New-York tribune., 1911-03-24
IRBTTR TRElT1 pLtNS.

The drafting of the general arbtra
tion treaty between the United states
and the United Kingdom appears 10 he
following in some degree the same judi
cious and successful course which was
adopted in the case of the HayFaunce-
fotc treaty. The first -Pauncefotc
treaty. il will be- remembered. forbade
the fortifcatiou of the ISthmian Canal
and on that one ground was objected to
10y the Senate and 50 the second and
successful treaty. with n view 10 avoid
in. the objection which had proved fatal
+ lis predecessor. was drafted with the
sppcific understanding that the canal
and pleasure of the United States. some
wears ago there was negotiated an arbt-
iIalion treaty with Great Britain which
proved unacceptable to the Senate, ana
now This one is being drafted in such
form aS 10 escape the objections which
were made Ia its predecessor. There
j. reason to hope that. ~ in The former
case. this can and will be done without
inpaiIirg the value of the convention.
The first poin, AZ issue i the scope of
tbe treaty. The President would have
if include all matters of dispute bc-
tween the two nations. while the Senate
vond exclude from its operations the
traditional category If questions In
evolving the vital interests. Tho inde-
"rondcnce or the honor of the two con-
1 IL. ipt il
that the President hopes 10 persuade the
Senate to accept his policy. and there IS
reason for thinking that he may d" So
A. u matter of fact. the question IS
academic rather than practical 10 real
ize which We have only 10 ask ourselves
when. I'm the last hundred years. among
oU thc differences which bavc arisen
hot,ycen the two countries. there ha-
been - case belonging to that category.
I'm excluding such cases from arbltra-
tion we should h" excluding cases which
in All probability will never arise. and
in admitting them we should bc admit
tino those which will never exist. II l.
doubtful if il is worth While. save for
the sake Of example. to spend much con
troyprey over SO evident a man OF straw.
The other point involves the question
whether under thc treaty If shall or
shall not bc necessary to submit each IN
di,iduaI case to the Senate for lis ap-
uroyal before referring II 10 arbitration.
The answer Ia that appears to depend
largely upon the answer TO thc preced-
I'm A. al A. D~NG
were to he excluded from arbitration
thc Senate might properly claim The
right to Judge whether each indl' ldual
case belonged to The arbitrablc or 10
thc non-arbiIrabic class. But If no such
execution were made and all disputes
were declared arbitrahle il would not
seem t0 ba necessary for thc Senate mus
tn act I'm individual cases. Every dis-
rute which then arose would bc referred
- arbitration automatically. ~ mat
fer of course. IT. however. 1T should be
deemed necessary. on constitutional
grounds. for the Senate 10 he consulted
in each individual case. that consultation
vould be formal matter. because IN
ratifvinc the original treaty the Senate
vould be establishing virtually bind
inc guarantee of the approval OF all
acts which might he necessary for the
execution of It's terms.
There would seem to hc no reason.
therefore. why there should moi be
upon the proposed treaty ana
Why that convention should not be