The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-02-21
TIMES WHIRLIGIG.

A little more than a year ago the
years prevailed in the United States.
We were pressed hard then to go to
war with Great Britain because she
refused to arbitrate her differences
with Venezuela. Today it has been
agreed to submit those differences to
arbitration. Great Britain has signed
the preliminary document, and the
Venezuelan congress will accept the
arrangement without opposition, while
the senate of the United States is
talking to death the treaty in which
Great Britain proposed to us to arbi-
trate all her differences hereafter.
Such are the changes which the whirl-
igig Of time brings about among men
and nations that are not sincere. It
would seem a shame almost too grave
to be borne that this nation should
exhibit itself to the world in the light
which these two transactions throw
upon it.
used to justify ourselves for par
ticipating in the Venezuela difficult
ty was the refusal Of Great Britain
to arbitrate. We did not know or pre-
tend to know on which side exact JUS
tice stood. We did say that the right
could be ascertained only by a careful
investigation before an impartial tri-
bunal, and that if England refused to
concede this we would be justified in
compelling her. We were ready to
plunge the two greatest nations of
the world into hostilities in behalf Of
arbitration. Today we have before us
treaty that applies the same princi-
pie to our own affairs. 1t is a treaty
to which, in all the vapid discussion
that has taken place thus far, there
has never been advanced one valid OBJ
lection. or against which there has
been leveled one argument that will
bear consideration. The case against
it is one Of pure bravado and bonn
bastics. The opposition has nothing
to do with the merits Of the treaty,
but is compound Of partisan hatred
of President Cleveland and Mr.. Olney
and Of fanatical free silver determine
ton that no compact shall be con-
cluded between Great Britain and our
selves.
The unblushing effrontery Of the op-
ponents of the treaty Is simply a mar
vel Here Is one set Of senators who
tell US that it would invalidate the
Monroe doctrine; whereas it does not
trench or touch upon it in the least.
Here rises Mr.. Teller to say that in
case of a repetition of the Venezuela
affair we should find ourselves before
that the treaty provides for an arbitra-
ton court Of six members-three from
the courts Of this country and three
from the courts Of Great Britain-and
requires vote Of five out Of six to
render decision. A court reaching a
decision by vote Of five men, three
Of whom must be; representative OF
the United States, is Mr.. Teller's idea
Of "a hostile tribunal" It is not worth
while, however, to quote him or any
of the rest Of the treaty opponents,
because not one Of them is sincere.
They are animated by low and I'M
worthy motives in rejecting the great
est achievement Of modern diplomacy,
and in disappointing public opinion
and outraging public sentiment
There is no subject on which the
people of this country are so absolute
ly unanimous today as they are in
their desire to have the arbitration
treaty ratified. Defying that and COM
mon sense alike, our senate wastes
weeks in frantic opposition to a prin-
ciple in support of which the same
men were clamoring fifteen months
ago that we should declare war in
stantly and set our army and navy in
array against Great Britain. Such are
the transformations wrought by the
whirligig Of politics, and such the
depths to which the modern politician
dares to descend in his contempt for
the will Of the public that he is sup
posed to serve.