Great Falls daily tribune., 1919-12-24

these reservations. It could therefore do moth
ing at all with the treaty either by way OF ac-
cepting or rejecting it, for two-thirds majority
was not obtainable for any proposal whatever.
A joint resolution may be passed by majori-
ty in each house, but it requires the assent OF
the president to be of any binding force, and it
is not the constitutional way Of making peace,
either. It would be useless unless its authors
have assurance that the president would sign 1T,
and it is not likely that they have such assur-
ance In that event it would only be political
jockeyng stunt designed to put the onus OF pre-
venting peace on the president if he vetoed it,
if we concede that this new and untried way OF
making peace is lawful. On that point there IS
very grave doubt, to say the least, for the con-
stitution is very specific in stating how peace
is to be made and this is not the way
The breakdown of the senate and it's confessed
| inability to function in peace making under the
constitution has revived discussion about the
wisdom Of the constitution in requiring two
thirds vote TO ratify treaty. The reason for
this requirement lies in the old time jealousy Of
the states and their distrust of each other. 1t
practically enables the representatives of one
third Of the states to continue war that two
larger proportion of the people, desire to bring
to an end. It is in startling antagonism to the
principle of majority rule. If it ever served any
good purpose we cannot that it serves any
good purpose now. A majority of the two houses
of congress can declare war, but it takes two
thirds Of the senate which is not elected on
voter representative basis, but on state repre-
sentative basis, to make peace. Theoretically,
it is possible under this provision of the consti-
tuition for states representing one-tenth OF the
population to continue state of war while nlne-
tenths of the voters desire to make peace. John
Hay, republican secretary Of state, once very
bitterly arraigned this provision Of the constl-
tuition as making it very difficult for the United
States to negotiate any treaty where more than
e-third of the senators were hostile to the
administration making the treaty, and Richard
Olney, secretary Of state under President Cleve-
land writing to member of the American en-
bassy in London. after his retirement from office
and while Mr. Mckinley was president, few
days after the rejection by the senate of the
Anglo-American treaty in May, 1897, deplored
the rejection of the treaty as "a calamity not
merely national, but of international proper
tions" and made this diagnosis:
"It must be borne in mind that the senate is
now asserting itself as the power in the nation
al government 1t is steadily encroaching on
the one hand on the executive branch of the
government, and on the other on the house Of
representatives. For example, nothing can be
clearer than that the management of the foreign
relations Of the government is meant to be re-
posed in the president-the few exceptions to
the rule being explicitly set forth in the text Of
the constitution. Yet the doctrine is now seri-
ously mooted in the senate, and is apparently
becoming more and more in vogue, that the pres
ident has no independent power in respect to
foreign relations, but is the creature of the
ate, or at least Of congress, whose wishes or in
structions he is bound to conform to.
"This aggressive attitude Of the senate toward
other departments of the government is largely
responsible for the treatment it has given the
general arbitration treaty After long, protract-
ed and troublesome discussion and negotiation,
perfected treaty was laid before the senate by
the executive branch Of the government exer-
cising therein an undoubted constitutional func-
tion The senate Immediately assumed an hos
tile attitude The treaty, on getting itself made
by the sole act Of the executive, without leave
of the senate had first been obtained, had COM
mitted the objectionable sin. 1t must either be
altogether defeated or so altered as to bear an
unmistakable senate stamp-and thus be the
means both of humating the executive and
showing to the world the greatness of the SEN
ate Hence, the treaty has been assailed by SEN
ators of all parties and although the present
executive advocated its ratification no less
warmly than his predecessor. The method of
assault has been insidous as it has been deadly.
A single sound objection to the treaty as signed
has yet to be stated. Awed by the universal pub
lie sentiment for the treaty and compelled to