The times., 1897-03-29

Senators interested in the matter that the
arbitration treaty cannot secure the two
thirds vote necessary to ratify it. Only
thirty votes are needed to defeat it, and u
poll OF the Senate shows there are now
thirty-five Senators opposed to the meas
ure.
1t is believed that unless the Senate
falls back upon the idea of Lord Sails bury,
and repudiates entirely the more advanced
ground taken by Mr Olney, the treaty is
bound To fail. Three times has this most
important convention been referred to the
Committee on Foreign Relations for con-
sideration and report. Three times has
that committee submitted its report, and
the debate thereon has been exhaustive
and prolonged, The longer il continues the
more likely it appears that t he treaty can
not get through the Senate.
When first reported the treaty was
amended so as to eliminate from its
terms all questions concerning the foreign
or domestic policy of either of the con-
tracing parties. Other amendments were
also made but this was the essential alter
alton which struck at the scope OF the
whole convention.
The debate in the Senate showed an un-
willingness TO accept it, even with this
amendment and late in the last session
il was sent back for further amendment
along the lines of the contention OF Mr..
Turpie, of Indiana, that the limitation OF
the scope was unnecessary, because each
question to be submitted had to be acted
upon by the Senate separately An amend
ment in accordance with this view was
reported, but no action had been had
when Mr.. Olney went out of the State
Department.
N.hcnthenegy Senate convened tie treaty
was again referred to the committee, and
again the committee reported an amend
ment along the same lines, but amplified
to a greater extent.
Only recently has the Salisbury idea
cropped out in the debate with sufficient
prominence to Justify the belief that the
majority OF the Senate was runnin in that
direction in the search for a solution of
the troublesome question.
The secret correspondence leading up to
the signing of this treaty showed that in
the outset Lord Salisbury contended that
under this general treaty OF arbitration only
claims involving pccuniary questions should
tions involving territorial possessions
boundary questions and subjects relative
to national honor and national policy. 1t
was only after the exchange OF two addi-
tional notes between the English premier
and Mr.. Olney, in which the latter insisted
that these questions be included, that Lord
Salisbury yielded and permitted them to
be covered by the convention
The Senate appears TO have come to the
determination that it Will agree to no con-
vention that seeks to cover any such ques-
tiops, or which may, in the future, be
Contorted into an agreement for that pur-
pose The fight that has been made to
insert modifying words and clauses has
tended To confuse Senators, and has Ger
tainly confused the pulic.
Those who are making the fight ttoretuTn
to the plan suggested by Lord Salisbury say
that If the Senate eliminates all questions
except those pertaining to pecuniary claims
the English premier cannOtdeCline TO agree
to this acceptance of his ownideas.
The movement in the direction OF strik-
ing out everything except pecuniary claims
Will necessarily weaken the vote against
the treaty, for many Senators who believe
in the arbitrament OF money claims win
never vote for treaty for the settlement
by the same means of questions involving
national policy or territorial claims.
If the ideas as originally expressed by
Lord Salisbury, and only these, are en-
bracei in thetreaty, it will be ratified with
out further delay. IF the vote is pressed
for the ratification of the treaty as it
stands today it Will be rejected by very
large vote.
The amendments of the committee have
strengthened the vote for the treaty, but
they have hot been powerful enough to re-
duCe the opposition below thirty votes.
There are three vacancies in the Senate,
and should the vote be taken before the
new Senator from Florida arrives the de-
feat of the treaty can be accomplished
with Twenty-Five votes.
The Senate would today vote thus upon
the treaty in its present state:
a gainst - MessTs. McEnery, Roach,
Mills, Daniel, Morgan, Berry, Walthall
CockreI, Chiffon, jones of A Arkansas, Faux
ner, Pettus Bate, Harris, German, Allen;
Pettigrew Carter, Baker, Mantle, Teller,
Quay, Penrose, Butler, Stewart, Jones of
Nevada, Bacon, Rawlins, Clay, Heitfeld.
Martin ,Sewell, Tillman, Turner, an White
Total, 50.
This list shows the full strength of the
supporters Of the treaty:
Mcssrs. Aldrich, Allison, Burrows, Caf-
| fiery, Cannon, Chandler, Clark, Cullom, Da
Wis, Earle. Elkins, Fairbanks, Foraker,
Frye, Gallinger, Gear, George, Gray, Hale,
Hanna, Hansbrough, Harris, awley,
Hoar, Kenny, X yle, Lindsay, Lodge, Nc
| Bride, Mcmillan, Mason, Mitchell, Morrill,,
Murphy, Nelson, Pasco, Perkins, Platt of
Connecticut, Plat of New York, Pritchard,
Proctor, Shoup, Smith, Spooner, Thurston,
Turpie, Vest, Warren, Wellington, Wetmore,
Wilson, and Wolcott Total, 50.