Omaha daily bee., 1912-01-01
Held Not Justiciable Question Under
Proposed Compacts.
PUTS OPPONENTS IN DILEMMA
Either We Want Arbitration or We
Do Not Desire It.
HARMONY REIGNs AT BANQUET
Taft Answers Charge OF Inconaist-
ency In Connection with Russian
Treaty by Referring Hearers
TO Roots Argument,


dissenslons which seemed for time to
threaten climax anything but pacific.
the citizens peace banquet last night
proved in realization everything that it's
name implled-so far at least. as con-
cerned its attendant conditions.
President Taft, who was the guest of
honor, and chief speaker OF the evening,
while arguing for the pending arbitration
treaties between the United States and
Great Britain and France, as he has done
previously at such gatherings, went
further tonight than other addresses and
replied specifically to some criticisms
recently made against the principles
embodied In those treaties. lie also made
answer to the charge OF Inconsistency
lodged against advocates of the arbitra-
ton treaties, who did not favor arbitra-
ton in the difficulty between the United
States and Russia.
Those of us who are in favor of these
treaties have been criticised as inconsistent
because we did not invoke arbitration In
the recent difference with Russia" said
Mr.. Taft. Il am not entirely willing to
speak as frankly as / might of that be-
cause my tongue is tied in a slight way
by what we hope for in future negota-
tions. All that 1 can say is that IL you
will read the great argument Of Elihu
Root on the question Of why the treaty
should be terminated, and why arbitration
would not do, 1 am content to stand on
his exhibit and explanation q hat.
Treaty OutgrOYn.
THE truth is that the treaty itself
contains contractual obliaations on the
part OF the United StateI TO recognize
the doctrine of nonexpab rIatlUn and 10
recognize the right of Rfssa 10 say that
the naturalized Russia cltizena In the
United States shouldA not ldse his
allegiance to Russia aid could be pun-
ished for becoming aShaturalized citizen,
Now. that was cQhtained on the face
Of the treaty, 1t wab in accordance with
the doctrine that pMvalled in the United
states and that prNvailed in RUSSO In
1892 The doctrine had been deFgrted
from by statute in n Ae United States, but
1t remained in the tr4 4aty and we cannot,
so far as foreign country is concerned.
in contractual dealingA with it repeal
treaty by statute.
Hence it was stated in the notice of
the termination of the treaty, made in
accordance with the terms of the treaty,
that the treaty was so old that it was
not responsive to the views of the two
nations,
Now, why, therefore. should we arbl-
trate a treaty of that sort in which we
were met first and foremost by tue prop
osition that, twenty or thirty or forty
years ago, We repudiated it as an inter-
national matter?
Therefore, ! say that the Inconsistency
that is supposed to exist in our failure
to invoke arbitration there does not ex-
list, and l commend to those who think
it does a close perusal of Mr.. Roots
argument and of the treaty itself"
Question Not JusticiabIe.
Answering other criticisms OF the
treaties, the president continued:
There are certain questions that It is
said we would have to arbitrate under
this treaty; we would have to arbltrate
the Monroe doctrine. l say II is not a
justiciable question under the treaty
Prof. B. Moore, who is perhaps the great
est international authority we have in this
country, says the very same thing Ed
ward Grey said so on the floor of Par
lament. So l think we are rather safe
on that question. Then. the question is
whether we should arbitrate the right OF
anybody to come into this country against
our will OF course. If we make a treaty
letting a man I'm, why we are responsible
for the treaty, but IL we do not, the aues-
ton of letting anybody in is a question
of national policy and not international
policy and cannot be arbitrated 1t is a
question Of the libera'ity OF the nation
that owns the ground and territory. That
is ALL"
The possibility OF some tribunal being
established that would take up such "a
question was discussed by the president
and he disposed of il by pointing out
that such a court would be merely
human machine and liable to error but
that that would be no reason why we
should not use the machine II It offers
generally the best solution and stand the
result Of a mistake in a few instances,
Two Horns of Dilemma.
What we have got to come to is this"
said the president, ito recognize either
that we want arbitration and a peace
full settlement of disputes or that we
don't. And we have got to mean busi-
ness when we go into arbitration. This
playing OF heads l win and tails you
lose win make no progress I'm a Chris
tan civilization. II Is not possible that
we should win in every case"
In starting out the president spoke In
favor Of the treaties with Great Britain
and France much on the lines he has
made familitr and only toward the close
Of his speech branched into the replies 10
criticisms and charges OF inconsistency.
Al one point in this portion Of his speech
he became emphatic.
Il am not taking anything back" he
said The president declared that II
ever anything should be submitted 70
arbitration It was questions OF personal
or national honor. Then he stopped and
said:
Perhaps I have gone too far in my
enthusiasm" but the audience would not
have II that way and when he asked