Los Angeles herald., 1905-02-12

clearly his duty to refrain from en-
deavoring to secure a ratification of
the amended treaty.
Presidents Letter
1.-THE White House, Washington, ID.
c., Feb 10, 1895. My Dear Senator
Cullom-I learn that the senate COM
mittee on foreign relations has re-
ported 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 possible. as between its con-
tracing parties, to submit any matter
whatever to arbitration without first
obtaining a special treaty to cover
the case. This will represent not
step forward, but step backward.
"If the word agreement were re-
taned it would be possible for the de-
partment of state to do as, for in
stance, it has already done under The
Hague treaty in the Plus fund arbi-
tration case with Mexico, and submit
to arbitration such subordinate mat
ters as by treaty the senate had de-
cided could be left to the executive to
submit under a jurisdiction limited
by the general treaty of arbitration.
"If 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 gen.
eral arbitration treaty.
International Peace Not Aided
"The senate has, of course, the alb
solute right to reject or to- amend in
any way it sees fit any treaty laid be-
fore 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, given amendment
nullifies a proposed treaty, it seems to
me that it is no less clearly his duty
to refrain from endeavoring to secure
a ratification of the other contracting
power or powers of the amended
treaty; and after much thought 1 have
come to the conclusion that 1 ought to
write and tell you that such is my
judgment in this case.
"As amended, we would have a
treaty of arbitration which in effect
will do nothing but to recite that this
government wiz when it 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 to pass those amended
treaties does not in the smallest degree
facilitate settlements by arbitration,
to make them would in no way further
the cause of international peace.
Taking Backward Step
at would not, in my judgment, be
wise or eXpedient to try to secure the
assent of the other contracting powers
to the amended treaty, for even if such
assent were secured we should still re-
main precisely Wnere we were DetOre, |
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 gem
eral statement that we intend here
after, when we can come to an agree
ment with foreign powers as to what
shall be submitted, to enter into arbi-
hation treaties for we have already, |
when we ratified The Hague treaty
with the various signatories, solemnly
declared such to be our intention; and |
nothing is gained by reiterating our
adherence to the principle while re-
fusing to provide any means of making
our intention effective,
In the amended form the treaties con-