The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-05-01
An Accomplished Scold.

Those persons who are regular read
ers of the New York Times do not need
to be told that one of the most promin
ent mental characteristics of its dis
tinguishcd editor, Mr.. Charles r. Mil
Ter, is to attribute superior morality to
the men who agree with hbn in .Opin-
ion and unworthy motives to those who
differ from him. This frame of mind
by lcng cultivation has become a rul-
ing passion; so much so that one no
longer looks to the Times editorial
page for sane and liberal comment on
public affairs, but rather for literary
curiosities in the employment of finish
ed English in the most extreme and
illiberal uses.
The announcement that Mr.. Miller,
in the May Forum, would pay his re-
spects to the senate assured a literary
treat even if 1t did not promise AN
opinion which fair-minded men could
approve. And the Forum itself fulHis
this expectation to the letter. Hear
this specimen growl:
1t is not alone by obstinate il.-doing that
the senate has forfeited the public re-
spect. In what it refuses to do, or does
grudgingly under the lash of compulsion,
ii is unbearably exasperating. The mulish
stubbornness with which it has resisted
the will of the people in respect OF the
Treaty of Arbitration is a flagrant exam
PIE of degenerate practices. That treaty
was conceived IN the spirit of higher civil
lization, of advancing humanity. 1t was
of that indisputable eXpediency that is an
inherent quality of truth and honesty and
minded l.
ly advanced to have laid aside skins; and
discarded the stone hatchCt and the club,
could have refrained from acc3aiming the
principle of arbitration as a happy means
of escaping the barbariSm Of war. The in
strument had been perfected by the dill
gent labors of men incomDarably abler
and broader than any that now sit in the
senate. 1t was such a pact as an enlight-
ened branch of the treaty-mak!ng power
would have ratified after a delay sufficient
only to allow its chief statesmen to eX-
press worthily their pleasure at joining in
work of such beneficence. Yet, from the
moment IT received the treaty from the
hands of the president, the United States
senate has rallied at it and rent it savage
ly, as though il were league with death.
Now it must be admitted that this
is admirable rhetoric. But what about
the facts at issue? In the first place,
Mr.. Miller's inference that the senate's
objection to the original form of the
arbitration treaty as it came to that
body from the pens of Messrs. Olney
and Pauncefote arose from perVerse
hostility to the principle of arbitration
stands refuted by the solemn asser-
tions of every leading senator who op-
posed the treaty. Are those senators
deliberate liars? or may not Editor
Miller be slightly mistaken? The Sec
ond ssertion that the men who drew
up the first Graft of the treaty-that
IS, Mr. Olney and Sir Julian Paunce-
fote-were "incomparably abler and
broader than any that now sits in the
senate" is merely Mr.. Millers individ-
ual belief, He has a right to express
it, but he has no right to accuse of un-
worthy impulses those who hold beliefs
dissimilar to it. We are ready to credit
Mr.. Olney with being a great man;
yet in the sphere of diplomacy it will
hardly be denied that he was green,
fresh and unsophisticated--j tho
kind Of a soft thing for which the ac-
complished ambassador of Her Imper-
ial Majesty was looking.
The fact that many Of the best think
ers of the country-we think we may
say a majority of them-after a study
of the senate debates have recognized
the cunningly masked snares concealed
In the arbitration treaty's first draft
and have discovered that Secretary Oh
ney, 10 whom must be attributed the
best and noblest of intentions, was
eftectually buncoed by his more adrolt
British fellow negotiator, stands forth
as the senate's sufficient defense, and
renders. language like that Of Mr.. Mil