The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1911-12-31
WHY COL. ROOSEVELT DIDN'T GO
CiTtH nv HELPING TO OI FIR
AVE- THE SENATE.
or u O,craw Ing Was Not the Pro-
grammc ami the Treaties tnamended
the TrNt, why. Jnamcnded Thcy Are
not Very important. Though sincere.


why won't he?" were soothed yesterday
when Milard J. Bloomer. executive sec
retarv of the peace dinner. gave out the
correspondence he has had with Col.
Roosevelt about the Coloncl's \ attendance
at tn" dinner. The Colonel refuses to
cnuntcnance the dinner by attending
when he doesn' approve of the Taft uni
versal peace treaties which are now be-
fore the Senate
The Colonel was invited on November Is
III letter from Mr.. Bloomer in which Col.
Roosevelt was assured that the dimes
would he incomplete without him. on
December ., Mr.. Bloomer received this
answer
NV DEAR MR BLooMER am sorry
tu SAY that I cannot permit the use OF my
name for that citizens Peace Banquet.
simply because | do not know what the ban
quet l. for. If IL IL meant to overawc the
senate and for that body against its CON
science TO support the unamended treaties
which the senate Committee ON Foreign
Relations has shown by unanswerable
argument 10 be hostile 20 the honor and
interest of the American people. then am
not IN sympathy with you For instance.
II you propose to support the arbitration
treaties uRamended then | think that
are engaged in what is essentially an un-
worthy. and however unConsclously. a
hypocritical move against the interest
of peace and against the honor and interest
of the United States and Of civilization.
II You intend 10 support these treaties.
however with the amendments introduced
by Senators Root and Lodge. then you are
all right because you are supporting what
10 u not very important but still sincere
No ~ fn Nak hi la hAff tor
risv never pays. and to announce in treaties
that We intend to arbitrate everything
when no human being in lis senses imaYines
that this country would arbitrate every
thing is To put us in "a position OF revolving
duplicity The use of the word 'JustiCiable
N no way helps the matter IN such treaty
the word il meaningless. for IL can be defined
in any way that either party chooses.
phoiders Of unamended treaties have
oc,upied two posltinns utterly incomp,r-
ihe They first of all announced that We
would arhItrate everything, even questions
Ui national honor and national interest,
then Immediately that the practical Quee-
ton came up, they announced that of course
they did not intend TO arbitrats such mat
trrs the Monroe Doctrine or the imnii-
grafton of Aslatics or the validity Of State
bonds and 50 forth Now these two atti-
rudes made their position nonsensical As well
as hypooritioal. Either We. the American
people. mean what We say or We don't.
II We mean what is now said, for instance.
by the supporters of the unamended treat
les. namely. that We do not intend to arbi-
'ratc Monroe Doctrine and similar uues-
tons of Governmental policy. then we
SHOULD make the assertion clearly in the
treaty and not put on an appearance of
shu'ng and double dealing As a nation
We should not max" promise which we
have not the slightest intention OF keep ping
nderstand me. | heartily favor peace
| have stood FOR every movement OF real
peace | am against these arbitration
treaties because they do not tend for real
peace. and because they would put lis in
position OF hypocritlcsl lnsinceritv. The
very men who back them with such en-
,nu-ta-m wnuld ne the first to repud,ate
them the minute something for which
, they care Was involved in any concrete
, case. An exact example of what | mean
Is furnished by the New York Times That
paper has clamored for the passage Of the
unamended arbitration treaties and has
furIously attacked all those who oppose
them. But in its editorial antagonizing my
proposal Z" determine by arbitration the
exact meaning Of a clause in our treaty with
Russia. n says The simple and sufficient
answer To this argument IL that We cannot
submit the question to arbitration because
"" could not accept and abide 10y an adverse
finding Of the tribunal. We ask
Russia 10 abandon practice against which
We have protested for thirty years and
which We cannot permit her to continue
The matter Is one to he settled between
Russia and ourselves No arbitra. tribunal
'an be Of any help
BE II remembered that in this case never
proposed for a moment that We should arhi
trate what hold not only to be our right,
hut our duty TO abrogate the treaty with
Russia II Russia persists in discriminate ting
against American citizens Of Jewish faith
All proposed TO do was before proceeding
10 the extreme measure of abrogating
the treaty, to cndeavor to see IL Russia
could not he shown By the decision OF an
srhifral court how wrong her position Is
Vet the New York Times the same paper
that has been clamoring for the unamended
arbitration which promises to arbitrate
everything. promptly repudiates the first
proposal for arbitration which comes
~ as practical quest ion. What il SAYS
IN arguing against the submission to arbi-
tratton even of n given clause of an already
existing treaty. while do not believe that
II Justly applies as against the proposal
made, most emphaticallv does apply
with entire justice against passing the
unamcnded arbitration treaties There
could be no clearer proof of the thoroughly
mis"hleVous position Of seeming false deal
age OF these unamended treaties than is thus
afforded by the attitude Of one OF the news
papers that has most ardently championed
their cause, the minute that a concrete
question OF arbitration arises.
Admiral MHhan ella ms undoubtedly
tru'hfuly, that the Monroe Doctrine il
'ius'i"lahle' and would h ave to he arhi-
tra'od under IA" treaty. OF course IL is
exactly as inst tiCiahle A. anv other position
which We might he asked 10 arbitrate and
under the unaInended treaties any nation
would b" within it, right if II demanded
that We should arhitratc tho Monroe Doe
trine.
DO YOU believe that the Monroe Doctrine
should he arhitrated' do not There
tore ! wish II explicitly excluded from mr.
hi'ration under tho treaty, or else I wish
some general clause put in which would
exclude II and other matters Of govern
mental policy or matters vital to the
honor and interest of this nation DO
Won believe that the State bonds should
he abtrated? do not DO YOU belieya
'ha' N" question as 10 whether we have
the right 10 ahrogata our treaty with Rus
.a II Hh" persists in doing Injustice to our
'eNsh fellow citizens shall be arhitratedS
do not, although ! should he glad To give
iussia the chanCs Of being shown that
her Interpretation Of tho treaty is incorrect
" 'he Russian Interpretation il correct |
Nhonld hold that proof positive that the
"'h 'rea'v must be- shrogHted and a new