The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1911-11-09
PENDING TREATIES
DISCUSSED BY KNOX
Before the American Society for the Ju-
dicial Settlement of International
Disputes at Cincinnati.


the main close legal argument canvass
ing and answering in detail every objee-
ton to the arbitration treaties set out
in the report of the majority committee
OF the Senate committee on foreign re-
iations last spring. The secretary's eff
fort was to show that the treaties do
not in any way infringe the constitu-
tional treaty-malSing power Of the Sem
ate 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 general discussion and APP
proyal throughout the world of the trea-
ties contained no intimation of the oppo-
sition to their ratification for the rea-
sons now urged by the Senate commit
tee He alluded to the committees re-
port as indicating its agreement with
the president as to the ACCESSIBILITY Of
enlarging TO the utmost practical limit
the scope of arbitration, which leaves
the only issue the difference Of opinion
as 10 whether or not the righttul func-
ton 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 Prov.
sions requiring submission to arbitration
directly of all iusticiable differences and
the reference to a commission of any
question that shall arise as to justiciahle
character Of an issue. He pointed out
that the Senate committee objects to the
40, L..
that the Senate cannot constitutionally
delegate its power TO decide what should
be arbitrated, and also that il should
not do so, even if il could, because of
the danger OF possibly being compelled
70 arbitrate something the treaties do
not oblige us 20 arbitrate through a
decision of a commission, upon the com
position Of which the Senate has no
control whatever.
As to the first objection, the secretary
said: "Unless the constitutional power
70 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 constitution
ally bind the government to arbitrate
any kind Of difference that may arise in
the future, il can bind it to arbitrate
any other kind including difference
that may arise upon the construction of
the treaty itself If the power exists az
all, the extent of its exercise Is mat
ter of discretion. There are many trea-
ties now in force binding us to arbitrate
all differences except those affecting VI
tai interests and national honor. Ii is
evident therefore that there is no lack
of power TO make treaties that bind us
to arbitrate questions that may arise;
II is only question as to the expedi-
ency and extent of the exercise of a
conceded and frequently exercised power.
It surely must be clear to
anyone who gives the question proper
consideration that the power OF the SEN
ate is not taken away by these treaties.
How then can it be claimed
that this power is surrendered in the
pending treaties which reserve to the
Senate this power in the identical Ian.
guage which the Senate approved with
out opposition in l90Sp
The secretary then pointed out that
the fundamental policy OF the majority
report on the commission project lies in
the treatment of the articles creating
it. as ii it stood alone. whereas il was
merely supplemental to and must be con
strued with the other parts OF the treaty
which of necessity includes the making
OF special agreement to be submitted
for the approval of the Senate as
condition Of arbitration.
Answering the fears expressed by The
Senate committee that the treaty in
yolved danger of our being compelled to
arbitrate difference not within the
terms of the treaty. the secretary ex-
amined and tested the objection in its
application TO such questions as the
Monroe doctrine, the exclusion of immi-
grants, and our territorial integrity; all
cases cited BY the Senate committee.
Mr.. Knox said that these are all ques-
tions 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. "and this sug-
gcsts that no discussion of the treaties
must overlook the fact that they have
been negotiated and will be binding be-
tween self-respecting nations who obvi-
ously will act in good faith and in ac-
cordance with their self interests, which
may be almost as quickly compromised
by invoking an erroneous or dangerous
principle against a foreign power as by
having the principle invoked against
them" All nations, he said, must be
permitted to carry out measures of self
preservation uncontrolled save by phy-
steal force of stronger power and as
one writer has put it there are certain
questions which no nation. if 1t expects
to retain its existence. win ever submit
to the decision of anyone else"
Secretary Knox asserted that "the H.
Illustrations presented by the majority
report are pre-eminently questions fall
ing within the maintenance of the Mon
roe doctrine as considered by us essen
tial to our peace, prosperity, and ma
tional safety. Other nations know we
so regard IT, The doctrine does not need
to be founded upon a technical legal
right of international law, for ii is
matter Of grave, far-reaching and, to us,
a vital important policy. A nation put
ting itself in the attitude towards the
United States of deliberately violating
the Monroe doctrine could not expect to
find in the treaty terms of protection
against the consequences of such an act.
The doctrine has been respected and is
now respected, and it will continue to
be respected so long as we seem reason
ably able to uphold it. 1t does not de-
pend upon technical legal rights, but
upon policy and power. Therefore, ii is
not, and no reasonable man or set of
rien would claim il to be iusticiable