The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-03-30
No "Modus Vlvendi" This.

No "Modus Vlvendi" This.
Let us straighten out the terminology,
first Of all. A modus vivendi Is defined
by the Standard Dictionary as follows:
-IndplomAey. Atsmporary arrangement between
two SoversEntles for the conduct Of certain snArS
pending negotiations for a treaty on the same cub.
jeot.-
The Century Dictionary has it thus:
\ Temporary arrangement pending settlement
OF matters In debate, as between two nations"
A more exact definition, in the diplo-
matte sense, occurs in the Treaty Max
ing Power Of the United States com
piled by the present official reporter Of
the Supreme Court Of the United States:
a modus ylysndl Is an agreement, between two
or more nations as to their conduct In regard 10
matters In dispute pending the adjustment thereof
That Is to say, It Is temporary treaty or conven'
lion limited TO a period which a. a general nllo IL
very brief
The foregoing definition is illustrated
by the following instances Of the modus
vlvendi:
That between this Government and
Great Britain in 1885, by which certain
arrangements we're made for the six
months succeeding the date OF the termi-
nation of the fishery clauses in the Treaty
Of Washington OF 1871. The object Of
this modus vivendi was 70 avert con-
fiicts in the North Atlantic fisheries
which might lead to strife between the
two nations.
The modus vivendl Of 1888, relating
to the same subject and for the same
purpose.
The modus vivendi Of 1891, with Great
Britain, for the protection Of the fur seals
pending the arbitration at Paris. This
arrangement was covered by formally
ratified convention and was really a
treaty.
A modus vvendi with Russia in 1894,
also for the protection OF the fur seal
This, too, was ratified by the Senate.
To these examples we may add the
modus vivendi arranged with Great
Britain by Secretary HAY for the pre-
vention of conflict and the possibility Of
war over questions arising out Of the
Alaskan boundary dispute This ar
rangement endured until the delimitation
of the boundary by the Commissioners
at London.
In all these instances, and in every
other case where a modus vivendi has
been in force between two nations, the
purpose was 10 prevent a clash before
the regular settlement Of a dispute. The
existence Of a dispute or controversy
between two nations temporarily agree
ing to refrain from the full assertion
Of what they respectively regard as
their rights is the essential feature Of
the modus vivendi. II is a temporary
compromise, an armistice, a method Of
getting along peaceably until diplomatic
negotiations dispose or fail 10 dispose Of
some question acutely in issue.
What dispute or controversy or clash
OF interests now exists between the Gov
eminent Of the United States and that Of
the Dominican Republic requiring a
modus vivendi? What dispute exists, 50
far as is publicly known, between the
United States and any foreign Power on
the face Of the globe over any question
concerning Santo Domingo7
What the President now proposes to do
In Santo Domingo for the protection OF
the Morales Administration there and the
benefit Of European creditors Of the re-
public cannot be done as a modus viven-
di. That term is grotesquely inappro-
pirate TO the proposed proceeding.
How can it be done lawfully We
know Of but two constitutional ways in
which the Executive Department Of the
United States Government can become
the administrator of the finances Of Santo
Domingo and the protector Of Sehor
MORALES.
The first Is by a treaty duly ratified
that is TO say, approved by two-thirds of
the Senators Of the United States present
and voting.
The second way is by Joint resolution
adopted by majority vote in both SEN
ate and House and approved by the
President like any other law.
Perhaps there is nothing in the Con-
stitution that prevents Mr. ROOSEVELT,
in his personal and private capacity,
from acting as receiver Of the Dominican
Republic at President MoRALEss re-
quest. But it is clear enough that his
usefulness in that office would be limited
10 purely personal activity. The moment
the efficient performance Of his duties as
receiver and protector required the use
Of the ships and guns and soldiers and
sailors Of the United States no would be
decidedly at a loss for lawful authority
10 employ them.
POliteness az Albany.