OCR Text |
Show "senate action wasjsmh) Only Did Duty ia Matter of Treaties. Constitution Plain and Imperative Im-perative as to Treaty-Making Treaty-Making Power. John W. Foster, President of National Arbitration Conforencc, Gives Out Statement. WASHINGTON. Feb. 12. John "W. Foster, president of the national arbitration arbi-tration conference, which has been conducting con-ducting an active propaganda In behalf of arbitration of international disputes, today made the following statement bearing on the action of the Senate in amending the arbitration treaties between be-tween the United States and eight European Eu-ropean Governments: Mr. Foster said he was greatly disappointed disap-pointed nt the result so far attained In the effort to commit the United States lo the principle of arbitration. He had labored to secure the approval of the treaties by the Senate without amendment amend-ment because he considered the word agreement, in article l! of the conventions, conven-tions, as having th same significance In international law as the word treaty. But when this matter was brought Into doubt, he regarded the Senate as justified justi-fied in making this clear by amendment, amend-ment, as he never contemplated the President would have the power, under the treaties, to make an agreement to submit-a case to The Hague court without with-out the advice of the co-ordinate branch of the treaty-making power. " Is Most Unfortunate. It Is most unfortunate that there should arise an apparent divergence of views between the Executive and the Senate. The matter Is now In the hands of the President, and Mr. Foster said he had great confidence that that statesman, who had shown himself the most ardent friend of arbitration and had brought the warring nations in the Venezuela trouble to The Hague, and thus rendered the cause of arbitration the grentest service of any man of his generation, would And a Way to reconcile recon-cile the existing differences and save the United States"7rom'HecotnIng' the most backward of tho nations in. J.he cause of International peace.- Mr. Foster Fos-ter said he was authorized to give out the following telegram "from Andrew Carneirie: What Carnegie Says. "New Vork, Feb 12. IMS. Hon. John W. Foster, Washington. D. C You can truly say that I am forced lo sec that the Senate only did its duty. I could not have done otherwise than vote with tho majority, though with such reluctance as Scnutors Lodge. Spooncr. Cnllom and others oth-ers expressed. The absentees from voting vot-ing are as significant as tho overwhelming overwhelm-ing vote. I know ?he President and Secretary Sec-retary of Stale aro Just as clear and honest In their convictions as the Senate Is. The Senate might adopt' a rule lo glc ffpocirtc trqatle.8 submitted Instant consideration, and then foreign powers would not have to wait Surely, something some-thing can be done that will harmonize tho two parties anxious to promote the same noble end. Carnegie." Wayne UncVeagh's Views. Mr. Foster further said that Hon. Wayne MncVeagh, former Attorney-General, Attorney-General, had authorized him to make public the following jsjajtenjentof" his views concerning the constitutional question Involved; "The language of our Constitution, framed by the wisdom wis-dom of our fathers. Is exceptionally plain and imperative as lo the trealy-maklnc trealy-maklnc power. It requires as a condi tion precedent to the making of any trealy and every agreement between this country and any foreign power should be considered a treaty because the Constitution so calls It, that it should be submitted to the Senate, and that two-thirds of the Senators shall concur in the wisdom of maintaining It. Their concurrence makes It part of the supreme law of the land ' Is It conceivable con-ceivable that in view ot such provisions a President alone can make any action of his a part of the' supreme law of the land? If so, our 'supreme law' would be subjected to the caprice of every successor suc-cessor of President Roosevelt, and the wise men who framed the Constitution knew it would be unsafe to intrust the lawmaking power to any one man. The language of the Supreme court on the subject I? very emphatic, as follows: It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot challenge the Constitution, or be held valid Jf in violation of that Instrument- This results from the nature na-ture and fundamental principles of our Government.' " |