New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-12-31
SkepticaI About Motives Behind
1t, He Writes Attacking
Arbitration Treaties.
HIS LETTERS GIVEN OUT
Boomer Says Squabble Was
Caused by Change from Orig
inal Intent, and Declares He
Will Reveal Internal War.

at the Waldorf, gave out yesterday the cor
respondence between himself and Mr..
Roosevelt in regard to the latter's attend
ance at the dinner.
This whole squabble over Mr.. Roose-
velts coming" said Mr.. Bloomer, was
brought about by the fact that for reasons
of jealousy and for political purposes, the
dinner was changed from its original in
tent. 1t was at first proposed for the pur-
pose of promoting the interests of peace
on broad and general lines cit was changed
to indorse the peace treaties of President
Taft"
The first letter, written to Mr.. Roosevelt
on November Is by Mr. Bloomer, said he
noticed that Mr.. Roosevelts name was not
in the general committee, and asked for
permission to include it. This letter stated
that the dinner was to be on general peace
lines, and no mention of the Taft treaties
was made Mr.. Roosevelt replied as fol-
lows:
My Dear Mr. Bloomer: am sorry TO say
that i cannot permit the use of my name
for that citizens peace banquet simply be-
cause | do not know what the banquet Is
lot. II III Is meant 10 ONeTdWe tNe senate,
and force that body against its conscience to
! support the unamendeo treaties. which the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations has
shown by unanswerabe argument 10 be
| hostile TO the honor and interest of the
American people, then l am not in SYM
pathy with YOU For instance, If you pur-
pose to support the arbitration treaties I'M
amended, then | think that you are not
merely wrong, but that you are engaged in
what is essentially an unworthy and, how
ever uncOnsciously, a hypocritical move
al
! the honor and interest of the United States
and of civilization. If you intend to sup
amendments Introduced by Senators Root
| and Lodge. then you are all right because
| YOU are supporting what is not very i'm
portant but still sincere effort TO make things
a little better Hypocrisy never pays, and to
| announce in treaties that We intend to ar
| bitrate everything, when no human being
| in his senses imagines that this country
would arbitrate everything is 10 put US In
position of revolving duplicity. The use
of the word Justiclable' In no way helps
the matter in such treaty the word is
meaningless. for ii can be defined in any
way that either party chooses.
Upholders of unamended treaties have
occupied two positions utterly Incompatible.
They first Of all announced that We would
arbitrate everything, even questions or ma
tional honor and national interest; then,
Immediately that the practical, question
came up. they announced that OF course
they did not intend TO arbitrate such mat
tiers the Monroe Doctrine, or the I'm
migration OF Aslatics. or the validity OF
state bonds. and so forth. Now, these two
attitudes made their position nonsenslCal
as well as hypocritical Either We the
American people mean what we say or we
don't If We mean what is now said, for
instance. by the supporters OF the uD-
amended treaties, namely, that we do not
intend 10 arbtrate the Monroe Doctrine and
similar questions OF governmental policy
then We should make the assertion clearly
in the treaty and not put on an appear
anCe Of shuhling and dOuble-dealing. As
l oh. NOT Ia nyT,T a
which We have not the slightest intention
of keeping.
Says Treaties Are lnsincere.
Understand me, | heartily favor peace.
/ have. stood for every movement Of real
peace. | am against these arbitration
treaties because they do not tend for zeal
peace and because they would put US in
a position Of hypoclitical inSinceritY The
very men who back them with such cnthu-
siasm would be the first 10 repudate them
the minute something Cor which they care
was involved In any concrete case. An
exact example Of Nhat'l mean Is furnished
l.by The New York Times That paper
has clamored for the passage Of the UNI
amended ALTERATION treaties. and has full-
ously attacked all those who oppose them
| But in its editorial antagonizins my pro-
posal TO determine by arbitration the eN-
act meaning Of clause IN our tleaty with
Russia il SAYS: The simple and Suf1lclent
answer to this argument ~ that we can
not submit the question to arbitration be-
adverse finding Of the tribunal. We
ask Russia TO abandon pracnce against
which we have protested for thirty years
and which we cannot permit her 10 con
tinue. The matter Is one 10 be settled D.,
tween Russia and ourselves. No arbitrdl
tribunal can be of any help.
Be IL remembered that In TINS case l
never proposed for q moment that we
should arbitrate what / mold not only TO
be our right but our duty, TO aorogate
the treaty with Russia II Russia PERSISTS
in discriminating against American CITIZENS
Of Jewish faith All | proposed to 40 was
before proceeding 10 the extreme meas
IRE of abrogatng the treaty, to endeaVor
, to see if Russia could not De shown by the
decision Of an arbtral court how wrong
her position IS ,,,,, 49,. 49,
paper that has beer ClamorinS for the I'M
amended arbitration treaties "hlch prom
Use TO arbitrate everything, promptly re-
pudistes the first proposal i4r arn ,,,in
What II saws in arguing against the sun
mission to arbitration even OF a given
clause OF an already existing treaty; whlle
do moi believe that II justly applies as
against the proposal ] made, most en-
phatically does apply with entire Justice
against passing the unamended aroltralloh
treaties There could be no clearer proof
~ the thoroughly misChevous position OF
seeming false dealing into which we would
be put by the passage o. reSe bW tbe afti
tude of one OF the newspapers that has
most ardently championed their cause. the
minute that concrete question oi dIpl'id-
'i1 Hdmiral Mahan claims. undoubtedly
truthfulIy that the Monroe Doctrine Is
s'iusticiabIe," and would have TO be arbi-
tyafed under the treaty OF course it is
exactly as justiciable as any other position
which we might be asked TO arbitrate' ana
under the unamended treaties any natioh
would be within its right il II demanded
that we should arbitrate the Monroe DOC
trine. $1,000 Y,os.,o
4,1D dn M
y,ieh Il explicitly excluded from arbitration
under the treaty. or else ! wish Some gen
eral clause put in which would exclude II
and other matters OF governmental policy,
"r matters vital to the honor and interest
nj this nation. Do you believe that the
state bonds question should be arDitrated
! do not. Do you believe that me question
az 10 whether we have the right to abro-
gate our treaty with Russia II she persists
i'm doing injustice to our jewish fellow cru
zens shall be ,arbitrated? ! DO not a.
thoTgh / should be glad to give Russia the
chance Of being shown that her lnterpreta-
ton of the treaty is Incorrect: II the nus,
sian Interpretation Is correct d s snouiG u most
he a brogated and new treaty negotiated).
DO you believe that we should aroltrate the
question OF allowing unllnilted Aslauc I'M
iteration 10 this country? ] do not NOW.
- Won do not believe that the questions l
have named should be arbitrated then you
occupy an improper and; from tne hationai
standDoint, a dishonorable position III you
dasire 10 see these treaties ratihed with
ONT Amendment. OF course, IL you do oeheve
~ srbitrating all questions OF national
hnnor and interest including the Monroe
Doctrine. the Jewish passport question, the
immigration of Asiatics and the QUESTION
~ the state bonds, then you are )ustlned
~ ySishing 10 pass the unemended treaties;
aitbough I think that In such case you VIII
occupy a very foolish and unpatriouc P9'
sition But II you do not believe IN aTDi-
sS.atino these and similar matters. then you
oroupY a wholly indefensible position In
esking that we pass In unamended form
treaties which unquestionably pledge US as