The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-02-17
Mr.. Roosevelt to Senator Collum.

NIL 1tOoSNSClt " AAuC HI
The following is President Roose-
velt's letter to Senator Cullom on the
arbitration treaties amendment:
The White House, Feb. 10.
My Dear Senator Cullom:.
I learn that the senate committee
on foreign relations has reported the
arbitration treaties to the senate,
amending them by substituting for the
word agreement" In the second ar
ticle the word treaty" The effect
of the amendment is to make it no
longer possible, as between the con-
tracing parties, to submit any mat
ter whatever to arbitration without
first obtaining a special treaty to
cover the case. This will represent,
not a step forward, but a step back
ward. If the word agreement" were
retained it would be possible for the
department of state to do, as for in
stance, it has already done under The
Hague treaty in the Pious fund ar
bitration case with Mexico, and sub
NIT to arbitration sue subordinate
matters as by treaty the senate had
decided could be left to the executive
~ ooDAAi III " u LII
tied by the general treaty Of arbitra-
ton. If the word treaty be SUBJ
stituted 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, indeed. in their amended form
they amount to a specific pronounce
ment against the whole principle of a
general arbitration treaty.
The senate has. of corse, the abso-
lutte right to reject or to amend i'll
any way it sees fit any treaty laid
before it, and it is clearly the duty
of the senate to take any step which.
in the exercise Of it's best judgment
it deems to be for the interest Of the
nation. If, however, in the Judgment
Of the president, a given amendment
nullifes a proposed treaty, it seems
to me that it 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 I have come to the conclusion
that l ought to write and tell you
that such is my judgment in this case.
AS amended We would have a trca-
ty Of arbitration which in effect will
do nothing but recite that this gov
eminent will, when it ieens il wise
hereafter, enter into treaties OF arbi-
tratlon. 1nasmuch as we, Of course,
now have the power to enter into
any treaties Of arbitration. and mas
much as to pass those amended treat
les does not in the smallest degree
facilitate settlements by arbitration,
to make them would in no way further
the cause of International peace. It
would not in my Judgment be wise
and expedient to try to secure the as
sent Of the other contracting powers
to the amended treaties. 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 wa-sa.
There would not eve be the slight
benefit that might obtain from TIE
mere general statement that we in
tend hereafter, when We can cone
to an agreement with foreign powers
as to what shall be submitted, 10 en-
ter into arbitration treaties; for we
have already, when we ratified The
Hague treaty with the various sigma
"a ooICkiIi1ly 0TCtdfGa S0IA
to be our intention: and nothing is
gained by reiterating our adherence
to h principle while refusing to pro-
il any means of making our inten-
ton effective.
In the amended form the treaties
contain nothing except such express
sionso Of barren intention; and indeed,
as compared with what has already
been provided for in The Hague ar
bitration treaty they probably repre-
sent not a step forward. but a slight
step backward as regards the aues-
ton OF International arbitration. As
such do not think hat they should
receive the sanction of this govern
ment. Personally it is not my opfn-
ion that this government lacks the
power TO enter into general treaties
of arbitration. but il I am in error
ond 10 this -c~orn-1~< ~1-w~-