Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-12-31
HARMONY PREVAILS
ATPEACE BANQUET
Threatened OisSensions Fail to
Develop at Dinner of
Citizens.
TAFT REPLIES TO CRITICS
OF PRINCIPLES IN PACTS
Repeats Arbitration Pleas and De-
fends Russian Passport Course.
SPEAKERS INDoRsE TREATIES

tions Urged as National obliga-
tion-President Loudly
Cheered.
NEW YORK, December 3o-Preooded
by dissensions which seemed for a time
to threaten climax anything but pacific.
the citizens peace banquet toniSht proved
in realization everything that its name
implied--so far at least as concerned its
attendant conditions.
President Taft, who was the guost OF
honor and chief speaker Of the evening.
while arguing for the pending arbitration
treaties between the United States and
Great Britain and France. as he has done
previously at similar gatherings. went
further tonight than in other addresses,
and replied specifically to some criticisms
recently made against the principles en-
bodied in those treaties. He also made
answer to the charge OF inconsistency
lodged against advocates Of the arbitra-
ton treaties. who did not favor arbitra-
tion In the difficulty between the United
States and Russia.
Taft Denies Inconsistency.
Those OF US who are In favor Of tbesa
treaties have been criticised as inconsist-
ent because we did not invoke arbitra-
ton in the recent difference with Rus
sia," said Mr.. Taft II am not entirely
willing to speak as frankly as I mlght
or that because my tongue il tied In a
slight way by what we hope for in
future negotiations. All that I can say is
mill 4 h..
OF Elihu Root on the question Of why the
treaty should be terminated and why ar
Di.raLon would not 40, 4 am content to
stand on his exhibit and explanation Of
that.
Ihe truth is that the treaty itself con-
tains contractural obligations on the part
Of the United States to recognize the doc
trfne Of non-expatriauon and recognize
The right Of Russia to say that the nat
uralized Russian citizens In the United
states should not lose their alIseiance
to Russia, and could be punished Ter
becoming naturahzed citisens.
Treaty Had Been outerown-
Now that was contained on the face
Of the treaty. 1t was in accordance with
the doctrine that prevailed In the United
States and that prevailed in Russia I'm
1892. The doctrine had been departed
from by statute in the United States. but
it remained in the treaty and We cannot.
so far as a foreign country Is concerned.
in contractual dealings with her repeal "A
treaty by statute.
Hence it was stated In the notice Of
the termination of the treaty. made In
accordance with the terms Of the treaty.
that the treaty was so old that IT was
not responsive to the views OF the two
nations.
Now. why. therefore, should we arbi-
trate treaty or that sort in which We
were met first and foremost by the prop
osition that twenty or thirty or forty
years ago, we repudiated it as an in
ternational matter?
Therefore 1 say that the fnconsist-
ency that is supposed to exist In our
failure to invoke arbitration there does
think it does close perusal of Mr..
Roots argument and Of the treaty it
self"
Replies to Criticisms.
Answering other criticisms of the
treaties. the President continued:
There are certain questions that It is
said We whould have to arbitrate under
this treaty; We would have to arbitrate
justiciable question under the treaty.
Prof Bassett Moore, who Is perhaps the
greatest International authority We have
in this country, says the very same
LoWdl0 says SO ca Ill6
noor OF parliament, SO 1 think we are
rather safe on that question. Then the
question is whether We should ar
bitrate the right OF anybody TO
our will OF course, IL we make a treaty
letting a man in, why We are bound to
respond to the treaty, but II We do not
the question Of letting anybody In - q
question of national policy and not fn-
ternational policy. and cannot be a<bttra&-
ed. 1t is a question Of the nberalify Of
the nation that owns the ground and ter
ntory. That is all"
The possibility of some tribunal being
established that would take up suoh a
and he disposed OF 1t by pointing -
that such court would De CA nu-
man machine and liable to error. but that
would be no reason why we shoul4 uOt
use the machine II 1t offers generally the
best solution and stand the result - Q
mistake in a few instances.
Emphatic in His Statements.
What We have got to como to 10 tl1is."
said the President, ito recognise either
that we want arbitration and a peaceful
settlement of disputes. or that We don't
And we have got to mean business when
We go into arbitration. This paying OF
heads 1 win and tails you lose will make
no progress In Christian civilization It
IL iol s~e W. ~A~ ''N~ -
every case.
In starting out the President spoke IN
favor of the treaties with Great Britain
and France much on the lines he has
made familiar, and only toward the close
of his speech branched into the replies to
criticisms and charges of Inconsistency.
At one point in this portion OF his
speech he became emphatic.
IT am not taking anything back" he
said. The Pres dent declared that II
ever anything should be submitted to
arbitration II was questions of personal
or national honor. Then he stopped and
sad:
perhaps have gone too far in my en-
thusiasm, but the aud ence wouidnt
have IL that way, and when he asked.
pointedly: Are we to step backF ne
got an emphatic "No!" for a response.
The President was loudly cheered a.
he concluded.
Ratification National Obligation.
Oscar 6. Straus, former ambassador 30
Turkey declared that q momentous ques-
ton was pending. "A question upon
which the solution Of our national honor
readiness to ra41fy treaties
to which we have invited Great Britain
and France to assent xhaV have 81
ready assented-
Shall these benencent engagsmsnAs e.