Evening star., 1944-12-10
.anted: A Voice
House Treaty Fight
Long a Problem
By H0ward FHeqey

Who should write the peace terms
for the people of the United States?
A scholarly but nonetheless intense
argument has been going on over that
question ever since the first Senate
snubbed George Washington At least
he considers himself snubbed
Now with peace approaching, it is
back again.
Since the creation of the United
States all treaties have been subject to
ratification by a two-thirds vote of the
Senate. That means a minority of the
Senate can control our relations with
other nations
Now-as often before-the House of
Representatives wants a voice in the
wording of the coming peace terms.
Agitation has developed in Congress
for an amendment to the Constitution
which will make future treaties subject
to ratification by a majority vote of
both branches of Congress.
And now-as before-backers of the
change admit in private conversation
that they don't have much of a chance.
They are jousting against stone wall
of Senate determination to keep its
controlling hand on treaty ratifications.
Changed in First Term.
Historically the two-thirds rule was
written into the Constitution because
the Constitutional Convention felt that
treaties should be concluded after a
close consultation between the President
and the Senate. Too, they felt that the
Senate-with two votes for each State
could better express the will of the
smaller States.
The Constitution, consequently, says
treaties shall be ratified with ''the advice
and consent" of the Senate.
But George Washington himself did
much to erase the advice" The Senate
kept him cooling his heels outside the
Senate door for two days once he
wanted to consult with it on an Indian
treaty. He left and never again, after
that experience, did he ask the Senate's
treaty advice.
Since then most of the work on
treaties has been done by the executive
branch of the Government-the Presi-
dent. They have been ratified or re-
| jected more on the basis Of consent
than advice" even though the present
administration has kept the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee well
abreast of its own peace plans.
So the modern debate on treaty
ratification turns on a new point.
The question now is whether a two
thirds vote of the Senate or a majority
vote of the whole Congress is more
expressive of the public attitude toward
treaty terms.
Affected by Whims.
Advocates of the two-thirds rule feel
that treaty ratification by a simple
majority of Congress would make our
international dealings too dependent on
the whims of party politics and other
more emotional elements. They envision
situation where an administration
without party control of both branches
Of Congress could find itself hamstrune
on almost any proposal.
Edwin Borchard, an authority on
international law and member of the
Yale law faculty, said this in radio
debate on the subject:
| Political reasons in opposing a
treaty in the form submitted, which are
present sometimes, are not necessarily
reprehensible. Motives are usually
mixed. An executive is not necessarily
wise, and it is not possible to prove
that the senatorial check has not, or
the whole, operated to the country's
advantage.
There has been no provable abuse o.
its legal authority. There is no reason
to suppose that the issue will not be.
come even more political if the two
houses do not happen to belong to the
same party"
War Power Compared.
Arguing for the change-to give the
House voice in treaty ratification
Representative Kefauver, Democratic, ol
Tennessee said recently:
"The members of the House of Repre-
sentatives, being closer to the people
should have voice in seeing that w
do not repeat the tragic blunder of the
last war when Senate minority de-
feated United States participation IN
the League Of Nations.
,"If We can trust the majority (of Con-
gfess) to declare war, can we not with
equal faith and the wisdom and judg.
ment of the majority, trust 1t to ratify
| peace treaty." he asked.