The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-02-23
THE FARMER: FEBRUARY 23, 1912

skilled in judging of them, that of lenses of the kind described may be committed with practical impunity. It IS harder to fix responsibility on a body of Senators than on the Execu- tive; and whereas the Executive has usually an interest in settling dip,o- matlc troubles, whose continuance 1t finds annoying, the Senate has no such interest, but is willing to keep them open so long as some political advantages can be sucked out of them The habit of using foreign policy for e,ectioneering purposes is not confined to America. It has been seen in England and in France and even in monarchica1 Germany. But in Amer lea the treaty-confirming power of ne Senate opens a particularly easy and tempting door to such practices.
 For us as Americans, who are, as rectly observed, constituents Of the Sena tors, 1t is decidedly not grat1fy- ing to have a foreigner accuse them of the practice of sucking political mentous national importance. It throws, however, a strong light on the reasons for attempting to thus unwar- rantedly rob the Senate of one of it's powers.
 It Is interesting to note that this very sharp and unfounded assault up- on our Senate has just been republish- ed by MT. Bryce as British ambaSsa- dor in the very latest edition of his work, from which have just quoted book which he Is selling every day to the American people through an American publishing house.
 The Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, as I have said, expunged paragraph 3 of Article III, and in so mendab'e regard for the Constitution of the United States. By the Consti- tutton the Senate possesses the right to say what questions shall be submit r. rendered this right it would open the door to Executive usuTpation and de- stroy to that extent the coordinate power Of the Senate. Not only did the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate do an act which is com mendable in eliminating this clause but they would have been remiss in their duty had they done otherwise The Senate has no right to diVest it. self of Its constitutional power. This would be an alteration of the Consti- tuition brought about in an irregular and unconstitutional manner under the guise of making a treaty. although the Constitution itself provides the manner in which 1t shall be changed.
 Now, MT. Speaker, let me in this place make a brief passing reference to a few statements which the gentle man from Missouri made during the course of his remarks He expressed his pride as an American that an Am erLcan President, has by the signing of these treaties, taken the initiative in the great movement for more per manent peace, and he cherished the hope that by his action in so doing President Taft would rank next to Abraham Lincoln. I certainly would not gra tuit ously carp at any compli- ment the gentleman might see fit to pay our President. who is personally one of the most popular chief execu- | House. It would cause me as much l pride as it would the gentleman from | Missouri to see the name of our pres | ent President achieve the deathless the fllustrious Lincoln, and sincerely | hope he may one day realize this sub | lime and patriotic ambition. But the l facts of history prevent us from as- | to President Taft the initia- | tive of this movement and the pater- | nifty of these treaties. Applause on the | Democratic side.)
 The claim that President Taft was | the originator of the proposition to ar- bltrate all questions that may arise | between this Republic and other na- of Article I of the arbitration treaty of IS97 which was negotiated under the Cleveland administration and | which failed of ratification by the Sem i ate. The first paragraph of Article
 The high contracting parties agree to submit to arbitration, in accordance | with the provisions and subject to the
  tions in difference between them which they may fail to settle by diplomatic negotiatiens.
 The opening paragraph of Article I of the present treaty says:
 All differences hereafter arising be- tween the high contracting parties which it has not been poss 'ble to ad just by diplomacy relating Ito interna- tional matters in which the high con- tracting parties are concerned by Vir- tue of a claim of right made by one against the other under treaty or oth- erwise and which are justiciable, etc. Pauncefote treaty of 1897 was appar- ently even more sweeping in it's scope than the present treaty, because the "and which are justicb feated treaty of 1897, which was inspir- ed by the subtle mind of Lord Sails bury, and the present treaty are, In essence, the same, but the present one Is put in a new dress and given am American nativity in order to make 1t more attractive to the people of the lions to be arbitrated is the same, the only difference is in the method Of ar oitration and in the creation in the present treaty of the joint high com 0f the Senate. No; the treaty propo- sition had foreign origin which brought 1t into disrepute, but MT Jas 1 Bryce carried the founding to Wash
  White House, and our genial Presi- lent, with his noble and characteris- tic good heartedness, took the aban- toned bantling in and adopted it as his own. Applause on the Democratic side.)
 The gentleman from Missouri under .akes to inform this House what the attitude of Irish citizens is on this reaty. Now, he may or may not be m authority on the attitude of the Termans-he certainly, to my person. Il knowledge, is not an authority so lar as the Germans of New Jersey and he Germans of the great city of New York are concerned. They are over She' mingly against this treaty.
 But I must protest against his state nents regarding the Irish citizens. Some Of those statements are utte-ly Infounded and others, whether intend d Or not, are decidedly insulting. He ,aid:
 Some Of our Irish friends are oppos- d to the treaty with Great Britain