Bisbee daily review., 1911-10-20

of certain classes Of questions that arise in the future"
 ~Therefoe. be it resolved that this association indorse the views of fhe president and urges the senate to adopt it by accepting the treaties without amendment of Article III, paragraph 9, over which disagreement has arisen
 Senate Objections Met.
 In answer to the objection Of fhe senate committee to the treaty that under the first section it might be claimed that the United States would be called upon to submit to arbitra- ton the Monroe doctrine, the right to exclude foreign people from the coun- try, and the question of the validity of southern bond issues in reconstruc- ton days. the foundation cites Presi- dent Tafts speech at Rochester, Aug ust g, 1911, in which the president declares the Mornoe doctrine is not a justieiable policy, but one of pure ly governmental action which has been followed for a century and in which the countries of Europe have generally acquiesced. It is further pointed out that Sir Edward Grey the British sec retary of state of foreign affairs kas politically announced that the Mon roe doctrine could not be disputed by Great Bitain under this treaty. The question of the exclusion Of immi- grants. it. is argued, has been settled by international law.
 Concerning the submission of ques- tions to the joint high commission, the foundation asserts that the choice is left entirely open 10 the individual nations by Article of the convention of 1907, which speaks of an inter national comission of inquiry, from the method suggested for the formation' of arbitration tribunals by the choice of nOn-nationals.
 President Also Makes Sacrifice
 The foundation further finds the committees claim that under Article III. the president surrenders just as much of his power as does the senate, are wrong, and cites the Hague con yention of 1907 as authority.
 This convention reads:
 international conventions Of in- quiry are constituted by special agree ment between the parties Supreme court decisions are cited in support Of the argument against the surrender to arbitration of the right to exclude immigrants from the United States.
 As To The Land Title.
 In reply to the senate committees suggestion that under Article III, the title of the land occupied by the United States might be forced before a court of arbitation, the foundation declares that by virtue of Article i, paragraph l. and Article II, paragraph 3, the normal method of arbitration or in quiry is in accordance with the terms Of the Hague convention. Thus, 1t is argued, the senate would necessar- fly pass upon the special agreement 10 any arbitration whatsoever.
 Concerning the declaration that such l procedure would be a breeder of war and not of peace" the argument is advanced that a question of title Co land would not appear to be i'm mediately arbitrable, and would go to the commission of inquiry for report on the facts involved. This would give the United States under Article II the right to have reference to the question postponed for one year to afford an opportunity for diplomatic discussion. Thus, it is pointed out. the l parties to the controversy would be stopped for year from starting a scourge of war scares" and the bur den of settlement would be thrown upon the diplomacy with the full un- derstanding that the commission Of inquiry would take the case at the expiration Of a year if no decision 1 had been reached