Birmingham state herald. (Birmingham, Ala.) 1895-1897, 1897-02-13

with Senator Turpie that the treaty is
perfect as ii stands. Mr.. Turpies posi-
tion is based upon his own construction of
the terms of the convention and II the
senate was able to bring itself to think as
Mr.. Turpie does, the treaty would be
ratified without a moments delay.
The Indiana senator's speech has, how
ever, made a strong impression, and his
ideas have suggested to the committee an
amendment which will be patterned after
that which Mr.. Morgan yesterday gave
notice that he would offer at the proper
time. This will change article / so that
1t will provide for the submission under
this treaty, for arbitration of all sub
jects, subject to the limitations of this
treaty land in the manner and form pro-
vided by either of the contracting par
ties for the negotiation and ratification
of treaties"
This, it is claimed, will make the in
tent OF the senate clear and provide that
every subject to be submitted to this
tribunal must be first submitted to the
president and by him to the senate, as
now provided for in the case of original
treaties.
In this manner the objection that the
senate is yielding its prerogative is met
and that body maintains control of every
matter connected with the subject of ar
bitration. This is the amendment which
Mr.. Sherman will submit tomorrow In an
effort to bring about speedy action. The
debate today was begun by Mr.. Stewart,
who laid some additional stress upon the
necessity for eliminating the Alaskan
boundary question, and pointed out in
what particular he believed the treaty to
be both vague and indefinite.
Mr.. Blackburn. of Kentucky, was
against the treaty, and was ready to
vote. 1t seemed idle to consume more
time, for, as he believed, every man In the
senate knew just how he intended to
vote. This treaty went entirely too far
in its scope Still he had no fear of war
from anything that might be in the
treaty; war was more likely to come from
the things that were not included. 1t
would be safe enough to leave the ques-
tion of arbitration to the senate when the
cases arose and let the senate then in
existence deal with the subject.
Mr.. Hoar, of Massachusetts,, said he
would vote for the treaty as 1t reached
the senate, or he would vote for it as
amended. What he wanted was treaty
of arbitration, and the sooner the senate
ratified this treaty the better he thought
it would be for the country.
Mr. Chandler, of New Hampshire. gave
no decided expression as to how he stood.
He might vote for the treaty IL amended.
He favored the committee amendments,
but intima ted that others might be nee
essary to make the instrument perfect
and thoroughly protect the interests of
the country. If the amendments were
rejected he should vote against the
treaty. Mr.. Chandler called attention to
the fact that there was wide divergence
of opinion in the senate among several
able gentlemen as to what this treaty
did or did not do, and he suggested that
it would be best to let it go over until a
more convenient season. Senator's obli-
cation required that they should give
this thing their careful considerable 1t
should be fully discussed. For this rea-
son he urged that it go over until the
senate convened after March a. There
would be then two weeks when the sem
ate would have nothing to do but consid-
er nominations, and plenty of time would
be given to this treaty, and better con-
clusion could be reached than now, when
the effort was being made to hurry the
consideration of SO important matter so
as not to interfere with other legisla-
tion.
Mr.. Daniels antagonized the treaty on
general principles, as being disadvant-
ageous to the United States. Cases for
arbitration were not so numerous that
a general treaty should be provided.
Each case should be met when it came
up. He also criticised that provision
which makes the members of the supreme
court members of the tribunal. The MEM
bers of that court would, in all proba
bility, he said, be called on at some time,
either before or after the arbitration, to
sit judicially on the same or similar ques-
tiOns.
To be compelled to act in this dual
capacity would be embarrassing to the
members of the court and might initiate
against their sitting on the bench in. GER
tain cases. Such contingency ought not
to be made possible.
The treaty found one of it's strongest
advocates in Senator Lodge, who urged
that action be taken He declared that
he was not irrevocably Joined to the
committee amendments. He would fa-
vor any amendment that might be sug-
gested that would remove the doubt ex-
listing in the treaty, If such amendment
would be conducive to action. He did
not believe the treaty could possibly be
ratified unless it was amended somewhat
on the lines of the committee amend
ment. He favored the treaty because ar
bitration was the policy of this country
and he believed in the American policy.
He wanted the treaty to pass and for
that reason hoped the amendment that
might be framed would be satisfactory
to the senate.
Mr. Sherman then made the statement
that was construed as an intimation that
the committee intended to consider the
treaty again in special session tomorrow
morning. He said that If the discussion
went over until tomorrow morning, he
thought the committee would be able to
bring in an amendment or amendments
that would remove all doubts and ambi-
guilty from the text of the treaty. When
this was done he hoped the senate would
be able to come to speedy vote. If
proved not to be the case, then Mr. Sher-
man said he would not feel justified in
pressing the consideration of the treaty
further to the hindrance of the business
thu nac pracSipp the senate.
Mr.. Hill replied jocularly that the sem
ate was to understand that If the oppo-
sition to the treaty would hold out until
tomorrow the senator from Ohio would
withdraw the treaty from further con-
sideration. Mr. Sherman denied that this
interpretation was just and the senate
adjourned.
The amendment indicated above will
be reported to the senate tomorrow when
he treatv Is again taken lid.