The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-02-12
ing letter from the President to him, which
was read by the Secretary.
THE PRFsIpFNT'a LETTER.

THE PREsIDENT'a LETTER.
THE WHITE HoUsr,w AshSoroS, Feb. 10,
my DEAR SENATOR CULIoN;
i learn that tho Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations has reported the arbitra'
ton treaties to the Senate, amending them
by substituting for the word agreement
ia the second article the word treaty
The effect Of the amendment Is to make it
no longer possible, as between its contract
ing rartiee. 10 submit any matter whatever
10 arbitration without first obtaining a
special treaty to cover the case This
will represent not n step forward, but It
step backward. If the word agreement
we're retained IL would be possible for
the Department Of State to do as, for in
stance 1t has already done under tie Hague
nosty in tie Tious Fund arbitration case
i'm Mexico. and submit 10 arbitration such
sui ordinate matters as by treaty the Sera te
lad decided could be left TO the Executive
70 submit under a Jurisdiction limited by
;he genera! treaty OF arbitration II The
word treaty be substituted. the result Is
that every such agreement must be submit =
ted 10 the same; and these general arbitra-
ton treaties viii then cease to he such ana
indeed in their amended form they amount
to a specific pronouncement against the
whole principle Of a general arbitration
treaty
The Senate, has Of course, the absolute
right 10 reject or 10 amend in any way 1t
secs III any treaty laid before 1t, and IL is
clearly the duty OF the Senate TO take any
step which. in the exercise Of its best Judg-
ment. it deems to be for the interest OF the
nation If, however. in the judgment OF
the President. n given amendment nulilies
a proposed treaty II seems to me that 1t
Is no less clearly his duty TO refrain from
endeavoring to secure a ratification by
the other contracting Power or Powers OF
the amended treaty; and after much thought
! have come to the conclusion that ought
20 write and tell you that such Is my Iudg-
ment in this case.
AS amended we would have n treaty OF
arbitration which in effect will do nothing
hut recite that this Government will, when
il deems it wise hereafter enter into treaties
Of arbitration, Inasmuch as we Of course
now have the power to enter into any
treaties of arbitration, and inasmuch as
10 pass these amended treaties does not
in the smallest degree facilitate settle
ment by arbitration, TO make them
would in no way further the cause OF
international peace. 1t would not, in my
judgment. be wise or expedient TO try to
secure the assent Of the other contracting
Powers TO the amended treaties for even II
such crrcat were secured We should still re-
main precisely where We were before. save
where the situation may be changed
little for tho worEe There would not even
be the slight benefit that might OBJ
tain from the more general statement
that we intend hereafter, when we can come
10 en- agreement with foreign Powers as
10 what snail he submitted TO enter into
arbitration treaties, for We have already,
" hen % ratified the Hague treaty with the
yarious signatory Powers, solemnly de-
clared such TO be our intention and nothing
IL gained by reiterating our adherence to
the principle while refusing 10 provide any
means Ct making our intention effective.
In the amended form the treaties con-
tain nothing except such expression OF
barren intention and. indeed as compared
with what has already been provided for
IN the Hague arbitration treaty. they proba-
bly represent not "A step forwAri but slight
step back ward as regards the question of
International arbitration. As such do not
sanction Of this Government. Person
ally it is not my opinion that
this Government lacks the power
to enter into general treaties Of arbitration,
but il am in error, and this Government
has no po wer to enter into such general
treaties, then it seems TO me that it is better
not TO attempt to make them rather than
to make the attempt in such shape that
they shall accomplish literally nothing
whatever when made. Sincerely yours,
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
THE LETTER DISCUSSED.
Immediately discussion arose on the
letter Mr. Morgan, who had intended
10 make a speech in opposition to the ratifi-
cation Of the treaties, whether amended
or not, seized upon the Presidents letter
IS another example Of executive interior
ence with the prerogatives Of the Senate.
He insisted that the President had no
more right to interfere with the Senate
when considering the ratification OF treaties
than the Senate had to interfere with the
negotiation Of treaties He recognized
that II was the duty of the President to
negotiate treaties. and insisted that it was
equally the duty of The Senate to consider
and, II desirable, to amend them.
Mr. Spooner spoke in the same vein. He
denied that the ratification Of the treaties
az amended, would be step backward
ns stated by the President 1t would. said
MIR Spooner, be distinct step forward, as
it would definitely pledge this Government
20 submit TO arbitration differences which
may arise Of legal nature, or relating to
the Interpretation of treaties.
Mr. Spooner waived aside the statement
by Mr. Morgan that the Presidents letter
was evidence Of a desire TO interfere with
the prerogative Of the Senate, The Senate
he said. could look cut for itself. 1t was
charged by the Constitution with the duty
Of advising ana consenung to treaties,
which included the power TO amend or
reject them. He urged the Senate to sup
port unanimously the amendment Of the
Committee on Foreign Relations. substi-
tuting the word treaty for agreement, =
80 that any arbitration arrangements here
after made sha Il be subjected to the scrutiny
and app roval Of the Senate.
THE PIoUs FUND PRECEDENT.
Mr. Spooner referred to that portion Of
the Presidents letter giving the Pi5us Fund
arbitration protocol as a precedent for
independent action by the Executive in sup
hitting differences with foreign govern
ments to arbitration. Mr.. Spooner insisted
that the Pious Fund protocol should have
been submitted to the Senate for its advice