New-York tribune., 1905-02-11
TREATIES To BE RATIFIED.
DISCUSSED IN SENATE.
arbitration Conventions To Be Ap-
proved as Amended.
rrRou THE TRIBUNE BUREAU. ]


Washington Feb. 10-The arbitration treaties
between the United States and European gov
ernments were under discussion two hours to-
day In executive session of the Senate The
debate demonstrated the utter impossibllity OF
ratifying the treaties without the amendment
made in committee, which consists of the SUD-
stitution of the word treaties for agree
ments." The discussion was. In the opinion or
the leaders. practically ended, but ratification
could not be effected tonight because Senator
Morgan indicated his desire to deliver another
speech. He vigorously opposed the treaties and
declared the principle of arbitration to be un-
desirable. He insisted that in the future, as In
the past. when dispute arose with foreign ma
tons, the United States was certain TO De In
the right. and he did not believe that, after
diplomatic resources had been exhausted. the
difference should be submitted to arbitration.
which invariably resulted in compromise. ire
spective Of the equities of the case In support
of this argument he cited the Alaskan boundary
arbitration. in which. he declared. the equity OF
the position maintained by the United States
manifest, but, although the decision was
substantially in favor of this country partial
compromise had to be accepted. Mr. Morgan be-
lieved it more honorable to fight for the right
than to submit to arbitration and the inevita-
BILE compromise" He further insisted that the
ratification of the pending treaties would COM
of arbitration, which he opposed.
ARBITRATION DEFENDED
Senator Spooner made vigorous defence Of
the principle of arbitration and of the treaties
submitted He expressed the belief that the
change OF the word agreement" to treaty
made no real difference in the legal meaning OF
the treaties, in any event such agree
ment could properly be effected without the ad-
vice and consent of the Senate. He favored the
amendment, however, because It made the terms
of the treaties more explicit leaving no room for
doubt as to the value OF the special agreements
proposed, and because he appreciated that with
out the amendment it would be impossible to
secure ratification. He admitted the correctness
of Mr. Morgan's assertion that the treaties, once
ratified. would bind the Senate in honor to the
principle of arbitration, and believed that to be
desirable
Senator Fairbanks urged that the treaties be
ratified without amendment because the change
OF the single word made no difference in their
legal meaning, and because he feared the adop-
ton of the amendment would be regarded by
foreign government arguing want of con-
fdence in the President on the part of the Sen
ate. He declared that it would be dangerous
for this government or any part of it to permit |
foreign nations to suspect that the Senate dis |
trusted the President.
Replying to Senator Fairbanks, Senator !
Spooner said it was not within the power OF |
the Senate. regardless of what might be consid- |
cred either expedient or desirable. Ito abrogate
its constitutional privilege of ratifying all agree
ments with foreign countries" and declared that
it must advise and consent to all treaties with
foreign countries
Senators Teller and Bacon insisted on the |
amendment Mr.. Teller intimating plainly that !
ratification could not be accomplished unless /
the amendment were agreed to-
Senator Platt. of Connecticut opposed the
amendment as unnecessary. declaring that it !
made no actual change in the treaties He was !
emphatic in his assertion that any special agree
ment defining the scope of an arbitration would /
have to be submitted TO the Senate for ratiica-
tion. irrespective Of the terms used to describe /
such special agreement.
Senator Lodge supported the amendment cit /
ing the fact that the arbitration treaties with a !
number of South American republics recently /
ratified, although prescribing far narrower limits ,
within which arbitration should be operative /
provided for precisely the special agree
ments as did the treaties under discussion and /
used the words special treaties" He further /
pointed out that in the Hague treaty of July 2s |
1899, Article 81 read:
The powers who have recourse to arbitration |
sign a special act (compromise), in which the !
subject of the difference is clearly defined as {
well as the extent of the arbitrators' power.
AS defining the word "act" (compromise), as !
used in this article. he pointed to Article 4S !
which reads:
The tribunal is authorized to declare its COM /
petence IN interpreting the compromise" as |
well as the other" which may be invoked in the I
case, etc.
From this Mr., Lodge argued that the Hague |
convention itself anticipated that treaties defin-
ing the scope of the arbitration would be ne !
gotiated and ratified where the laws or the con-
stitution provided that ratification was essen |
tial to the validity of the treaties
II is expected that one more executive session /
will serve to close the debate and that the |
treaties will be ratified as amended