Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-07-11
PREROGAT|VE HELD
AT STAKE IN FIGHT
Question of Revealing Treaty
Data Has No Direct
Bearing on Pact.
BY MARK SULLIVAN.

four days of the Senate session, the
demand to see the correspondence be-
tween Secretary of State Stimson and
Ambassador Dawes, has no direct
bearing on the question of ratifying
the treaty. This is wholly a collateral
controversy over point of power, pride
and prerogative between the Senate and
the executive branch of the Govern
ment
The lineup on this question has no
relation to the lineup on ratifying the
treaty. Senator after Senator has said,
in effect. that he would vote 70 ratify
the treaty but that he would fight all
Summer to maintain the Senate's de-
mand to see this correspondence. They
have said that, as Senator Black of
Alabama put it, this question of pre-
negative fundamentally transcends in
Importance the question of the treaty
ITSELF"
Senators Feel Outraged.
This question OF prerogative as be-
tween Senate and President Is to the
front as respects all relations between
the two. When a large part of the
Senate opposed Charles E. Hughes as
In the nature of serving notice on the
President that he must give the Senate
larger share in the selection OF
justices. More lately, the Senate has
been outraged because through the
flexible provision Of the tariff, large
part of the historically most important
function OF Congress has been trans
ferred to the President.
The Senate feels the President over
rode them about the pension bill. Sen
ator Black stated the broad position of
the Senate when he said that the posi-
ton OF the President in the present
matter sis an attempt on the part of
the Executive to whittle of one more
legislative function. We have yielded
the power to tax, we have yielded the
power to apportion Representatives"
The dispute about the treaty corre-
spondence is not a question of the
Senate seeing the correspondence. 1t
is question OF the Senate seeing It
Internationally. Senator Reed of Penn
sylvania has the correspondence in his
possession. He offers to turn 1t over to
the whole Senate with a proviSo The
proviso is that the Senate read 1t in
executive session as distinguished from
open session. Executive session would
prevent publication.
JOhllSOH AS AuutSHdnL,
At this proposal Senator johnson of
California is indignant. What he is in
dignant at Is the proviso, the placing
of any condition whatever upon the
Senates seeing the correspondence. It
is matter of principle with him. His
position is that the Senate has a right
to see the correspondence. Since the
Senate has right, therefore, it is in
sulting TO the Senate that there should
be any proyiso or condition whatever
attached to the seeing of the CORE
spondence.
Public curiosity as to just what is in
the correspondence, and as to reasons
for not publishing it broadcast, is an
swered by Democratic Leader Robinson
OF Arkansas, who has seen the CORE
spondence. He says the messages ac-
cording to the processes of diplomacy
from time ,immemorial, were confiden-
tial - There were some sent by our
representatives abroad describing Situa-
lions in foreign governments which il
published might cause very unfavorable
reaction. Publication might create such
resentment in other countries that the
treaty might not be ratified by them.
There is 10 me an element of comedy
in the matter and that would be APP
parent If Senators could read some of
these secret messages
Reed Gives Explanation.
Senator Reed of Pennsylvania, who
has sense of humor, went farther
in limiting what is in the so-called
secret correspondence and in suggesting
why 1T should not be published "in
the newspapers of the whole round
globe" though he implied there would
be no harm in publication in American
newspapers. Senator Reed described
the correspondence by analogy to the
correspondence of the other nations, to-
gether with an alluSion to the arts of
poker
He said: when the delegates OF the
five nations were named. l do not know
what information the ambassadors of
Great Britain, Of Japan, of France and
of Italy here In Washington sent to
their governments. But they would
be sadly remisS in their duty If they
had not promptly communicated back
to their governments their estimate of
the individuals who were named. It
Is open to any of us to assume that
ordinary communications of that char
acter would have been made by AM
bassador Dawes to our own Govern
ment. Ambassador Dawes might have
said: Sir What's-his-name Shocks Is
a very Shrewd man. He deals very
closely and has to be watched Sup
pose that we're published? That is the
kind OF stuff that comprises these So
called deadly secret documents. the
ordinary fun, frank comment Of an in
telligent ambassador like Mr.. Dawes.
speaking as he would speak II he were
closeted in an ONCE with his Presi-
dent"
Gossip Hints at Language.
Washington gossip hints a further
humorous reason for hesitancy about
publishing the correspondence. 1t is
rather well known that Ambassador
Dawes occasionally uses language more
appropriate to intimate conversations
than to diplomacy or Sunday schools.
Undersecretary of State Joseph p. Cot
ton has the same trait of forceful ex-
preston.
1t is possible the correspondence NAV
N>ntain some inelegant words that
would shock the very polite world of
diplomacy. According to a story cur
rent here some time ago an American
ambassador abroad sent home an px-
tremely long dispatch full of woe and
trouble. Undersecretary of State Cot
ton dictated an answer in four words
oh, laugh II Off" Some hours later
subordinate official of the depart
ment approached Mr.. Cotton timorouslv
and said, Il am sorry, sir, but the
state Department code has no word for
laugh.
HuIHAG0AMc nDCET