The herald., 1897-02-15

the reasons for seeking postponement
of the Anglo-American arbitration
treaty, and in response prepared the fol-
lowing signed article:
There has been a good deal of criti-
cism of the senate because it does not
at once ratify the treaty of arbitration
between the United States and Great
Britain, by those who apparently forget
that the executive department has been
| about four years negotiating it.
BY the constitution of the United
| States the senate is made a part OF the
| treaty-making power. The fathers OF
the republic, jealous of executive power,
were not willing that the president
| should negotiate treaties alone, SO tney
provided that the president shall nave
power, by the advice and consent OF the
senate, to make treaties, provided two
| thirds of the senators present concur.
The treaty is then the action or the
| president and Nhe senate. IL is quite
| apparent that it was not intended that
the action of the senate should be
mere perfunctory duty, and that the
was inserted because the trainers of the
constitution were impressed with the
| Importance of treaty making. The
senate being a part of the power which
| creates treaties, it cannot rid ltselt OF
the responsibility of seeing that they
| are properly made. 1t is as incumbent
| on us to give treaties due consideration
| as upon the executive to do so. we
| heard no complaint of the delay on the
| part of the executive department, but
| no sooner did the treaty reach the sem
| ate than there was a demand for imme-
| diate action by the senate. The senate,
| being charged with this duty of advising
in the construction of treaty, cannot
| transfer that duty to the president or
| any one else.
| The friends of the treaty in the senate
| all admit that it must be amended, and
! the committee on foreign relations has
| commended certain amendments which
will, without doubt, be adopted. But
what will be the condition of the treaty
| if the friends of it do not agree as to the
purport of the proposed amendments!
Some of them asserted that the resolu-
| tons for consideration by the arbitra-
tors must be acted upon by the senate
| and the house of representatives before
! the question can go before the arbitra-
| ton tribunal. If this view is correct
| we will be required to make new treaty
| or agreement on each question as II
| arises, and have the assent, not of the
senate alone, but of the house also, and
instead of having removed the causes Of
disagreement and friction between the
two governments, it will be found we
have multiplied the causes of dispute
and delayed the determination of con-
troverted questions.
If the treaty does not require action on
the part of congress- as some contend 1t
does not, then we are leaving the ques-
tion whether the subject of controversy
shall be arbitrated or not to the presl-
dent alone. 1t is true we put linita-
tions of an indefinite character on the
executicve in providing that he must
arbitrate a question affecting our for
eign or domestic policy" But if he
thinks such submission does not affect
that policy he cannot be held responsible
for his act if he makes O mistake
Why should we not make this treaty
definite-exact; why should we leave so
important a question as to what power
of submission on our part is in doubt?
If we attempt to submit a given question
to arbitration through the agency of
congress, and Great Britain thinks it
ought to have been submitted through
and by the president we create fric-
tion not only among our own people, but
between this country and Great Britain
as well.
II the president assumes he alone
must determine what subject of dispute
| must be submitted and congress as
sumes jurisdiction of the matter then
we have a home difficulty and a foreign
| one at the same time. The treaty is not
| capable of self-execution, and there
must be legislation to carry it into eX-
ecution. Congress must fix the term
of two arbitrators to be appointed on
our part, and also determine their COM
pensation. This cannot be done at this
session of congress.
The treaty ought to go over and be
carefully examined by the committee
which has already prepared sundry
amendments, and the senate, when other
matters are not pressing on the body.
1t is almost impossible at this late pc
riod of the session to give a matter of
this kind the serious attention which il
requires. There can be no doubt that
the body of the people in the United
States favor arbitration, but that fact
does not remove the necessity for care
in the preparation of q treaty to carry
out that idea. If the treaty is carelessly
made, and there is difficulty in deter
| mining what ought to be submitted, or
| a feeling, after the treaty goes into eff
| feet, or doubt should arise as to the
| fairness of its operations. the people will
| be prejudiced against the principle of
| arbitration so that instead of promoting
| the cause of arbitration we may destroy
| it by hasty action.
| Personally | am decidedly in favor OF
! arbitration of all questions that can be
arbitrated, but this is no reason why [
should join in ratifying a treaty that
lacks the greatest essential of treaty
certainty as to what it means. There
| is no danger of war confronting us. We
| have no occasion for haste, and nothing
| can be gained by premature action.
| When the treaty is put in proper
form, as l hope it Will be, it will be rati-
fed. l regret that the agreement has
not been considered in open senate so
the people could see the defects in it.