The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-12-11

be foreign bondholdcrs who feel out
ragged by the action OF any of the
States in refusing to pay reconstruo-
ton or any other debts, there Is a
difference between them and the State
which refused to pay. but no differ
enae.' Jusuciablo or otherwise, be-
tween them and the United States, so
that IL any arbitration on this ques-
tion was ever to be had. it would be
by a board evoked and agreed upon
by tho State and the bondholdcrs, who
arc tho parties at difference That
sort OF arbitration may now BIO had
at any time when the two parties at
difference agree to have it. The In
PREVENTION of the United States would
not only not be necessary. but would
be at once absurd and insolent
You Will notice that Great Britain
expressly reserves her 'self-governing
colonies out of the terms of the treaty,
except In the event that the self-gov-
erning colony shall become a party to
it. Tho treaty expressly provides that
when question shall arise affecting
The interests OF Helf-governtng do
minion. that dominion shall be con-
suited. 1t was not necessary for us
TO make that provision as to our
States. because n written Constitution
known to the diplomatic universe al
ready makes II by limiting the sub
jects over which We as Federal gov
eminent have jurisdiction.
Can't Bind the State.
But suppose the United States gov
eminent did undertake to submit to
arbitration the question concerning
the debts in Iowa, Pennsylvania, North
Carolina or mississippi? 1t could in
no way bind the State It could only
bind the Federal government and could
bind 1T only to pay u donation Of
course, In certain sense the Federal
government could agree to pay any
amount of money to any foreign pow
or, just as it agreed to give Spain 500
100000. If the Federal government
was so fond OF the friendship of one
foreign power that it was willing to
pay the debt OF some State to bond
holders Of the State residing within
the territory OF that foreign power. IL
would be simply u free gift of money.
There would be 10 way under law and
equity or any other way. to get 1t
Dack from the State. nor would 1t be
either legally or morally binding upon
the State to repay It, unless the State
had consented to the arbitration and
l.
ITO resume rapidly; the people OF
the United States who are giving
themselves SO much trouble over the
subject of the arbitration of State
debts under the proposed treaty pre-
sumo, first. that two out of the three
American commissioners would agree
that the question was justifaable.
They presume. secondly, that two
thirds of the Senate in providing for
CT a
ing the scope of the arbitration would
consent to the arbitration of such n
question They presume In the third
place that If all that happened, Con-
sress would make the appropriation,
In addition to that, they have pre-
supposed ahead OF II all that this
would no "a question hereafter arls-
ing, and further that in some way n
question or difference between n State
and Its bondholders would be, or could
Dc, a question of difference between
the United States and It's bondholders.
There Is one other point: the OBJ
lection is made to the treaty that the
prerosatives of the Senate are sur
rounded. If YOU will read the treaty,
you Will see that they are not Tho
objection is made that the United
states .surrenders its sovereignty to
certain extent. or course, 1t ia true
that whenever any government makes
Il treaty 1T. surrenders It's Sovereignty
TO the extent of surrenderIng the
sovereign right vested In Congress to
make war; concerning the question
settled by the treaty. or II It be n
treaty or arbitration. concerning the
question to be arbitrated
Il heard one Senator very foolish
ly say that this treaty would DO a
surrender of the right OF Congress to
declare war Every friendly treaty
settling difference liz that: but tho
constitutional right OF Congress 20 de-
clare war is no higher and Is no more
precious right than the constitutional
right of the President and the Senate
f,, ~