The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1911-12-30
Refuses to. Attend Peace
Banquet Tonight Because
of Plan to Approve Arbi-
tration Treaties.
POLICIES OF TAFT
ARE GIVEN SCORING
Colonel Says Those Who
Support Treaties So Warm
ly Now Would Be First to
Repudiate Them.

NSpuOIdlC uCIu.
National News Association)
NEW YORK. Dec 3O.-Col Roose.
welt made another vicious assault on
the policies of President Taft in the
correspondence which passed between
Roosevelt and the promoters of the
peace dinner, which were made pub
lie today. Roosevelt declared the
very men who back the arbitration
treaties so enthusiastically would be
the first to repudiate them the minute
something for which they care be-
comes involved in a dispute. The par
ticular attack is made by Col Roose-
Welt in letter to Secretary Bioomer
of the peace committee. on Taft's alb
rogation of the Russian treaty. The
correspondence made public pur-
ports to show that Roosevelt was as
sured the dinner would be for peace
principals in general, but when the
invitations were issued they contain
ed the declaration that the Presidents
arbitratory treaties would be approved
velts reas4 for declining the invita-
ton.
In MIR. Roosevelt's first letter he ex.
planned to Millard J. Bloomer, secre-
tary of the executive committee of the
New York Peace society why he could
not attend the banquet tonight. at
which President Taft will be the guest
of honor, and attacks the presidents
abrogation of the treaty of 1882 with
Russia, and the pending arbitration
treaties.
All the correspondence between Mr..
Roosevelt and the promoters OF the
peace dinner was made pubic at the
demand OF the former to show why
he refused to attend. 1t was first re-
ported that the letter would be read
at the banquet, but in the interests Of
harmony this plan was changed and
the letters were given out by Mr. Bloc
mer.
at Looks Like War;"
1T looks more like war than peace"
was Mr.. Boomers comment when ho
gave out the correspondence. He then
commented at length on the friction
within the peace committee itself, like
ming the members to two packs Of
wolves, warily watching each other,
and fearing what the other might do.
There are two distinct factions within
it. he said, one being led by Andrew
Carnegie.
According to his version the Carne-
gle element fears the sprinEing Of 4
political boom by the other side at tho
banquet tonight, while the opposing
faction would not be surprised by an
attempt of the opponents Of the COM
mittee to come out with 4 strong en-
dorsement of President Taft. his trea-
ties, and his policies In general
In setting forth his position On the
peace quotation Mr.. Roosevelt says,
under date of December s:
What Roosevelt 8aseassavas.sez&.
For instance. If you people propose
to support the arbitration treaties un-s
amended then think that you are not
merely wrong, but that you are en.s
gagged in what Is essentially an un-
worthy, and however unconsci0usIy,
hypocritical move against the interests
of peace and against the honor and in
terests of the United States and civili-
zation. N
"Cpholders of the uamende1R
ties have occupied two positiona
ly incompatible. They. first of y
nounced that We would arbitrate ev-
erything, even questions of national
honor and national interests; then i'm
mediately when q political question
came up, they announced that they did
not intend to arbitrate such matters
as the Monroe doctrine, or the immi-
grafton of Asiatics, or the validity OF
state bonds, etc.
"Hypocricy never pays, and to an
nounce in the treaties that We intend
to arbitrate everything when no hu-
man being that has sense imagines
that this country would arbitrate ev-
erything. is to put US in a position Of
revolving duplicity.
Should State Position.
'If We mean what is now said, for
instance, by supporters of unamended
treaties, namely that we do not in
tend to arbitrate the Monroe Doctrine
and other questions Of government pol
icy. then We should make the assertion
clearly in the treaty, and not put on
an appearance of shutting and double
dealing. AZ a nation ws should not
make a promise which We have not the
slightest intention Of breaking.
'If We do not mean what we say
in the unamended treaties they should
not be ratified"
The colonel goes on to explain that
he is against President Taft's associa-
ton plan because 1t would put III 'fn
a position of hypocritical insincerity."
Mr.. Roosevelt then attacks the New
York Times. declaring that it showed
its insincerity by leading its support
to both the arbitration treaties and the
lConttnued on PAGe Sikh