The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-11-09
SECRETARY KNOX SPEAKS ON PEACE Comments on Taft's Arbi-
 tratiOn Treaties 20 LEGAL ARGUMENTS Quotes at Great Length From the Treaties Themselves to Make
 His Points-Others
 Speak

| third annual conference of the Society for the Judicial Settlement of Inter- national Disputes came to a successful | close this evening with an elaborate banquet at the Business Mems club C. Knox was the principal speaker. l Seated about the banquet tables with men of prominence were many women of national fame, including Mrs. Will liam Howard Taft and Miss Helen Taft, wife and daughter of the President. and honorary president of the society.
 Former United States Senator Joseph Benson Foraker acted as toastmaster and with words of praise for his eff forts in behalf of peace introduced the Secretary of State, who was received with prolonged applause. Mir Knox spoke on the arbitration treaties be- tween the United States and Great Britain and the United States and France.
 Other addresses were made this evening by Samuel J. Elder. United States counsel north Atlantic fisheries arbitration; Charles w. Dabney. presi- dent of the University of Cincinnati; John Temple Graves of the New York American (newspaper), and the Rev. David Phillipson of this city. All spoke on the general subject of peace. The morning and afternon sessions were addressed by prominent lawyers, ministers and American educators who raised their voices in behalf of the peaceful settlement of troubles among nations.
 The election of officers followed with these results: President Simon E. Baldwin, Hartford Conn; vice presi- dent, Joseph Choate, New York; secre- tary, Theodore Marburg, Baltimore: treasurer, J. c. Schmidlapp, Cincin- nati; executive committeeman J. H. Hammond, simon Baldwin, Theodore Marburg, Henry B. F. Mcfarland, w. W. Willoughby and James Brown Scott
 The selection of the next place of meeting for the annual conference will be decided by the executive board at a special meeting to be held in December in tn east.
 Secretary Knox's topic before the Amer ican Society for the Judicial Settlement of International Disputes was The Pend ing Arbitration Treaties" It was in the main close legal argument canvassing and answering in detail every objection to the arbitration treaties set out in the report Of the majority committee of the Senate committee on foreign relations last spring. The secretary's effort was to show that the treaties do not in any way infringe the constitutional treaty making power of the Senate and above all. that they would not endanger the Monroe doctrine and the right of the United States to control immigration.
 The secretary began by pointing out that the discussion and approval through out the world of the treaties contained no ntimation of the opposition to their ratification for the reasons now urged by the Senate committee. He alluded to the committees report as indicating it's agree ment with the President as to the adyis- ability of enlarging the utmost practical limit the scope of arbitration, which leaves the only issue the difference of opinion as to whether or not the right fu' function of one of the branches of the treaty making power may have been impaired by one of the provisions of the treaty The secretary quoted at great length from the treaties themselves. the provisions requiring submission to arbi- tration directly of all justicable differ ences and the reference to a commission of any question that shal larise as to Justiciable character of an issue He pointed out that the Senate committee objects to the commission feature upon the ground that the Senate cannot con- additionally delegate it's power to decide what should be arbitrated, and also that IL should not do so, even if it could, because Of the danger of possibly be- ing compelled to arbitrate something the treaties do not oblige us to arbitrate through decision of a commission upon the composition of which the Senate has no control whatever.
 As to the first objection the secre- tary said: Unless the constitutional power to agree by treaty to arbitrate future differences does not exist at all or only exists as to certain kind of differences, this proposition is not sound. If the treaty making power can constitutionally bind the goveru- ment to arbitrate any kind of differ ence that may arise in the future it cnn bind it to arbitrate any other kind including a difference that may arise upon the construction of the treaty. itself. If the power exists at all the extent of its exercise is a mater of discretion. There are ~lany treaties now in force binding us to arbitrate all differences except those affecting vital interests and national honor if Is evident therefore that there is no lac,, of power to make treaties that bind us to arbitrate questions that may arise; it is only a question as tol tn expediency and extent of the ex- ercise of a conceded and frequently ex- ercised power. It surely must be clear to anyone who gives the question proper consideration that the power of the Senate. is not taken away by these treaties. How then can if be claimed that this power is sur rendered in the pending treaties which reserve to the Senate this power in the identical language which the Ser,- ate approved without opposition in 1868?
 The secretary pointed out that tie fundamental policy of the majority re- port on the commission project lies in the treatment of the articles creating 1t as If 1t stood alone, whereas it was merely supplemental to and must be construed with the other parts of the treaty which of necess.-y includes the making of a special agreement to be submitted for the approval of the Sen. ate as a condition of arbitration.
 Answering the fears expressed by the Senate committe that the treaty involved danger of our being compelled to arbitrate difference not within the terms of the treaty, the secretary examined and test ed the objection in its application to such questions as the Monroe doctrine, the ex- clusion of immigrants and bur territorial integrity; all cases cited by the Senate committee. MT. Knox said that these are all questions of internal or external policy and are merely typical of many questions which, as the committee itself said, no nation on earth would think of raising with the United States, land this suggests that no discussion of the treaties must overlook the fact that they have been | q he