New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-08-29

to,,,,d tro,ossihle i'm future 10 settle by Ill
rIomacv" In other words, all questions are
hereafter 10 be settled by diplomacy OF ny
a toint high commission, etc, as is proNl"o"
i'm this treaty.
This in effect binds the two high contract
ing parties never again to declare wa
AGAINST zach other 10 is a glorious pam
indeed hut can the President and the senate
hind this nation 10 such an agreement
Won will observe that among other th'Hss'
section Of Article / of the Constitution
rrovides that "The Congress snail nave
o 70 declare war" and t9is
rover Is vested exclusively in the Congress
,,,,tcb ~ course. means the Senate and the
House of Representatives. SO it. is plain 20
see wherein the conflict occurs for III
STANCE the treaty with Great Britain pro-
yides that all disputes shall be settled py
arbitration. Now. suppose serious diiiei-
ence should occur between the TWO couh-
tries while the arbitration treaty was III
effect and the two houses of Congress shoulu
declare war Where would the treaty stahu
Which would take precedence-the act OF
Congress or the treaty? Is il not true mat
such a treaty-the joint act or the fresI-
dent and the Senate-attempts 10 eAtnh-
euish a right vested solely IN the TWO
houses Of Congress and cannot pihd t'e
acts of some future Congress? The House
of Representatives could not be deprived Oh
its half of this power even though It should
consent 10 such proceeding which, In TINS
case II las not done, nor has 1t had any
voice in the matter whatever. And If This is
all admitted and the treaties are not bind
han Of W
are they any way as preventers of future
wars? Take the case OF a future Presi-
dent Suppose in time Of great excitement
and the Chief Executive was laborlnS 10
submit the difference TO proper tribunal
the Congress should decide to declare war
How would the President act? Would he be
governed by the act Of Congress or would
he consider himself bound by the treaty?
Personally I am IN favor Of arbitration
treaties instead Of war at any time, ana at
the same time ! recognize that President
Taft and such of his advisers as Secretaries
Knox and Wickersham and Senator Root
(who ] understand favors this treaty. are
all able and distinguished constitutional
lawyers. but We would be greatly pleased
If they would explain away--if they can
TINS grave oUJetllpu anu AHt l'SHlNS NiA'h
may occur from II. HARRY CHASE.
Bennington. Vt. Aug. Is. 1911.
tour correspondent is more ingenious
than convincing. The point which he
raises against the general arbitration
treaty would apply with equal force
If II had any force-to many other trea-
ties of unchallenged validity. Manifestly
it would apply 10 any special arbitration
treaty. since that would be for the set
Element Of dispute over which Con
gress might otherwise declare war. So
it would apply TO every treaty of peace.
which decreed the ending of war which
Congress had ordered TO he waged. The
lawmaking power could make war
against country with which the treaty
making power had made a treaty Of
peace. and vice versa the treaty max
ing power could make peace with
country against which the lawmaking
power had made war Both of these
things have repeatedly been done.
Neither Of them is a violation of the
Constitution.-EdI