New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-05-28
TREATY MAKING POWER.
Secretary Taft Defends the PreSi-
dents Attitude.

Cincinnati. May 27.-Direrences between the
President and the Senate over arbitration
treaties were discussed by Secretary Taft to-
day in an address at the annual commencement
of the Cincinnati Law School. His subject was
Delegation of Delegated Power" He said;
While recent attempt to maintain a delega-
ton Of delegated power was defeated for the
time, think. with Difference to the great law
yers who denied its validity, that such delega-
ton of delegated power will ultimately come 10
be recognized permissible.
The treaty making power of the United States
is committed to the President by and with the
consent of the Senate, two-thirds thereof con-
curing. A treaty when properly made and con-
frmed is the law Of the land. The treaty
making power is therefore analogous to the ex-
ecutive power. 1t is a delegated power. and
the rule against the delegation of such delegated
power is certainly as strong as against the dele
cation of legislative power This is expressly
recognized in the decision of the Supreme Court
IN respect to the reciprocity clause OF the NC
Kinley bill.
BY treaty with a number of powers the
United States agreed to the establishment OF
an international court at The Hague before
which might be submitted controversies and diff
ferences between the contracting powers, and
this treaty referred to and contemplated the
making OF general treaties OF arbitration be-
tween each two Of the contracting parties
These treaties were submitted to the Senate
Tor confirmation, and the Senate cOntending
that the special agreement provided in the
second clause could not have any validity on the
Cnited States unless 1t was concurred in by the
Senate changed the word agreement to
treaty" in order that this construction should
not be doubtful. The President regarded a
treaty agreeing to arbitration as mere agree
ment to agree and as making successful step
toward general arbitration OF differences
The position of the President was that, for
the purpose of facilitating the settlement of in
territorial disputes, 1t was within the competence
OF the President and the Senate. as the treaty
making power to agree with another nation that
all controversies within a certain defined class
should be submitted to the Hague tribunal and
to provide that the President might, without
further consulting the Senate, by agreement
with the representatives of the other power, de-
me clearly the matter in dispute, the scope of
the powers of the arbitrators the periods to be
fixed for the formation Of the abitral tribunal
ana the safe stages of the procedure
Inc argument is that, in order that the treaty
making power may be efficiently used and that
international controversies may be speedily sent
or confirmation by the Senate, the President and
the Senate may, after defining the classes of
controversies to be settled by arbitration and
hiking the court before which such classes Of
controversies are to be settled confer upon the
Executive the power to decide for the United
states whether the controversy in question Is
within the class Of controversies defined in the
treaty and confer the power, BY subordinate
agreement, to define the issues OF the contro-
versy and to fix the details OF the procedure
The mere mandate to the President to decide
whether controversy is within class of con-
troverSies with respect to which those two ma
lions have by binding treaty agreed that fhev
may be submitted to the Hague Tribunal is
not delegation of the treaty making power at
all 1t is mere comforting OF Executive discre-
ton, involving the construction OF statute or
what is the same thing a treaty
1t is to be hoped that the question may be re-
examined at some future time and that some
method may be devised by which general arbi-
tration treaties may be promptly applied to in
ternational differences without having to Sc
cure in each instance Of their application the
consent OF two-thirds Of the Senate