The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1897-05-06
PEACE TREATY DEFEATED
SENATE REFUSED TO RATITY THE
ARBITRATION COMPACT.


There Being Lack of Four Affirmative
Votes of the Necessary Majority of Two
Third Required Under the Constitution
Speeches For and Against the Measure.
Washington May 5.-!The senate to-
day by a vote of 43 to 26 refused to rat
ify the general arbitration treaty be-
tween the United States and Great
Britain negotiated by Secretary Olney
and Sir Julian Pauncefote. The rules
of the senate required a majority of
two thirds for the ratification of treat
les. Hence four more affirmative votes
would have been required to secure a
favorable result The vote in detail was
as follows:
Yeas-Allison, Bacon. Burrows, CAT
ferry Clay, Cullom, Davis, DeBoe, Fair
banks, Faulkner, Foraker Frye, Gal
llnger, Gear, Gray, Hale, Hanna, Haw-
ley, Hoar, Lindsay, Lodge, Mcbride,
McEnerny, Mcmillan, Mitchell, Morrill,,
Nelson, Pasco, Perkins, Platt of Con-
necticut, Platt of New York, Pritchard,
Proctor, Smith, Spooner, Thurston, Tur-
pie, Vest, Walthall, Warren, Yelling
ton, Wetmore, Wilson, Total, 49,
Nays-Baker, Bate, Butler, Garter,
Cockrell Daniel, Hansborough, Harris
OF Kansas, Harris of Tennessee, Heit-
field, Jones of Arkansas, Jones of Ne
vada, Kyle, Martin, Mason, Mills, Nor
gan, Penrose, Pettigrew, Pettus, Quay,
Rawlins, Roach, Shoup, Stewart, White
Total, &C.
A total of sixty-nine votes were cast,
leaving nineteen senators who did not
respond. The pairs so far as obtainable
were as follows:
Two affirmative senators being paired
with one negative senator in most in
stances: Chandler and Clark with Tell
with Chiffon against Senator George
was paired for the treaty with Senator
Berry against. Pairs were announced
for the following: Aldrich, Cannon, Ell
kins, German, Murphy, Wolcott, Kenny
and Allen.
The vote was preceded by a short
spirited debate, introduced by Senator
Mills of Texas, who made strong ap-
peal to the senate against ratifying the
agreement. He asserted that, as
amended, the document was most OBJ
jectionable, not to say contradictory,
in terms. He pointed out especially the
provision for the settlement of contro-
versies in regard to territorial claims,
and asserted that whereas the amend
| ment adopted by the senate to the first
article of the treaty declared against
their inclusion. the sixth and eighth ar
ticles made provision for them. He
held that as long as these articles re-
mained unchanged England justly
could claim that the question of terrific
rial rights was still included within the
scope of the treaty
Under such circumstances, he asked,
what was to prevent England from
purchasing the island of Cuba or any
other American territory, and, in case
of objection on the part of the United
States, insisting the reference of the
dispute to arbitration? He spoke of the
conduct of England in connection with
the Greco-Turkish war, and implored
the senate to protect the United States
against the proposed alliance.
| The speech made a visible impression,
and the opinion was general that the
treaty should be amended so as to grant
a remedy for this.
Senator Garter, who from the first has
been one of the most active and effec-
tive opponents of the treaty, interposed
objection to the vote being taken to-
day, but if the vote was to be taken
| to-day he would insist upon it at four
| p. m.
He made a very pungent speech in
opposition. He said that there could
be no doubt of the partiality Of the gov
ernment and the people of the United
States toward the settlement of dis
putes by arbitration, and that for this
reason there never would be any diff
Guilty in securing an agreement for ar
bitration for any specific dispute with
any nation, but was it necessary for
our peopleto tie themselves in an agree
ment of uncertain scope and purport,
and especially with a country which
had shown itself so out of sympathy
with the feelings of the people of the
United States in the position England
had taken in European affairs?
Mr.. Garter advised the senate to let
we'll enough alone.
Senator Hoar replied briefly, going
over the general argument in favor of
the treaty and contending especially
that the objection of inconsistency in
regard to the territorial claims was not
well founded.
The remainder of the debate was of
a running character. Senators White
and Pettigrew interjected questions
tending to show continued opposition.
| Senator White remarked that the docu-
ment was full of illogical propositions
and said Furthermore that its syntax
would have to be improved before it
would be thoroughly acceptable.
1t was evident before the ballot was
completed that the motion to ratify
would be beaten. The absence of some
senators impaired who were considered
favorable to arbitration was accepted
as an unfavorable indication. The op-
position was made manifest after the
vote was announced. Some senators
who were recorded spoke quite openly
of Objectionable features, confessing
that they had cast their votes in the
affirmative in concurrence with public
| opinion.
. Senator Davis, chairman of the COM
mittee OH foreign relations. declined to
express an opinion for publication, but
talked with his friends. To them, he
! attributed the defeat of the feeling of