The diamond drill. (Crystal Falls, Iron County, Mich.) 1887-1996, 1897-01-23

The Secretary Talks TO senators of the
Arbitration Treaty.

Arbitration Treaty.
Washington. Jan. 2l. - The senate
committee on foreign relations listened
to Secretary Olney for more than an
hour Wednesday morning.
The secretary. who drew the general
treaty OF arbitration between this gov
eminent and Great Britain made an
elaborate argument in favor of the rati
hcation Of the treaty a. sent to the
senate. ..
Much OF the talk about the committee
table was OF an interlocutory character
and several senators. notably Messrs.
Morgan and Davis, asked numerous
questions of the secretary. intended TO
gather from that official his idea of the
scope OF the treaty. The questions pro-
pounded indicated quite plainly an an
tagonlsm 10 the text of the convention
and the intention OF senator's to insist
upon its amendment before reporting
the instrument to the senate. No ac-
ton was taken and II is animated that
action cannot possibly be had for some
weeks ~ come.
Mr.. Olney was questioned closely as
10 the general scope of the treaty AMI
stated that IL did not include the -bi-
tration Of the Monroe doctrine and was
50 understood by this government and
Great Britain. The matters In dispute
that would come under the provisions
OF the convention were such as might
grow out of treaty rights or under in
ternational law.
AT the conclusion of Mr.. Olney's argus
ment he was asked what objection
there could be to the insertion of n
clause relative TO the Monroe doctrine,
II both governments understood the
subject alike; but to this question il
is understood MIR. olney gave no spec:-
&c answer.
In celebrating his statement that the
Monroe doctrine would not come within
the terms OF the general treaty of arbi-
tration, Mr.. 0lney told the committee
that il was well understood by the
negotiators of the convention that all
questions relating To the foreign policy
of either government were not intended
TO be included in the terms of the treaty.
It is understood, however, that when
u
guam canal Mr.. Olney said that il Great
Britain sought TO make an issue on that
subject growing out of the terms of the
existing Clayton-Bulwer treaty, 1t
would probably come within this gen
eral treaty, under that clause which
provides for the settlement of disputes
arising between the two governments,
under treaties or otherwise"
The suggestion was made that a
clause be put in the treaty relative 10
the elimination OF the Monroe doc
thine, so there could be no dispute on
that question in the future. 1t was also
cuntended that the lsthmus canal
should be reserved in like manner. So
far as can be learned Mr.. Olney made
no impression on the committee and il
is to-day as firmly convinced as ever
that the convention requires radical
amendment before IL is ratified.
MIR. Olney insisted that there was no
ground for the fear that the Monroe
doctrine would be attacked. 1t had not
been mentioned in the treaty, for TO
do so would have been unpolitic ana
dangerous. The provisions of article
ak, relative 10 the method of procedures
in territorial claims gave assurance that
all the rights OF this country In any dis
pute would be carefully guarded. That
article stipuIates that any award To be
final must be made by vote of not less
than five 10 one in court consisting of
three American jurists and three Eng
lisb. II could not be conceived, said Mr..
Olney. that two Americans woaid join
the English side OF the court on any
question unless they were warranted in
SO doing by the facts and presentation
Of the case before the court. A five to
one award, MIR. Olney said, guaranteed
absolute fairness and Justice, and dis
arms all the criticism that had been di-
re stetl against the convention.