The Washington herald., 1911-08-07
Secretary of State Answers
-. Chief Objections
SENATE POWER STILL HOLDS
High Court of Inquiry Proceedings
VIII Not CurtaiI Powers of Higher
House, Says Cabinet OrrIcer-Im-
migration Laws Are Not Affected
by Treaty-Dinerences Covered.

and France as they are under the limited
treaties of this character now In force
except that the scope of the new conven-
tions has been enlarged so as to include
questions OF vital interest and national
honor.
Several Senators have indicated that
they might oppose the two arbitration
treaties because they were OF the opinion
that the high court OF inquiry proceed.
ings provided for under the conventions
would infringe upon the Senate's treaty
making power TO pass upon international
disputes. Secretary Knox believes that
this fear is due to Misrepresentation OF
the facts
Another ground of opposition suggested
In the Senate is the fear by Pacific Coast
representatives that the United States
would be obliged to enter into arbitration
treaties with China and Japan If these
two nations exfessed a desire in that
direction. 1t is pointed out. however, that
the Supreme Court has held that this
government has the absolute right 10
make its own immigration restrictions
and that the question OF immigration,
which is the only one that is likely to
disturb the Pacific Coast. is entirely out
side the field of arbitration
Are Chief Objections.
These two objections. together with the
dissatisfaction on the part of one or two
members OF the Senate, because they
were not consulted in the drafting of the
treaties are about the only serious OBJ
stacles that are being urged tc ratifica-
tion.
When Secretary Knox was questioned
yesterday in regard TO the scope of the
treaties and the possible opposition TO
their ratification, he said:
The treaties between the United
States and Great Britain and the United
states and France. which have Just been
signed, have been constructed with a
view to carrying into effect President
Tafts public statement that he was
ready to enter into treaties extending the
principle of arbitration so as to include
differences between nations however
arising, to the end that war might be
eliminated as a means for adjustment of
international agreements.
THE prompt and equally open accent
ance by France and Great Britain of the
Presidents proposal substantially closed
the matter and left little TO be done be-
yond formulating the desires of the gov
ernments concerned, in such n way as to
provide definite and workable methods
which would recognize the difference be-
tween questions that are susceptible Of
being decided by the application of rules
OF law and those which are not
Arbitration is a judicial function and
represents a principle, namely, the ap-
plication of law and judicial methods TO
the determine ton Of disputes Therefore.
a question 10 be one for arbitration must
involve difference susceptible of being
decided hHv h. Al
of law or equity-that is to say. a justici-
able difference rather than one of
policy or diplomacy. The treaties rec
OgniZe the distinction indicated and as
to all differences which are subjectfvely
International and relate 10 matters Of
common concern and are susceptible Of
decision by the application OF the prin-
ciPles Of justice, 1t is provided that they
shall be arbitrated. In other words,
where a rule of decision may be found
in accepted principles of law, the differ
ence shall be settled by the application
Of such rule.
All Differences Covered,
LAS to those differences which cannot
be decided by the application of legal
or equitable rules-that is to say, TO
which no commonly accepted rules of
decision can be applied, these come
within the advisory functions of the
Joint high commission of inquiry, for
the creation Of which the treaty pro-
v!des,
This commission, after thorough in
vestigation of the facts out of which
the dlnerence between the two nations
arises, will make recommendation Of
settlement. The commission, In this re-
spect, will exercise the advisory func
ton of mediators
Whether or not a difference Is ono
susceptible of arbitration is a question
not unlikely to arise between two conn
.ries. In such case the treaty provides
hat this question may be submitted TO
and decided by the commission of in
luiry.
1T will thus appear that provision
< made for the arbitration Of arhitrable
differences and also for the arbitration.
before the commission, OF the question
is to whether or not a difference is
lrbitrable.
while the commissions decision that
difference is not arbitrable leaves the
Inference undisposed of, 1t is believed
hat two countries, which have resolved
hat no difference shall be a cause for
lostilities between them or interrupt
heir good relations, are as little likely
o reject the advice of the commission
IS they would be to reject the award of
Irbitrators. In any event, II Is not
hought that the continuance of the diff |
erence would result in a disregard of
he solemn resolution that no difference |
hall be cause of hostility.
Senate to Have Power.
IF it is agreed that the difference is
ne for arbitration. or failing to agree. |
IS decided to be arbitrable by the |
then the arbitration is to be |
onducted under a special agreement TO |
,e submitted by the President to the |
senate for its advice and approval in the |
anne manner as is provided for the |
xisting arbitration treaties of 1903.
while the scope of the treaties Just |
igned has been enlarged to include |
uestions of vital interest and national |
lonor excepted In the arbitration treaties |
low in force with France and Great |
Britain, the relation of the Senate to the |
rotration proceedings remains the |
ame as in the treaties now In force, as
5ill appear from the texts.
"Since the treaty of Ghent, thousands
( differences between the United States
nd Great Britain and between the |
Tnited States and France have been
ettled by diplomacy, very few by arbi-
ration. and none by war.
when diplomacy shall fail in the fu-
ure, the joint high commission OF In
uiry is expected to succeed. thus dimin-
shing the probability Of the necessity to
esort TO arbitration. and reducing to a
minimum the probability Of war.
'The treaties have been admirably de-
cribed as putting a triple brake upon
he wheels OF war;" Their effectiveness
or the purposes contemplated should