The Wisconsin tobacco reporter. (Edgerton, Wis.) 1877-1950, 1905-02-17
Senate Offended at the Presi-
dents Letter to Cullom on
the Treaties.
DOES JUST WHAT HE OPPOSED
Proposed Treaties Made Step Back
ward, in His Stated Views.
Pointed Extracts from the Letter,
Which ForeteIl the Death of
All the Conventions Ne.
gotiated.

Washington. Feb. 13.-The friction
between the president and the senate
over the arbitration treaties, although
there is no acrimony developed so far,
1s the question of the hour here. The
presidents letter to Senator Cullom,
chairman of the senate foreign affairs
committee, was like red rag to a
bull" and made certain the action of
the senate (Which was almost certain
before in insisting upon modifying
these treaties. Colonel John W. Eos
ter, president Of the National Arbitra-
non Conference, says that so far as his
colleagues were concerned the word
agreement in the proposed treaties
meant the same as treaty" and they
never contemplated the president max
ing these agreements" without the
advice and consent of the senate.
He hoped the president would find a
way to reconcile the difference between
himself and the senate.
Represents a Step Backward,
But the presidents letter to Cullom,
does not look that way, and when Gull
lOm read it to the senate in executive
session it caused a mild sensation.
The salient points Of his letter follow:
II learn that the senate committee on
foreign relations has reported the arbi-
tration treaties to the senate amend
Ing them by substituting for the word
agreement in the second article the
ment is to make it no longer possible,
as between the contracting parties, TO
submit any matter whatever to arbi-
tration without first obtaining a spe-
cial treaty to cover the case. This will
represent not step forward, but
step backward.''
Will Drop the Whole Batch.
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
would amount to specific pronounce
ment against the whole principle of a
general arbitration treaty.
If, however, in the judgment of the
president q given amendment. nullifies
a proposed treaty it seems to me that
1t is no less clearly his duty to re
frain from endeavoring to secure IL
ratification by the other contracting
power or powers of the amended
treaty; and after much thought have
come to the conclusion that | ought to
write and tell you that such is my
Judgment in this ease"
Nothing Whatever Accomplished.
ut would not, in my judgment, be
wise or eXpedient to try to secure the
assent of the other contracting powers
to the amended treaties, for even if
such assent were secured we should
still remain precisely where we We're
before. save where the situation NAV
be changed a little for the worse.
- Personally it is not my opin-
ion that this government lacks the
power to enter into general treaties
of arbitration, but if am in error, and
II this government has no power to
enter into such geneal treaties, then it
seems to me that it is better not 10
attempt to make them rather than to
make the attempt in such shape that
they shall accomplish literally nothing
whatever when made"