The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1897-03-10
A very Great and Auspicious.

From a letter written at the request
of some Philadelphia gentleman
THE tree principal criticisms OF
the treaty are, tirse, that it commits
this government to submitting TO ar
bitration questions that may arise in
connection with the Monroe doctrine.
With sincere respect for the gentle,
men who, it is said, have suggested
this objection, think that it is quite
unfounded, and that those who have
advanced it must have failed to Oh
serve the careful language used in the
treaty.
The words upon which the criticism
is based are found in Art. w., as
follows:
Gall other matters in difference, in
repect of which either Of the hegh
contracting parties shall have rights
against the other under the treaty CT
otherwise.
What, then, are "rights against the
other"? In the theory of the munich
pal state and of all its autonomy, the
rights of one citizen against another
are essentially and exclusively those
things that the law of the state enjOins
upon each in regard, to the order. This
is the whole definition. Precisely the
same is true in International law.
This, I believe, all writer's on national
and international law agree in.
To illustrate these propositions,
take it that the United States has no
rights against Great Britain in regard
to her operations in Abyssinia, nor
would she haveany rights against us ii
we were to attempt TO share III the
partition of Africa.
In the case of Turkey, if we were to
seize the whole OF Asia Minor and
establish peace ami order there las the
British have done, in substance, in
Egypt We should have invaded no
right of any power except Turkey.
The same is of course, true in re-
spect of our relations and conduct With
the states of the western hemisphere
under the Monroe doctrine, or under
any other policy that we may think it
just TO adopt.
Tt was, then, the clear and perfectly
understood distinction between the
rights of one nation against another,
and their interests and policies in re-
gard to other nations, that doubtless
led to separate treaty in regard to the
Venezuelan question for both govern
ments knew that the affair could not
possible come within the scope of the
general treaty.
You will see, therefore, that the
phrase of the treaty which is criticised
is the most apt possible to mark the
doctrine unaffected.
The second objection is the fear that
the treaty may affect our attitude u re-
gard to the Nicaragua canal, in which
the interests Of the United States are
so deeply concerned. What [ have
already said disposes of that solicitude
have no time to 60 into detail about
it.
The third and last objection I have
heard is the supposed danger of leav-
ing it to any European power to name
an umpire in certain contingencies.
It is enough to say that, so far as our
considerable experience has gone in
such matters, we have never had oc-
casion to complain of the action of any
sovereign in naming an umpire or in
deciding dispute.
In the great arbitration treaty OF
1871 we agreed that three members OF
the Geneva tribunal should be named
by three sovereigns, two of them
Europeans, and t. at if any or all of
these members, the King of Sweden
should name them all. And, in the
same treaty, he did not hesitate to sub.
NIT the very important question of our
boundary on the Pacific coast to the
Emperor of Germany.
am all intense supporter of the
Monroe doctrine. / believe the build
ing Of the Nicaragua canal under the
auspices of the United States to be of
urgent necessity.
I believe most earnestly in iEterna-
tioral arbitration to the utmost extent
that civilized, just and self-respecting
nations can go; and 1 most earnestly
hope that the Senate will ratify the
treaty as it is proposed as the first step
very great and auspicious-toward
the attainment of peace among ma
tions."