The San Francisco call., 1905-02-12

treaties, it was argued, offered to this
Government the best chance it wa'
likely to have in this generation to d.
its share toward the abolition of the
barbarisms of war.
After the speeches by Senators Plat
/ of Connecticut, Dolliver and Fairbanks
! a motion to adjourn was made on thu
ground that there was no need fol
hasty action on the treaties. Those whC
+ favored the amendment opposed thi:
motion and on roll call it was de-
feated.
A motion was then made to adopt tht
committees amendment The vote wa.
then taken on the treaty between the
Unied States and France, as the Other
treaties are on identical lines. The rol
was called and the amendment was
adopted by vote of 80 to 9. When this
10 as far as the other treaties were
concerned, and the treaties were rati.
ned by viva voce vote. The Senate
then, at 6:2O p. m., adjourned.
The Presidents letter to Senator Cul-
lom was as follows:
'The White House, Washington, D.
c., Feb. 10 1905.--My Dear Senator Cul-
,onl: ] learn that the Senate Commit
tee on Foreign Relations has reported
the arbitration treaties TO the Senate,
amending them by substituting for the
word agreement in the second article
the word treaty. The effect of the
amendment is to make 1t no longer pos
sible. as between its contracting par
ties, to submit any matter whatever to
arbitration without first obtaining a
special treaty to cover the case. This
viii represent not step forward, but
a step backward. If the word agree
ment' were retained it would be pos
sible for the Department of State to
do as, for instance, ii has already done
under The Hague treaty in the pious
fund arbitration case with Mexico, and
submit to arbitration such subordinate
matters as by treaty the Senate had
decided could be left to the executive
to submit under a jurisdiction limited
by the general treaty OF arbitration.
II the word treaty be substituted the
result is that every such agreement
must be submitted to the Senate; and
these general arbitration treaties
would then cease to be such, and, in
deed, in their amended form they
amount to a specific pronouncement
against the whole principle of a gen.
eral arbitration treaty.
The Senate has Of course, the alb
solute right 10 reject or amend in any
way it sees MT any treaty laid before
it, and il is clearly the duty of the
Senate to take any step which. in the
exercise Of its best Judgment, it deems
to be for the interest of the nation. If,
however, in the judgment Of the Pres
ident. a given amendment nullifies a
proposed treaty, il seems to me that it
is no less clearly his duty to refrain
from endeaVoring to secure a ratifica-
tion by the other contracting power or
powers of the amended treaty; and
after much thought I have come to the
conclusion that 1 ought to write and
tell you that such is my judgment in
this case.
las amended, we would have a
treaty of arbitration which in effect
will do nothing but to recite that this
Government will, when it deems it
wise, hereafter enter into treaties of
arbitration. Inasmuch as we, of
course, now have the power to enter
into anv treaties of arbitration and in
asmuch as to pass those amended
treaties does not in the smallest de-
gree facilitate settlements by arbi-
tration, to make them would N 40
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 pow
ers TO the amended treaty, for even if
such assent were secured we should
still remain precisely where we were
before, save where the situation may
be changed a little for the worse
There would not even be the slight
benefit that might obtain from the
more general statement that we in
tend hereafter, when we can come to
an agreement with foreign powers as
to what shall be submitted, to enter
into arbitration treaties; for we have
already, when We ratified The Hague
treaty with the various signatories,
solemnly declared such to be our in
tention; and nothing is gained by re-
iterating our adherence to the prin-
ciple while refusing to provide any
means of making our intention ef-
fective. In the amended form the
treaties contain 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 step forward, but
a slight step backward as regards the
question of international arbitration.
AS such 1 do not think that they
would receive the sanction Of this
Government.
Personally, it is not my opinion
that. this Government lacks the pow
er TO enter into general treaties of ar
bitration, but if 1 am in error and If