The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1913-01-05
TAFT IS IN FAVOR
Of arbitration
IF II COMES TO THE LAST STAGE,
THE PRESIDENT WOULD GO
TO THE HAGUE.

ing r~epotiations between Great Britain
and h United States fail in bringing
about II settlement.
This was the. first public declaration
of the president regarding his attitude
toward the question.
He. was speaking at a luncheon Civ
en- III his honor by the International
Peace Forum.
Il am willing. and indeed l would be
ashamed not to be willing" he said.
Ito arbitrate any question with Great
Britain in the construction of a treaty
when we reach the. exact issue which
there is between the two nations.
There need not be any public doubt
on that subject SO far as this admin
istration is concerned. When there is
a difference that cannot be reconciled
by International negotiation and adj
justnent, then We are entirely willing
tc submit it to an impartial tribunal.
Il am hopeful that we may get it
either to settlement or to submission
before the administration in which !
haVefthe honor to be 'diSsolving view,
shall cease, but it may not be, be-
cause these negotiations move. slowly.
but | am glad to take his opportunity
to say that If the time comes there
will be no doubt about what l will do
in respect to the submission of that
question, as far as my power goes, to
All impartial tribunal for it's settle
Eent. if that is necessary"
The presidents mark apparently
were prompted by a declaration in a
speech by Henry Clews, the banker,
asserting hat for President Taft's adj
ministration ito concede the right to
arbitrate the difference would be a
splendid achievement but holding
that W are in the wrong n would
most likely be defeated if it should go
tc The league for decision"
Referring to the Panama canal
treaty, the president, who had said at
the outset of his remarks that rose
with mingled feelings of sorrow and
pleasure" continued:
Going to Lose.
my friend, Mr.. clews, differs with
me and with the administration in the
construction Of that treaty. That is
all right. l suppose questions before
have arisen as to construction of con-
tracts in which good honest persons
have been on each side. Now thai
presents to me a very significant and
useful example with respect to arbi-
traten. A great many persons are
saying Don't arbitrate because you
are going to lose; this is our own
canal and while England is making a
point of it, England would not fight
about it and, therefore. why give up
when you are not likely to get an ar
bitration that will be satisfactory to
YOU and your view of the construc-
tion.'
Nov that, ever if this view were
correct as to probability of result,
which l need not admit, is just the
time when l am in favor of arbitra-
ton. l mean l have not gone about
the COUNT! urging arbitration for the
purpose OF using that as a platform
subject to attract the attention and
approval of the audience
The Senate.
MIR. Taft warmly denounced the SEN
ate in connection with the defeat of
the proposed arbitration treaties with
Great Britain and France.
This meeting brings back to me the
earnest triumphant feeling that l had
in my soul after l had visited almost
every state in the Union and urged
the confirmation Of the treaties which
we had made with England and
France and then lived to find them
defeated in the highest legislative body
in the world, as some OF tie members
Of that body e,e in the habit of call
ing it.
1.-The defeat was more thar a mere
destruction of our hopes as to the
progress that might be made by those
treaties because the vote carries with
it a proposition. which, if established
as our constitutional law, %relegates the
United states to the rear rank of those
nations which are to help the cause of
universal peace.
For the proposition is that the SEN
ate of the United States may not con-
sent with the president of the United
States to a treaty that shall bind the
United States to arbitrate any class of
questions that may arise in the future,
but that there must always be a condi-
ton that the senate may subsequently.
when the facts arise, determine Wheth-
er in Its discretion the United States
ought tC arbitrate the issue
Now l say that limitation upon the
powers of the United States as a gov
to bind itself to obligations,
to meet questions between nations
with arbitration, is an obstruction not
only to the progress of the United
States, but to the progress Of the
world in the matter Of peace, for the
reaso that the nations of the world
look to the United States. and properly
SO, as a leader in the matter of es-
tablishing peace, because we are SO
fortunately placed between oceans and
without troublesome n%eighbors, that
We can go on without fears of conse-
quence to establish a condition by
which can be settled every question by
reference to an arbitral bun
1T Is because the nations of the
world look to us to do that, that the
announcement of the doctrine of the
senate of the United states that we
have no power to make an arrange
n1ant Of that SDrt for the futura ay-