for week, ana which
hao Deen olnclaliy pupnshed by inc senate
lJsei1 1or at least TOUR Gays. King oscar Is
empowered to select the final arblter only
IN cases IN which the claim is peculiar
one. In territorial cases the treaty ex-
pressiy provides that there shall he three
Judges from the supreme or circuit courts
OF the United States and three from the
high courts OF Great Britain, and that a
verdict OF this court by u vote of five to
one shall be necessary to produce binding
decision. In other words, two OF the judges
representing the United States must agree
TO decision before 1t can become binding.
The King OF Sweden and Norway has moth
ing to do with territorial disputes.
The Monroe Doctrine Involved.
There are senator's who object to uniting
To arbitration n ouestion which might in
yolvc the Monroe doctrine itself. They
ask what is the sense in ARRANGING n treaty
with Great Britain over the Venezuelan
affair which calls incidentally for rccogni
tiop of the Monroe doctrine and then t1Irn
inc RIGHT about and forming another trcotv
which rcouircs us to subu,it all question:
whatsoever even tho Monroe doctrine q,
it's application to arbitration This docs
seem on the face of IT, TO l,c - valid Office
ton and il thc form of arhi, ration Drt.
poscd for s,,ch oucstions were, tho same rs
that ARRANGED for moro ,ecuniorv jisnutcs
imagine il might he a fatal fault. Bi,t
the facts arc that such questions are ar.
ranged for arbitration in a manner which,
insurcs the protection OF the honor of eli
thcr nation. Ii is not to be supuoscd tha,
two out of three American REPRESENTATIVE,
in the court would deliberately vote away
the Monroe doctrine. No more is it likely
that two out of three English representa-.
tives would consent to Il verdict which
sullicd the national honor of Britain. &c
this ohJcctlon Ii Is thought, may not carry
much Welght.
At lirst IL was thought the senate lnlghl
ueie't ratllicatioi OF inc treaty OF III les'Sl
hoid !, over VII aitcr Mr.. cleveland ana
Mf. olhey had fetlfed from ONCE because
ol che wen SHOWN eiiihl'! ensuing between
1ne hor1h emu Oh thc caPitol ana tne "nlte
Iiouse. senators py ehs score CONFESS 'he!
no hoC IKE ME- olcVelaho' ana many o.
'hcih are almost as oittef against MI. vi
hcy, especi&ily SINCE thaI olllc'al came oll'
WIN ms famous 1hahileS'o against oi,t
risho oi congress 10 recognize inc lhaepeho
chce OIL Nuoa OF any otner country anu