The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-02-23

l tempting to snow that the Monroe doctrine is not as important as for
 merly. In an address made by. the
 gentleman from Texas C1r. Slayden),
 on the 4th of last May, before the
 Peace Congress at Baltimore, and sub-
 mitted to this House on the 17th of the
 same month, I find on the ninth page
 as the title of a section of that ad-
 dress the following:
 l Its-meaning the Monroe doctrine
 importance has passed. The rule laid
 down by MT. Monroe served a good
 purpose one time, but the necessity
 for it passed long ago.
 Dr. Hannis Taylor, whose reputation
 as an authority on international law
 is worldwide, contends that if the Taft administration is sincere in it's
 declaration that the pending arbitra-
 tion treaties are not intended to em- | brace the Monroe doctrine or any o1 it's direct and necessary consequences, | 1t should be so stated Let the trea- l ties be amended and that fact writ ten in clear and unmistakable terms
 in the preamble of each one of them If the administration refuses to take
 that course, then its purpose to sub init the Monroe doctrine to arbitra- ton stands unmasked.
 If, under such conditions, President Taft dares to appeal to the people
 to turn against those faithful Sena-
 tors of both political parties who are
 now defending their Nations interests,
 a vital issue will arise-not of politics | but of patriotism The question will | arise-not of politics, but of patriot l Ism. The question will be this: Can | the American people afford to trust
 their most vital interests to a Presi-
 dent who is wiling to bargain it away l to the European powers for benefits
 which are purely imaginary, or at
 best totally inadequate2
 | To such straits, however, are the ad- vocates of this treaty reduced in their | efforts to have these unfledged treat | tie the importance of our one distinc- | lively American doctrine. Yet with | the building and completion of the Panama Canal, bringing us into clos | South American countries, that doc | Urine will become immensely more i'm portant than ever.
 Would the majority Of American citizens allow arbitration on the ques- | tion of the right of this Government ! to fortify the Panama Canal? Yet this question coulds under the terms of the treaties as signed, be made an arbitrable proposition.
 Tn this connection 1t is valuable to note that those treaties, so we are in liar agreement with Japan. One of the vexatious questions which Is apt to disturb peaceful relations with that newborn world power of the Orient criminate against the admission of Japanese laborers, and the status which Japanese subjects shall enjoy in | our cities on the Pacific coast. Thus ! by our own voluntary act we court | the menace of coolie labor.
 | The party to which our President belongs has always avowed deep so- licitude for the welfare of American labor. It has justified the imposition of what they term protective tariffs to safeguard American labor. Aside from the merits of the protective tar If in this respect, let me ask of what use will 1t be to levy high-tarin taxes in an attempt to keep up for the work ingman the American system of liv- ing2
 Of what value are your schedules if the cheap coolie labor of the East could be landed by thousands on our western coast to imperfl the American rate of wages? The gentleman from Missouri expresses surprise that the Central Labor Union of Washington should have opposed the treaties. Here is a reason sufficiently potent to inn pei any workingman to condemn them. He would be blind not only to his own interests but to those of his country were he to act otherwise. (AppIausea)
 The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a meeting, which was an executive meeting, I understand, in order to consider the treaties. MT. Knox, the Secretary of State, attend ed the meeting for the purpose of urg- ing the committee to report the trea- ties without amendment. The com mittee, however in its wisdom, amend ed the documents by eliminating the third paragraph of Article III This paragraph creates the Joint High Commission, which shall first deter mine what questions are arbitrable-
 One half of this commission would be composed of three members ap- pointed by the Executive without first obtaining the consent of the Senate and the other half would be composed of three foreigners. The effect Of the creation of this commission would be to take from the Senate the important power Of deciding whether each par ticular question of difference should be subjected to arbitration and it would confer that right upon the in ternationaI commission. What mo- tive can there be for this attempt to divest the Senate of this important power? It can hardly be an Ameri- can motive, and fortunately we are not left to mere conjecture to deter mine who first probably suggested f1G idea It is well known that MT. Jas. Bryce, the English ambassador, gave great assistance in the preparation of the arbitration pacts.
 MT. Bryce does not favor the right of tre Senate to possess the power monwealth, the work for which he is perhaps best known in this country, he has, in volume 1, edition of 1910 (chap. II, pp. 109-110), thus expressed himself:
 The Senate may and occasionally does amend a treaty, and return it amended to the President. There is nothing to prevent it from proposing a draft treaty to him or asking him to prepare one, but this Is not the prac- tice. For ratification a vote of two thirds of the Senators present is re- quired. This gives great power to a vexatious minority, and increases the l danger, evidenced by several incidents i in the history of the. Union, that the l Senate, or a faction in 1t, may deal | with foreign policy in a narrow, sec tiOnal, electioneering spirit. When | the interest of any group of States Is, l or is supposed to be, against the mak- Ing of a treaty, that treaty may be | defeated by the Senators from those l States. They tell the other Senators | of their own party that the prospects | of the party in the district of the | country whence they came will be inn | proved if the treaty IS rejected and a | bold, aggressive line is taken in fur | ther negotiations. Some of these Sen | ators, who care more for the party | than for justice or the common in- | terests of the country, rally to the | cry, and all the more gladly if their | party is opposed to the President in | power, because in defeating the treaty |