Martinsburg independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1875-1900, 1897-05-08
ARBITRATION DEFEATED.
The Senate Rejects the Proposed
Treaty With England,
SEVERAL SENATORS NOT VOTING.

The Defeat OF the Treaty, Says Sem
ator Davis, Was Due to Great Brit
aims Attitude in European Politics
and Her Designs on the TransvaaI.
Washington. May 6-The senate
yesterday, by vote of 43 to Is, refused
to ratify the general arbitration treaty
between the United States and Great
Britain negotiated by Secretary Olney
ana Sir Julian Pauncefote The rules
of the senate require a majority of two
thirds for the ratification of treaties.
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, Caffery,
Clay, Cullom. Davis, Deboe. Fairbanks,
Faulkner, Foraker, Frye, Gallinger, Gear,
Gray, Hale, Hanna, Hawley, Hoar, Lind
say. Lodge. Mcbride, McEnerery, McMil-
lin, Mitchell. Morrill,, Nelson, Pasco,
Perkins, Platt of Connecticut. Platt of
New York. Pritchard, Proctor, Smith,
Spooner, Thursten, Turpie. Vest, Wal
thall, Warren, Wellington Wetmore, Will
son.
Nays Baker, Bate, Butler. Carter.
Cockrell, Daniel Hansbrough, Harris of
Kansas, Harris of Tennessee. Heitfeld,
Jones of Arkansas. Jones of Nevada,
Kyle, Martin, Mason, Mills, Morgan, PEN
rose, Pettigrew. Pettus, Quay, Rawlins.
Roach. Shoup. Stewart, White.
A total of So votes was cast, leaving
10 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 instances: Chandler and Clark,
for, with Teller against; Tillman and
Turner, for, with Chiffon against;
Sewell and Earle, for, with Mantell
against. Senator George was paired
for the treaty and Senator Berry
against it. Pairs were not announced
for Aldrich, Cannon, Elkins. German,
Murphy, Wolcott, Kenny and Allen.
The vote was preceded by a short
but spirited debate, introduced by
Senator Mills, of Texas, who made a
strong appeal to the senate against
ratifying the agreement. He asserted
that as amended the document was
most Objectionable, not to say contra
dictory in terms. He pointed out es-
pecially the provisions for the settle
ment of controversies in regard to ter
ritorial claims, and asserted that
whereas the amendment adopted by the
senate to the first article of the treaty
declared against their inclusion, the
sixth and eighth articles made pro-
vision for them. He held that as long
as these articles remained unchanged
England justly could claim that ques-
tons of territorial rights were still in
cluded 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 upon the reference of
dispute to arbitration? He spoke of the
conduct of England in connection with
the Graeco-T Turkish war, and implored
the senate to protect the United States
against the proposed alliance.
The covert opposition to ratification
was made very manifest after the vote
was announced. Some senators who
were recorded among the yeas spoke
quite openly of Objectionable features,
confessing that they had cast their
votes in the affirmative in deferenee to
public opinion Among those who
waited in the senate corridors to re-
ceive the news was Mr.. Michael Davitt,
who appeared much pleased at the re-
suit.
Senator Davis, chairman of the COM
mittee on foreign relations, declined to
express an opinion for publication, but
talked freely with his friends To
them he attributed the defeat to the
feeling of dissatisfaction at England's
course in the struggle of the Creeks
and in the Armenian massacres, and
with the evident designs of Great
Britain upon the Transvaal.