The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1905-03-08
ROOSEVELT CRITICIZED
Senate Amends Arbitration Treaties
Despite Presidents Letter
VOTE WAS FIFTY TO NINE
Senators Insisted That the senate s!,ould
Preserve Its Right to Participate in
the Making Of Treaties Without Re-
gard to the Presidents wishes-Letter
Of h Executive Resented.

Washington. D. C.-The Senate rati-
ned seven arbitration treaties, after
amending them by striking out the
word agreement" in Article II. and
inserting the word treaty" This was
the answer of the Senate to the Presi-
dents Letter to Senator Cullom. where.
in he indicated that if the Senate exsr-
cised it's prerogative"to amend tile
treaties he had submitted, as conten-
plated, he would decline to exchange
ratiicattons. The vote on the amend
ment was so to 8. Appeals for delay
were voted down. a motion to adjourn
was defeated by As TO L.. and the Sen-
ate held two executive sessions to dis
pose of the treaties once and for all.
The feeling in the Senate was in
tense. though the expressions Of Sena-
tors were couchad in temperate Ian
guage. There was more under than
on the surface. References to the
Santo Domingo situation were both
yelled and indirect. but the Senators
present thoroughly understood that
their action was intended to be a hint
to the President not to 90 too fast in
dealing with complicated foreign af-
fairs without consulting the coequai
treaty making power.
Statements clearly indicating that
the Senators were aware Of the gravity
Of the situation were made by such
close friends of the President and the
Administration as Messrs. Lodge. For
aker and Spooner, who insisted that
the Senate should preserve its constitu-
tional right to participate in the max
ing of treaties without regardsto the
desires Of the President. Party lines
were forgotten IN the discussion. The
Overwhelming vote on the amendment
was a sufficient indication Of the feel
ing Of the Senate.
The difficulty arose owe An effort ny
the Senate to have itself consulted III
cases of arbitration. 1T sought to
amend the arbitration treaties so as t"
necessitate having every agreement
for arbitration submitted to it for rati-
ticatiou, amendments OF rejection. The
President strongly objected to any
such procedure.
The publication Of his letter consid-
erabIy Jared the Senate'S notions OF
etiquette. as the treaties are supposed
to be held under the strict seal of Sc
crecy and are being: considered by the
Senate in all the profound mystery and
impenetrability OF secret sessions. The
President so far disregarded this Sc
crecy as to that the Commit
tee on Foreign Relations has amended
the treaties by substituting the word
treaty" for the word agreement.
The publication of his letter created
the impression that he thinks it moro
important for the public to understand
the situation with regard to the treat;
les than for the Senace's sensiDilltles
to be respected. -
The arbitration treaties are with
Great =: Britain. France, Germany,
Switzerland. Norway and Sweden.
They are identlcal. in terms. Despite
the strict secrecy with which the Sen
ate has been guarding their contents,
and even their existence. it was learned
that Article II. of each treaty makes
this provision:
I'm each individual case the high
contracting parties before appealing to
the Permanent Court Of Arbitration
shall conclude a special agreement de-
timing clearly the matter in dispute
The Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations changed the word agree
'ment"s to treaty" This was TO COM
pel the submission Of the arbitration III
each case to the Senate before permit
ting any arbitration, so that the Senate
might have a chance to change the
definition of the matters in dispute.
The action taken was largely affected
by the resentment over the Presidents
ignoring of the Senate in the matter or
the Santo Domingo protocol, but it was
really the eutgrowth of a bitterness
that has been growing for i long time.