The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-02-12
ROOSEVELT'S PROTEST
OBJECTS TO CHANGE IN THE AR-
 EXPIRATION TREATIES.
President Says that Such Course is n Step Backward and VIII Destroy
 Effect of the Articles.

Washington, Feb. 11.-President Roosevelt has addressed a letter to Senator Cullom, chairman of the com mittee on foreign relations, statinS that the action of that committee in substituting for the word agreement the word treaty is, in his opinion, not a step forward, but a step back ward. If the word treaty" is substi- tuted the treaties would amount to . specific announcement against the whole principle of a general arbitra- ton treaty The President also says, that if in the judgment of the Presi- dent an amendment nullifies pro- posed treaty it seems to him that 10 no less clearly is his duty to refrain from endeavoring to secure a ratlfica- tion of the amended treaty.
 The letter is as follows:
 The White House,
 Washington, D. C., Feb. 10, 1905.
 My Dear Senator Collum:-I learn that the Senate committee on foreign relations has reached the arbitration treaties to the Senate. amending them by substituting for the word agree ment' in the seconl article, the word treaty The effect of the amendment Is to make 1t no longer possible, as between the contracting parties to sub init any matter whatever to arbitra- tion without first obtaining special treaty to cover the case. This will represent not a step forward, but a step backward.
 If the word agreement were re- tained it would be possible for the des partment to do as for instance 1t has already done under the Hague treaty in the Plus fund arbitration case with Mexico and submit to arbitration such subordinate matters as by treaty the Senate had decided could be left to the executive to submit under a juris- diction limited by the general treaty of arbitration. If the word treaty be substituted, the result is that every such agreement must be submitted to the Senate and these general arbitra- ton treaties would cease to be such as indeed in their amended form, they amount to a specific pronouncement against the whole people of a general arbitration treaty.
 The Senate has, of course, the ab- solute right to reject or amend in any way 1t sees fit any treaty laid before it, and it is clearly the duty of the Senate to take any step which in the exercise of its best judgment 1t deems to be fot the interest of the nation. If, how ever, in the judgment of the President, given amendment nullifies a pro- posed treaty, 1t seems to me that 1t is no less clearly his duty to refrain from endeavoring to secure @ ratification by the other contracting power or powers of the amended treaty and after such thought I have come to the conclusion that I ought to write and tell you that such is my judgment in this case.
 "As amended we would have a treaty of arbitration which in effect will do nothing, but to recite that this Gov ernment will, when 1t deems it wIse hereafter enter into treaties of arbi- tration. masmuch as we of course now have the power to enter into any treaties of arbitration to pass these amended treaties does not in the small est degree facilitate settlements by ar bitratiOns. It would not in my judg- ment be wise or expedient therefore to secure the consent Of other con tracing powers to the amended trea- ties. for even if such assent were se- cured we should still remain precisely where we were before, save when the situation may be changed a little for the worse. There would not even be the slight benefit that might obtain | from the more general statement, that we intend hereafter, when we can come to an agreement with foreign powers as to what shall be submitted to enter into arbitration treaties for we have already when we ratified The Hague treaty with the various sigma