The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1897-02-20

Failure to Secure q Vote in the convention
indications Are That it Will Go Over
to the Next Congress-SenatOr Daniels
Makes Severe Attack on the Treaty as
Does Senator Teller.
Washington, Feb. 19,-When the SEN
ate retired this afternoon, to consider
the nglo-American peace treaty, the
demand for an immediate vote was
made almost as soon as the doors were
closed, by Senators Lodge and Frye,
each of whom spoke for five minutes.
Both men asserted that the time had
come for a vote if the senate ever in
tended to take vote on the subject.
If action was to be prevented the SEN
ate and the country should know it.
Both Of these speeches were vigorous
and emphatic and had the effect Of dis
closing the "hand" Of the opposition.
Mr.. Teller promptly retorted that no
vote on the treaty itself could be had,
and the debate that then began indi-
Gated that it is the intention of the
opponents to wear out the senate until
in sheer desperation it is willing to
vote to postpone.
| In the course of his argument, Mr..
Teller said that he was not prepared
to say that he should not vote for the
| arbitration treaty. He favored the
| principle of arbitration, but the treaty
had been bungled and badly drawn and
he believed there should be ample time
for it's consideration. The more the
treaty was discussed, the more promi-
nent became the objections that had
been made to it.
The senate, Mr.. Teller said, ought not
to be called upon to vote upon so i'm
portant a question at this late day in
the session. The state department had
been four years in framing a treaty
which it believed to be now perfect
but which the majority of the senate
knew did not protect the interests of
the American people, If the state de-
partment with it's men skilled in diplo-
matte procedure had been four years
preparing treaty why, Mr.. Teller,
asked should the administration and
the country be so insistent that the
senate should deal finally with the sub
ject in few weeks?
| Mr.. Daniels addressed the senate for
upwards Of two hours and made pow
erful impression. He was against the
treaty and advanced some of the
strongest arguments that have yet been
heard. War was not bad thing, Mr..
Daniels said, when the nation that went
| to war had the right on it's side, and
was upholding the honor and integrity
of its people. The United States was
the only country that Great Britain
feared, and would, if she could, have
her under bonds to keep the peace.
Great Britain would go ahead with
her policy of aggression and aggrand-
izement and laugh at any protest that
we might make or defy any position we
might assume against her oppression of
the people of the western hemisphere.
The American people were a people of
peace; the policy of the country for 12O
years had been one of peace 1t had
arbitrated it's differences time and
again, and was pledged to that princi-
pie, but when it went into a solemn
compact for that purpose with Great
Britain there should be an equality of
terms The United States had every
thing to lose by the treaty and Great
Britain everything to gain.
Congress had never declared war un-
less such war was justifiable; the Unit
ed States had never acquired any ter
ritory by war unless as the result of a
war that was for defence or necessary
for the perpetuation of the republic.
II love the blood of the revolution, -
said Mr.. Daniels, in one of his impas-
stoned utterances. 'It is full of all
that is great and noble in the history of
this country"
Mr. Daniels then proceeded to show
that the lessons of the revolution ought
not to be forgotten and that the United
States should be wary of any,overtures
made by her traditional enemy, Great
Britain. "Of all the powers, England -
he said, was the one the United States
should refuse to blindly follow. II
would be a sorry day for this nation
when it's hands were tied by an agree
ment that gave Great Britain all she
asked, and compelled us to keep quiet
in the face of the policy that that ma
ton would continue to follow regard
less of any solemn pledge she might
give"
During the course of an analytical
criticism of the provisions of the treaty
Mr. Daniels said the members of the
supreme court ought not to be desig-
mated as members of the arbitration
tribunal He favored the insertion Of
an amendment that left the member
ship of that court to the president by
and with the advice and consent of the
senate.
Mr.. Hoar suggested that the mem
bers of the supreme court had already
been confirmed by the senate, and ar
ex-member of that body, was wei
known to the senate
THAT may be true" replied Mr.. Dan
iels. I'VE know the present members
of that court. and we know the mer
to be honorable gentlemen; but this
treaty is for the future. We do no
know who may be the members of this
tribunal in the future. All our presi-
dents have been good men and have
appointed good men, but we do no
know that all outcoming presidents
will be good men. or that they win bt
actual by the same motives that havt
r4-nO he