The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-01-05
HITCHCOCK SAYS BRITISH TREATYIS
 A B|G BLUNDER
Would Wipe Out Time Hon. ored Treaty Making
 Plan
TT MIGHT EMBROu
 NATION IN EUROPE
Senator Declares That Great Britain Meant That Treaty Should Entan- gle United States in Com
 ing European War

| HE " al Washington. January 4.--Flatly charging that the administration was bnndering into an entangling alliance with Great Britain, Senator Hitchcock of Nebraska, on the floor of the Senate today, de- nounced the proposed arbitration treaty with that country, He declared the plan to permit the Presidents 10 appoint com missioners to a high court of arbitration without the consent of the Senate was revolutionary and dangerous. 1 The proposed treaty, he said, would wipe out this nations time honored treaty making plan and result virtually in the adoption of the system practced by the monarchial powers
 "rhe President could authorize three conmmissiuners to negotiate and submit dreronces to arbitration without consult
 ing constitutional representatives of lae United States" he said. That Is tho | legitimate and honest interpretation of this treaty. That is what the joint high commission is for. 1t is the trap in this treaty, it is a device to permit an en- taLgling alliance by empowering our ex- eoutve to treat without restraint from the Senate with the government of Great Britain. and in my opinion, Mr. President. it must lead to- and it was designed to lead to, an entanglement of the United States in the foreign policy of Great Brit ain.
 In support of this l shall read an ex- tract of the speech of Sir Edward Grey secretary of state of foreign affairs in the house of commons March 1S last. when he seld
 Sir Edward Grey's Speech
 "'Bnt suprosng il took place and two of the greatest nations in the world were 10 make it eleaI to the whole world that by agreement such as that that in no circumstances were they going to war against each other, l venture to say the effect on the world at large of the eN- ample would be one which would De hound to have beneficial eonseqnences. lt iB trlie the two natious might still be ,S ,noa 8i ia 1T l,slttAsS nf a iniga ra an. ,vho dccs not 2utcr into such agreement. 'l think it probably would lead to their following it rp by an agreement that they would join with each other in any case in winch one only had a quarrel with q third patty by which arbitration was relusea
 "Mr President, that is very significant language (holding the document alofD, 1t would be significant in the mouth of any public man in Great Britain, but it has more peculiar significance coming from Sir Edward Grey It throws a flood of light upon this proposed trans action between the United States and Great BIitaiL.
 "At the time those words of Sir Ed- ward Grty were uttered the relations be- tween Great Britain and Germany Were strained and they are separate today. as all the world knows and the talk of pos sible war between Great Britain and Ger many is almost constant in both of those countries. When therefore, Sir Edwar5t Grey referred to the probability of quar- rel with d third power which refused nr- btration, 1t is hard to escape the coll cllsion fhat he referred 10 Germany, and il is easy to see why under such condi- tions he would desire to follow up the pending treaty by an agreement with the Cntted States to join Great Britain in ner quarrel if Germany refused arbitration.
 Opposed to Treaty
 ''I am, therefore opposed. Mr. President. to the treaty in it's present form, because 1 believe i' may lead and was intended by Great Britain to lead to an entangling alliance which is contrary to the settled policy of tie United States.
 "I believe the United States to be in more danger from the diplomats of Great Britain than from the dreadnaughts of her navy We all know how this country was embarrassed by the concessions made t0 Great Britain in the Clayton-BulWef treaty. We know that when we under. took to buiid the Panama canal we were confronted not so much by the physical obstacles ot construction as we were by the terms oi the Clayton Bulwer treaty in which on diplomatic representatives had practically conceded to Great Britain rights and interests in the canal zone equal to our own
 Tt is enc of the reasons why [ am opposed 10 treaty which seeks to bind ua to enter into the arbitration of vital questions without the specific consent of the senase on each particular case.
 ''I am aware the proposed treaty was defended by some one that the joint high commission could exercise its pre- negatives in overriding certain decisions and jeopardze arbitration. In other words he people say even after the com mission has decided the question shall be arbitrated. it still will be necessary to have an agreement between the two countries as to the details of the arbitrd- tion and 10 any agreement the Senate must consent. The apolosists of the treaty say the Senate will have the con sttutionai power to refuse it's consent to the agreement and thus block the pro- ceedings, or that 1t can so modify tho terms as to make the arbitration in- operative and farce.
 MT. President, I do not think that a self-respect.ng country would enter into ul. agreement of this sort with the men tai reservation that 1t could nullify it at any time. To me 1t seems too much like preponderant bad faith, and aside from a neral consideration 1t is objec- tionable because It would almost inevita- bly, subject us to international quarreIs.
 T am no. only in favor of striking out the clause of article III, providing for a joint high commission to interpret the treaty, but also favor an amendment specifically asserting on the part of tho United States that the treaty could not he construed so as to authorize tho sub mission to arbitration of any question in voivng the traditional attitude of the United States concerning American ques- tons or other purely governmental poli- eies'
 -----s---------