The Washington herald., 1913-01-06
FOR ARBITRAT|NG
CANALDISPUTE
Continued from Page One,

| chief arguments seem to be that the mat
| ter of canal tolls IS a domestic question
in which We are not bound 10 consider
any other nation; and that it would be
| impossible TO secure an impartial tribu-
nal A few admit that they oppose arbl-
tration because they think the United
States would be sure TO lose. Other Sen
ators have declared they would prefer
to vote for the repeal of the canal act
rather than consent to arbitration.
Among those who oppose arbitration
are Senators Townsend of Michigan.
ShIvely OF Indiana, Fletcher of Florida,
Jones of Washington, GaIlinGer OF New
Hampshire, Stone OF Missouri. and
Borah of Idaho. Among those IA
vOring arbitration are Senators Root OF
New York, Burton of Ohio. Hitchcock Of
Nebraska. and Bacon Of Georgia.
The Senate has an absolutely unshaka-
BILE hold on any proposal for arbitration
proceedings with Great Britain. BY the
arbitration treaty of 1905. it is provided
that the special agreement TO be framed
preceding each appeal to an arbitI al tri-
bunal shall be void without the ratifica-
ton Of the agreement by the United
States Senate. This clause in the treaty
makes it impossible for any administra-
ton TO bring any matter TO arbitration
without the consent of the Senate.
There has been discussion of pro-
posal TO abrogatc the arbitration treaty
as means OF evading Great Britain's
request for arbitration. should the canal
act not be repealed. 1t has also been
proposed that the treaty be not renewed
following it's expiration by limitation on
June 4. 1905 Both of these plans would
be absolutely futile. in the opinion of
many familiar with international proce
dure. These men declare that Great
Britain would promptly reply, in case
either measure was adopted, that her re-
quest for arbitration was made while
the treaty was in force, and that, con-
sequently. the abrogation or lapse of the
treaty could have no effect on the obli-
cations OF the United States in the canal
dispute. 1t is further declared that the
abrogation OF the arbitration treaty. for
the purpose of evading the British re-
quest for arbitration of the canal dis
pute would brand the United States as
a renegade among nations.
Put 1t Up to Wilson.
1t is argued that President Wilson will
really be the man to settle the question
of whether the Executive shall seek ar
bitration Of the canal dispute. Senator
Fletcher of Florida yesterday expressed
the opinion that Mr.. Taft should delib-
erately leave the matter for the decision
of the Wilson administration. Should
President Taft persist in his determina-
ton to do all he can to bring the matter
to arbitration, it is believed he can easily
commit the United States to arbitration
should the President-elect and his Cabinet
be opposed to arbitration.
1t is already matter of controversy
in the Senate as to whether a two-thirds
vote or a majority vote Is required for
consent to a special agreement for arbi-
tration. Those who favor arbitration of
the canal dispute declare that only a
majority vote is needed. Those opposing
arbitration state that a two-thirds vote
is required, as is necessary for the ratif-
cation of treaties. 1t is still an open
question.