1890 the Senate of the United States and the
House of Representatives adopted the following
concurrent resolution: “That the President be
and is hereby requested to invite from time to time, as fit occasions may arise, negotiations with any government with which the United States has or may have diplomatic relations, to the end that any differences or disputes arising between the two governments which cannot be adjusted by diplomatic agency may be referred to arbitration, and be peaceably adjusted by such means.” In July, 1893, the British House of Commons declared, after reciting the above resolve of our Congress, “that this House, cordially sympathizing with the purpose in view, expresses the hope that her Majesty's government will lend their ready co-operation to the government of the United States, upon the basis of the foregoing resolution.” Thus the Congress of the United States initiated the movement in favor of arbitration, diplomatic agencies failing, as a settled policy for the adjustment of any international dispute, and the British House of Commons heartily responded. Accordingly the President of the United States and the British government took the matter in hand, and after long negotiation treaty which now requires only the consent of the Senate of the United States to go into effect. The organs of public opinion, not only in the United States and in England, but throughout the civilized world, with an almost unanimous voice congratulate the two countries concerned and all mankind upon the auspicious achievement, as an event marking a grand onward stride in the progress of civilization. And now reports are coming from Washington that the Senate of the United States hesitates to approve this treaty, and that there is grave danger of its total defeat. This is startling news.
Those who attempt to defeat or even to delay the
ratification of a treaty of such transcendent
significance assume as responsibility so momentous
that they must be supposed to have the most convincing
and insuperable reasons for their course. So far such reasons have been expressed only in conversations more or less private which have been made public; but although in a still indefinite shape, they may be taken as foreshadowing what is to come. The objections to the treaty, in whatever way they turn up, are of high interest to the world. What are they?
“The treaty goes to far,” says one critic. “It
interferes with the doctrine.” No one
who has ever read the treaty will seriously pretend
this. The doctrine, even in its broadest
modern acceptation, concerns only the policy of
this republic with regard to the relations between
any part of America and any foreign power. Is
there anything in the arbitration treaty to prevent
this republic from making, if it choose to do so, an
alliance with any independent American state to
protect it against foreign encroachment, or even, if
it deem extreme measures indispensable, from
going to war for such a purpose? Let the objectors
answer. While under this treaty the adjustment
of pecuniary claims may become subject to the
verdict of an umpire to be agreed upon by the two
parties, or, if they fail to agree, to be designated by
the King of Sweden, controversies touching territorial
claims shall go before a tribunal composed
of three American jurists to be named by the
President, and three English jurists to be named by the
Queen, whose award by a majority of not less than
five to one shall be final. A two-thirds majority
of the American judges would therefore be
required for a decision against the United States. An award of a less majority shall be final only if neither party protest against it within three months. If such a protest be made, the award shall be invalid. But in this case there shall be no recourse to hostile measures until the mediation of one or more friendly powers has been invited by one or both of the high contracting parties. But as such mediation does not involve any decision, and as