The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-03-06
The Senate and the President.

The controversy between the presi-
dent and the senate over tins arbitration
treaties is one that will not easily down.
1t is still warm in the minds of the peo
pie, and the discussion of the protocol
with Santo Domingo, now on in the SEN
ate, will serve to keep it alive.
Briefly, the position of the senate is
that it cannot, and perform its duty
under the constitution, give the execu-
tive carte blanche to put arbitration or
other treaties in force under the name
of agreements. By striking out the
word "agreement" and inserting the
word "treaty' it said in effect that
every individual instance of arbitration
under the general treaty would have to
come back to the senate to be ratified.
The president declines to submit the
emasculated treaties to the considera-
ton of foreign governments on the
ground that they are agreements which
do not accomplish anything. He al
ready has the power to negotiate par
ticular treaties and there would be no
point in telling foreign countries by
means of a general treaty that he
would at some future time, with the
consent of the senate, negotiate special
treaties with them. d.
In his letter to Senator Cullom the
president said that the treaties, as
amended by the senate, represented not
step forward in the cause of general
peace, but step backward, and the
president appears by the record to have
been right in using these very words.
| In 1S4S the United States concluded
with Mexico treaty containing an ar.
bitration claim which was ratified by
the senate with amendments and which
is today in force. It is useful, too, fol-
under its arbitration provision the
president three years ago submitted to
The Hague tribunal dispute over the
so-called Pious fund. If the senate is
right in its recent action, then the
treaty with Mexico more than halt
a century old is unconstitutional. Yet
no senate has ever protested against the
executives making use of that treaty
It would seem as tho the Mexican
rangement. 1t laid down line of ne
gotiation within which the executive
might act and no one has ever heard 6
whisper of its provisions being inimica
to the constitution. It was ratified b,
the senate at time when constitutions
Questions were much more mooted thar
they are now and when there were a.
great constitutional lawyers in the sen
ate as there are in that body today
Assuming that the treaty Of Guadalupe
Hidalgo was constitutional, the presen
attitude of the senate is step back
ward, because it makes impossible jus
such agreements as this, which ha
worked well and preserved the peace be
tween this country and Mexico since tn
war of 1916.
Besides, the senate five years ag
ratified The Hague convention or treaty
which provides that in case any tw
, countries wish to arbitrate any differ
, enee between them, they shall first max
) lup an agreement which viii defn
, clearly what that difference is. Obvi
| ously what the president asked for i
| the six arbitration treaties was elearl
defined authority to 90 ahead and max
. such agreements as often as a cas-
? might arise. And Just as clearly th
= senate's refusal to give this authorit