Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1911-09-09
PRESIDENT TAFT
DEFENDS TREATIES
He Does Not Agree With Colonel
Roosevelt That Vital Natioral
Question Are Left 10 Outsiders.

Hartford, Conn. Sept. s.--Before an
immense throng at the state fait
| grounds, President Taft made an ad
dress defining the proposed arbitration
treaties with England and France
which now await the action of the
United States senate.
The fact that former President
Roosevelt had written an article oppos
! ing the proposed peace pacts gave
added zest to the interest In what the
president had to say, He dealt almost
exclusively with the legal technical.
ties Of the arbitration treaties. After
paying tribute to the persistent energy
OF the Connecticut farmer in tilling a
somewhat unwilling soil. the president
| plunged al once into discussion OF
the three principal clauses OF the
treaties.
lie quoted literally from his recent
speeches on the same subject. He
endeayored to show the benefits &C.
cruing to the high contracting parties
and the support which his movement
was receiving from peace societies
| and commercial organizations. Perhaps
the most significant part OF his address
| was as follows.
THE majority of the senate com
mittee on foreign relations say that
| they cannot consent that somebody
else shall decide for them where q
| question arising In the future Is within
| the provisions of the first article OF
this treaty: that for them to do 80 Is
| to delegate their power TO another
tribunal and is to bind themselves by
an obligation which they have no pow
| or to assume
The Treaty Making Power.
sIt is In the view OF the minority,
| earnestly in accord. that the issue
where future difference shall BIO
within the terms OF the description OF
| article / of the treaty Ia an interna.
tionai question arising out Of con.
str1iction Of the treaty under q clain,
| of right by one OF the parties to an
| arbitration. and Is q question. there
! fore, that the president and the sen
ate. acting as treaty making power,
| have the right to agree by treaty to
submit to tribunal for final judg.
| ment In what different way Ia the
| treaty making power invoked when
! we ask the senate to concur In a
treaty which agrees to submit all jus.
| tifiable differences to arbitration and
when 1t Is asked TO agree to submit to
arbitration the question whether a
difference arising is justifable or not
under the treaty?
| II confess that cannot see the dis
! tinction. II Is well known fact that
| Norway and Sweden have made an
agreement to settle all differences ex.
cept those Of vital interest and ma
| tional honor by submission to The
Hague tribunal. and they have further
| agreed that when they differ as to
whether the controversy arising Is ar
btrable under the treaty, or is within
the exception, TO submit that question
to the board of arbitration for its final
attitude of the majority of the senate
committee. 1t Is that they have no
power, and therefore the government
has no power, to enter into a treaty
by which we shall agree to submit u
.niru person' constituting an 'luope.u
eht tribunal lne question ~i'e.e w
are Dounu unuer treaty 70 aoiue ene
luagmen' OF the tribunal as 70 par
ucular ISSUE.
Striving For High Ideal
The treatymaking power under the
constitution, it has been decided by
the supreme court. hardly knows def
milton or limit. Il is one Of the broad
est powers conferred BY the constitu
tlon and i Is conferred upon the exa