JAN. 18, 1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1055
SENATE. yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania, who desires to make a motion in reference to this matter. THURSDAY, January 18, 191B. l\Ir. PENROSE. I simply desire to say in connection with The Senate met at 2 o'clock p. m. the remarks of the Senator from Idaho that in my sel'Yice in Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. Ulysses G. B. Pierce, D. D, the Senate I have yet to find the line of demarcation on the Tbe VICE PRESIDENT resumed the chair. qualification that entitles a person to communicate to a Senator The Journal of yesterday's proceedings was read and approved. or the Senate. We get communications from everybody of all classes and distinctions and under all circumstances. I there WILLIAY YANCEY, ADMINISTRATOR, V. UNITED STATES (S. DOC, fore make my motion to refer the communication to the Com NO. 264). mittee on Printing. Tlle VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communica Mr. LODGE. The motion to refer is debatable? tion from the assistant clerk of the Court of Claims, transmit The VIOE PRESIDENT. The motion to refer is debatable, ting a certified copy of the findings of fact and conclusion of but there is a question whether the motion to refer is in order law fil ed by the court in the cause of William Yancey, admin until the motion which has been made that the Senate shall istrator de bonis non of the estate of George W. Yancey, de refuse to receive the document is disposed of. 'fhe C~ n ir ceased, v. The united States, which, with the accompanying thinks that that should be first disposed of. If tile Senate paper, was referred to the Committee on Claims and ordered to chooses not to receive the document, of course it can not be be printed. referred anywhere. HAND-BOLLER l'ROCESS-SA.MUEL GOMPERS. l\Ir. LODGE. That is very true, and on that I wish to say a The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the Senate a communi word. cation from Samuel Gompers, the president of the American The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Massachusetts Federation of Labor, transmitting a copy of resolutions adopted will proceed. t . that body, petitioning that the "hand-roller" process in the l\Ir. ORA WFORD. l\Iay I ask a question? manufacture of currency, etc., be not discontinued by the The VICE PRESIDE~~. Does the Senator from Massachu Government. setts yield to the Senator from South Dakota? .Mr. HEYBURN. What is this document? Mr. LODGE. I shall take but a moment. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secretary will again read the l\fr. ORA WFORD. I simply ask- what this is. Has it been synopsis. laid before the Senate? I have just come into the Chamber. The SECRETARY. A communication from Samuel Gompers, Mr. LODGE. It has been laid before the Senate. I under president of the American ·Federation of Labor, transmitting stand from what tlle Chair says that it is a communication in n copy of resolutions adopted by that body petitioning that the the nature of a petition. · " band-roller" process in the manufacture of currency, and The VICE PRESIDE~T. It is a letter which, in the opinion so fortll, be not discontinued by the Government. of the Chair, should be recognized as a petition. Mr. HEYBURN. What is it doing in the Senate? l\Ir. LODGE. I think it has been settled that all petitions and The VICE PRESIDENT. It is addressed to the Vice P.:.·esi protests are to be received. Some 80 years ago that question of dent as President of the Senate~ and the Vice President there petitions occupied the attention of the House of Representatives fore lays it before the Senate. It is practically a petition. for some time, and I think it was then settled, and I believe Mr. HEYBURN. I will make the appropriate motion when rightly settled once for all, that a petition respectful in char the document is before the Senate. acter was to be received; that it was the right of eyery Ameri The VICE PRESIDENT. The document is before the Senate, and the Chair was about to refer it to the Committee on can citizen, no matter what it was thought of the citizen Printing. individually, if he presented a respectful petition or protest to Mr. HEYBURN. I move that.the document be not received. have it received. No document should be received by the United States Senate I sincerely hope that the Senate will not refuse to re~eiYe that comes from that source in the light of recent developments. a petition if it is couched in proper language. l\1r. CULBERSON. Mr. President-- Mr. HEYBURN. l\fr. President, that right of petition is Tlle VICE PRESIDENT. One moment, until the-Chair states confined to the citizens of Ule United States. I would like to the motion. It is that the document be not recei\ed. The Sen see or have some evidence that the petitioner in this case is a ator from 'fexas will proceed. citizen of the United States. Until that question is decided Mr. CULBERSON. I should like the Secretary to read the he is not at liberty to petition the Congress of the United statement he was about to read when interrupted. States. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secretary concluded the read l\Ir. CULBERSON. I understand that this is a petition from . ing. He will read it again, if there is no objection. the American Federation of Labor. I should like to be advised 'l'he SECRETARY. A communication from Samuel Gompers, if I am correct in that view. president of the American Federation of Labor, transmitting a The VICE PRESIDENT. It is a letter addressed to the e:opy of resolutions adopted by that body petitioning that the Vice Pre.sident as President of the Senate, signed by Samuel "hand-roller" process in the manufacture of currency, and so Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor. forth, be not discontinued by the Government. Mr. CULBERSON. Does it not purport really to communi .Mr. PENROSE. Will the Senator allow me? cate to the Senate resolutions adopted by the American Federa The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Idaho yield tion of Labor? to the Senator from Pennsylrnnia? The VICE PRESIDENT. It does. Mr. HEYBURN. It depends on the purpose. I do not want Mr. HEYBURN. Now, a word more. Can any Senator the Senator to make n motion in my time that will shut off vouch for the citizenship of Samuel Gompers? I have de what I desire to say at this time. Yeloped this question this morning for consideration just so l\Ir. PENROSE. I have no desire to shut off the Senator. If far as I desire at this time, and I withdraw my objection. he will permit me simply to announce my intention, I desire to The VICE PRESIDENT. Tbe Senator from Iclaho withdraws move to refer the communication to the Committee on Printing. bis motion, and the communication and accompanying resolu !\Ir. HEYBURN. Now, Mr: President-- tions will be referred to the Committee on Printing. Mr. PENROSE. I will ask the Senate to vote on that motion Mr. REED. l\Ir. President, I had risen before the Chair's when the Senator is through. ruling that the petition should be referred; the Chair had l\Ir. HEYBURN. I will be through in a moment. I can say failed to glance this way and hence did not see me. I wante~ all that this subject deseryes in about a minute, I think. to say a word. No communication should be receirnd by the Congress of the I do not know what the purpose is of any Senator in rising United States from Samuel Gompers because of the facts in his seat and inquiring whether a petitioner is a citizen ot disclosed in the McNamara trial and subsequent thereto. He is the United States, demanding proof or voucher, and then not qualified to address a communication to Congress or to the suddenly withdrawing his opposition. If Samuel Gompers Is . Goyernment, and be should not be permitted to until he qualifies not a citizen of the United States and is known to the Senator himself. I make that statement as a text for the consideration not to be a citizen of the United States, if that is regarded as' of anything that pertains to this class of requests. a material matter, then it ·seems to me, if the Senator has. Mr. LODGE. .Mr. President-- that knowledge and it is regarded by him as material, he The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Idaho yield ought to advise the Senate and not withdraw his opposition. to the Sena tor from l\Iassachusetts? · If he has no such knowledge, if the question was asked merely Mr. LODGE. I thougllt the Senator was through. to create a doubt or cause a suspicion as to that of which }le Mr. HEYBURN. I will be through in a minute. I only de had neither knowledge nor information, then is occurs to me sire tlla t my sentirneuts. whntewr they are worth, shall be that the attitude of the Senator reflects a strange sort of side mad1~ _plain and be a part of tbe record this morning. Now I light upon his motives. XLVIII---67 tl.056 CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD- SEN ATEc JANUARY 18,
l\Ir. President, I do not take the position that this letter Mr. HEYBURN. Now, .J should like to ask the Senator if should be received upon the narrow ground suggested by the he would sit here and passively receive a communication from Senator from Massachusetts. I do not mean to characterize the McNamara brothers signing themselves, one of them as one the attitude of the Senator from Massachusetts as narl'OW; I officer of the labor union, and another as another officer? intend, rather, to refer to it as the assertion of a technical Would he do it? legal right. I beliern there is no-- Mr. REED. Why, Mr. President, I unhesitatingly answer Mr. LODGE. Will the Senator allow me? yes. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from ·Missouri Mr. HEYBURN. Then I have no further argument with yield to the Senator froID-Massachusetts? any Senator who can take that position. . .l\Ir. REED. Certainly. · l\Ir. REED. I would receive a petition from the McNamara Mr. LODGE. I put the right of petition upon the broadest brothers, from the Sena tor from Idaho, or from the best or constitutional ground. It is an inalienable right, in my the meanest of God Almighty's creatures. I would o-fve it judgment. f~ir and just ~onsideration, ~d in its consideration, lf pos Ur. REED. I perhaps misunderstood the Senator. I think sible, would disabuse my mmd from any prejudice which that is the ground-- might attach by reason of the past misdeeds of the man who Mr. LODGE. The Senator cet"tainly misunderstood me if lie forwarded the petition. supposed that I put it on any narrow ground. I put it on the But, Mr. President, I rose to say one word more. Samncl broad ground of a general constitutional right of a citizen of Gompers stands as the official head of a great body of men the United States to petition. who are scattered over the United States of America. The Mr. REED.' Where I sat I could not clearly hear the Senator members of the American Federation of Labor. with tbeir from l\1assachusetts. But as he has just expressed his views allied societies and organizations, embrace every trade and and as he doubtless did in the first instance-he takes the practically every vocation of life. .They are found in every broad position which I would expect the Senator from Massa community, in e\ery hamlet, in every village. We count them chusetts to take. by hundred of thousands and by millions in the United States I join, tllen, with the Senator from Massachusetts. I gladly of America. meet him upon the broad constitutional ground. I say here and If they are bad men, if they are wicked men, if they are so now there is no citizen of the Republic so humble or ob cure low and so rue that the touch of their petition would be pol· that he is not entitled to have his petition presented to this lution to this august body, then may God saye the Republic of body. The right of petition and the right of remonstrance the United States! They have not seen fit to displace Samuel was settled when the British flag was lowered at Yor1.1:own. Gompers, and I say now that, man for man and individual for There is no public body in this land so great that it ought not to individual, the members of the labor organizations in this coun· receive and give consideration to the petition of any man, how try who are affiliated under the name of the American Federa ever humble he may be. , Tbe greater the body the less injury tion of Labor will a\erage and weigh morally and mentaily will occur to its dignity if tlle petitioner should happen to be a with the citizens generally of the United States, and some of man either obscure or resting under a cloud. them will look as well in the balances of justice and right as But I go further than that, sir. I recognize, as every other some Members of this body, sil"'. man recognizes, the full sweep and scope and potency of the facts that were developed in the l\IcNamara case; but I What is there against Samuel Gompers that we have the say that any man who will bring a wholesale charge against right to draw asi
l\Ir. THOR1\"TON (when l\lr. FosTER's name was called). I States shall be manufactured in the highest style of the art by what is known as the hand-roller process. We do not believe in a cheap announce the unavoidable absence of my co1league [Mr. Fos country, cheap men, cheap wages, or a currency cheapened to the TER) and state tllat be hns a general pair with the junior Sen danger point of encouraging counterfeiting. In this respect the people ator from Wyoming [Mr. WA.BREN]. have implicit confidence in their Government, and our pride and interest alike demand that this confidence shall not be destroyed. The pe'.>ple Mr. WETMORE (when Mr. LIPPITT's name was called). I in the last analysis are the Government, and their voice, and not that desire to announce that my colleague [Mr. LIPPITT] is unavoid of tb.e selfish and .scheming interests, should prevail in this matter of ably detained from the Senate. He is paired with the junior so vast, far-reaching, and vital concern ; and be it further "Resolved, That copies hereof be transmitted to the President of the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. LEA]. United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, the President of the Mr. CURTIS (when l\lr. RooT's name was called). I have Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives with a request been requested to announce that the senior Senator from New that the same be printed in the Co:sGRESSIO::iA.L REcono." The convention approved the above, and in conformity with the con York [l\lr. RooT] was unexpectecUy called from the city, and cluding parag-raph thereof I have the honor to transmit the matter to that he is paired with the junior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. you, which I trust may receive your favorable consideration. DAVIS]. _ Very respectfully, yours, Mr. S:~UTH of South Carolina (when his name was called). SA.ML. GOMPERS, President Americ'ln lfctlcr11tion of Labo1-. I have a pair with the junior Senator from Delaware [.Mr. RICHARDSON], but I transfer that pair to the junior Senator Mr. HEYBURN. Mr. President, just a word. It seems to from Oklahoma [Mr. GoRE] and vote. I vote "yea." me that we have possibly discovered a solution to an embarrass l\Ir. WARREN (when his name was called). I have a gen ing situation which exists in both political parties. Mr. Gom eral pair with the senior Senator from Louisiana [.Mr. FOSTER] pers has been vindicated so thoroughly and indorsed so higb!y and therefore withhold my vote. by bOth sides that it might be that if it is found that he ]s or Mr. WATSON (when bis name was called). I have a general will become a citizen of the United States and declare to whicll pair with the senior Senator from New Jersey [Mr. BRIGGS], party he belongs he may solve the solution of the conventions. which I transfer to the senior Senator from Oklahoma [l\Ir. l\lr. BACON. I should like to ask the Senator from Idaho ·OwEN] and vote. I 1ote "yea." if he does not recognize that any man, whether he be a citizen The roll call was concluded. or not, who is in this cotmtry and subject to its laws and within Mr. TAYLOR (after having Yoted in the a:ffirmati"rn). I am its jurisdiction, has the right of petition? paired with the Senator from Kentucky [l\Ir. BRADLEY]. As he Mr. HEYBURN. Oh, no; there is no such law. It is a is not present, I withdraw my vote. citizen of the United States who may petition. Mr. BACON. That is not the law. Mr. JOHNSTON of Alabama. I ha1e been requested to an nounce that the junior Senator from Connecticut [Mr. McLEAN] Mr. LODGE. Oh, no; Mr. President- Mr. BACON. I will read tbe law. is paired with the senior Senator from Arkansas [Mr. CLARKE]. Mr. LODGE. The Constitution is perfectly plain. It is The result was announced-yeas 67, nays 3, as follows: · the people of the United States. YEAS-67. Mr. HEYBURN. Yes. The Constitution was made before Bacon Cummins Martine, N. J. Smith, Ga. the Government. Balley Curtis Myers Smith, Md. l\Ir. Bankbe:id Pillingham Nelson Smith, Mich. BA.CON. The first amendment to the Constitution of the Borah Dixon New lands Smith, S. C. United States is in this language: Bourne du Pont O'Gorman Smoot Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion Bristow Fletcher Oliver Stephenson or prohibiting tbe free exercise therettf, or abridging the freedom of Brown Gamble Overman Stone speech or of the p1·ess, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble Bryan Gardner Page Sutherland and to petition the Government tor a redress of grievances. Bm:nham Gronna Paynter Swanson Burtcm Hitchcock Penrose Thornton .Mr. HEYBURN. Now, is there any question-- Chamberlain Johnson, Me. Perkins Tillman Mr. BACON. If the Senator will pardon me for just a Chilton Johnston, Ala. Poindexter Townsend moment; of course this is not the occasion to go into an ex Clapp Jones Pomerene Watson Clark, Wyo. Kern Uayner Wetmore tended debate upon that question, but it has been very thor Crawford Lodge Reed - Williams oughly debated, and the principle very generally established and Culberson Mccumber Shively Works acquiesced in, I think, that that language creates an inalienable Cullom Martin, Va. Simmons ri1'ht to petition regardless· of the person. And I make the NAYS-3. further proposition, which I think is undoubtedly the correct Brandegee Gallinger Heyburn one, that anybody within the jurtsdiction of the United States NOT VOTING-21. and subject to its laws, who has a grievance, if it is one within Bradley Gore Lorimer Root the Federal jurisdiction, has-without now considering the Briggs Guggenheim McLean Taylor manner of presentation-the right of petition; and I care not Clarke, Ark. Kenyon Nixon Warren whether that person be the highest in the Government or Crane La 1"ollette - Owen Davis Lea Percy whether he be a felon in a cell. Foster Lippitt Richardson Mr. HEYBURN. Now, if the Senator submits that proposi So Ur. FLETc°HER's motion was agreed to. tion-- The communication and accompanying resolutions are as Mr. LODGE. Mr. President-- follows: Mr. HEYBURN. The Sena.tor from .Massachusetts will par AMERICAN FEDEilATIO)I' OL' LABOR, don me for a moment. I am not in doubt in my mind as to Washin-gto-n, D. 0., January 17, 1912. the status of the right of petition. No court and no t!i.i.bunal Hon. JA11rns S. SHEnllU.N, has held that a foreigner being within the United States js President of the United States Senate, Washington, D. G. included within the language of the first amendment to the SIR : At tbe last annual convention of the American Federation of Labor, held at Atlanta, Ga., NoveI!lber 13-25, Ifill, there was under Constitution. consideration the following preambles and resolutions : If the Senator will refer back to the debates that were had "Whereas there is now pending in the Senate of the United States upon this question at the time referred to by one of the Sen a bill (S. 2564) known as the Smoot printing bill, the main purpose of which is to codif~ amend, and enact printing laws, but which con ators this morning, he will find that no one contended that a tains at the end of its 110 pages an eight-line section which indirectly foreigner had that right. He must approach this Govern repeals a law of Congress enacted for the purpose of safeguarding the ment-and we are the active element of the Government people's currency against the dangers of counterfeiting; and " Whereas the maximum of safety against the evils of the counter through the representative of the country to which he belongs. feiters' art is guaranteed by what is known as the hand-roller process The word " people " refers unquestionably to the people of the of manufacturing paper securities; and United States who are citizens or within the status of citizen " Whereas a cheaply manufactured paper money, in the making of which are to be discarded, for the sake of a false economy, tl::e high ship. art features of the engravers' and printers' crafts, which alone rendei l\lr. BACON. The Senator says "unquestionably." That, of impossible reckless and widespread counterfeiting such as prevailed course, settles it, because if it is unque tionable, there is no in the days of the ' wild-cat' currency of the long ago, would entail incalculable losses upon the common people ; and as prnof, experience room for difference. But I do question it. teaches that counterfeiters apply their skill principally to producing Mr. HEYB RN. I hope the Senator will not pass by-- and putting in circulation the small notes which pass current among Mr. BACON. If the Senator will pardon me, I want to farmers and the working classes in the citie., and towns on the assump finish, but-- tion, which is well grounc"ed, that those classes will be the least sus picions and the more easily decei-ved with well-executed counterfeits ; Mr. HEYBURN. I hope the Senator will not attempt to dis and pose of it because I used the word "unquestionably." It ex " Whereas it is the highest duty of the Government to throw every presses merely the unquestioned judgment of the person who possible safeguard about the paper money which it manufactures and puts in circulation among the people to the end that their present speaks. implicit confidence in thiR function of government may not be mis- :Mr. BACON. I will accept it in that sense. placed or destroyed : Therefore be it • l\Ir. President, I am not going to detain the Senate with this "Resolved, That the American Federation of Labor, in convention assembled, protests against the repeal uf the law of Congress of 18~8 debate, but I wm simply call attention to one thing. Every which provides that the paper money, bonds, and checks of the United foreigner, every person within the jurisdiction of this country
' 11058 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE« JANUARY 18,. and subject to its laws, is permitted to go into our comts to Federation of Labor, an organization well known to this establish his rights, and that is a principle which would un country. doubtedly apply to the question whether or not such a person, So far as eoncerns Mr. Gompers, there is nothing to indicate who sought to have his redress not in the courts but · at the that he is not a citizen of the United States or the subject or hands of Congress, would also have the right, for the same citizen of a foreign government. There is a mere suggestion of reason, to be heard by Congress. such a possibility. If any Senator or the Presiding Officer of Mr. President, if a foreigner in this country, subject to its the Senate, where the petitioner is not a citizen of this country laws, bearing its burdens, is suffering a grievance, a grievance but is a citizen or subject of some foreign country, were to which is not one to be righted in a court, but which can be re present a petition to the Senate from the person himself, in his dressed only by the action of Congress, it seems to me by every individual capacity, it would raise an entirely distinct question possible principle which applies to his right to go into a court, under the rule of the Senate, and one that is provided for ex he should be permitted to be heard by Congress. pressly by the rules. But, Mr. President, the· use of the word "people,, is signifi To make myself plainer, if it appeared as a fact that Samuel cant, and it corresponds in its broadness with the principle which Gompers is a citizen or subject of some foreign country and would include everyone who is within the jurisdiction and sub submitted this petition in his individual capacity as such, it ject to the Jaws of the country, because foreigners have rights, could not be presented to the Senate, under tlle rule, except and they have obligations, and those rights may be rights which through the P).'esident of the United States, the executh-e me can be redressed only at the hands of Congress; and by every dium of communication between this Government and foreign rule and by every principle they would have the same right to countries. Rather than ha. ve this matter go over without hay appeal to Congress that they would have to appeal to the courts. ing the rule called to the attention of the Senate, I will read a Mr. HEYBURN. l\lay I ask the Senator a question in that portion of paragraph 5 of Rule VII : line? But no petition or memorial or other paper signed by citizens or l\fr. BACON. With pleasure. subjects of a foreign power shall be recelved, unless the same be trans Mr. HEYBURN. Suppose a thousand subjects of Russia or mitted to the Senate by the President. of Italy, not being citizens of the United States, were to seek to PETITIO:KS AND MEMORIALS. petition Congress that action be taken against their Govern Mr. KERN presented a petition of the congregation of the ment; wou1d a petition like that be received? Church of Christ of Ashley, Ind., praying for the enactment of l\lr. BACON. The question what the petition contains is an an interstate liquor law to prevent the nullification of State other matter. There are certain things, as suggested to me by liquor laws by outside dealers, which was referred to the Com the learned Senator from i\Iississippi [1\Ir. WILLIAMS], that mittee on the Judiciary. would not possibly be entertained by Congress as being a matter Mr. HITCHCOCK presented memorials of members of the which would vio1ate e-very principle of comity. Certain things Celtic Club ; of the U. S. Grant Branch of the Star-Spangled mio-ht be rejected on that account. Certain petitions, by reason Banner .Association; of sundry citizens of the eighteenth as of ::. being disrespectful to this body-for instance, for being sembly district; of membeTs of the Thomas Da-vis Club; of couched in improper language or casting aspersions on the Presi sundry citizens of the twenty-second assembly district; of mem dent of the United States ·or any of the judiciary-would be bers of the Brin's Hope Club, the Bunker Hill Club, and the rejected; but any IJetition couched in respectful· language, by Dalcassian Club; of sundry citizens of the eleventh congres anyone whatever, not yiolating the obligation of comity which sional district; and of the United Irish-American Societies of we owe to other nations, on any subject which affects the right Greater New York, all of New York City and of the Civic of anvone within the' j nrisdiction of the Government and sub League of Brooklyn, all in the State of New York, remonstrating j ect to its laws and entitled tv the rights and subject to the against the ratification of the proposed treaties of arbitration obligation of all persons, whether citizens of the United States between. the United States, Great Britain, and l!~rance.. which or not, would be receh·ed; and it is only some exceptional rea were ordered to lie on the table. son-not by reason of the fact of noncitizenship, but something Ur. CULLOM presented 47 letters from citizens of Denver, that affects the particular petition, such as I have indicated in the Colorado Springs, Salida, and Grand Junction, all in the State references I have made-which would justify hesitation for' a of Colorado ; 45 letters from citizens of Richmond, in the State moment on the question of its reception when properly pre of Indiana; and 85 letters from citizens of New York City and sented. I think it is so broad that it includes everyone within Brooklyn, in the State of New York, favoring the ratification the jurisdiction of the country, subject to its laws, and regard without amendment of the proposed treaties of arbitration be le s of his station, whether it be high or low, or whether he be tween the United States, Great Brintain, and France, which a free man in the exercise of his rights or a felon serving a were ordered to lie on the table. sentence of the law. He also presented memorials of sundry citizens of Illinois, Mr. LODGE. l\Ir. President, in the volume of precedents l\Iassachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut, re which we have in regard to parliamentary questions in the Sen monstrating against the ratifieation of the proposed treaties of ate some cases are given of petitions from foreigners. The sec arbitration between the United States, Great Britain, and tion is wrongly headed. It states, " Petitions from foreigners France, which were ordered to lie on the table. not received." And yet, if you read what the action was, the He also presented petitions of sundry citizens of Illinois, action was that the petition was ordered to lie on the table. It Ohio, Rhode Island, and New York_, praying for the ratification was not referred. of the proposed treaties of arbitration between the United I myself agree entirely with the interpretation given to. the States, Great Britain, and France, which were ordered to lie clause of the Constitution by the Senator from Georgia [Mr. on the· table. BACO N]. I have no sort of doubt as to the right of petition by He also presented a petition of members of Company K, a man not a citizen of the United States but a. resident here and Fifth Infantry, Illinois Nation.al Guard, of Delavan, Ill., pray within our jurisdiction. I do not think it is material whether ing for the enactment of legislation regulating the pay of the he has become a citizen or has not. members of the Organized 1\filitia, which was referred to the The right of petition at one period in our history was the Committee on Military Affairs. . subject of great contention. The House of Representatives for He also presented a petition of Local Post No. 240, Grand a great many years undertook to exclude petitions bearing upon Army of the Republic, Department of 11linois, of Lexingt;on. I~., slavery. The great contest that John Quincy Adams made to praying for the passage of the so-called dollar-a-day pens10n bill, establish the right of petition is familiar to every one. It was which was referred to the Committee on Pensions. established and the gag rule, as it is called, was repealed. He also presented memorials of sundry citizens of Dangola, I have always believed most profoundly, Mr. President, that Broadwell, and Park Ridge, all 1n the State of Dlinois, remon the right of petition is absolute. The -0nly restriction upon it strating against the extension of the parcel-post system be~ond is that the petition should be couched in proper and respectful its present limitations, which were referred to the Committee languag-e. The language should not be indecent or improper. on Post Offices arid Post Roads. If it is in respectful language, whether it comes from a man in l\fr. SMITH of Michigan presented petitions of the congrega the penitentiary or whether it comes from the highest officer in tions of the ]J'irst Congregational Church of Ludington, the Meth the land, it should be received. The right of petition is to me odist Episcopal Church of Paris, the First Congregational a great constitutional right. Unitarian Church of Detroit, the Congregational Church of I have said this simply because I think the Senator from Chelsea the Congregational Church of Atlanta, and the First Missouri [l\1r. REED] misunderstood what I said. • Methodist Episcopal Church of Manistee, of sundry citizens l\lr. CULBERSON. l\1r. President, with reference to the of Memphis and Manistee, of members of the Twentieth Cen question which has just been passed upon, I desire to say that tury Club, of Detroit, and resolutions adopted b~ the House. of I voted to receive this petition and to print it in the RECORD Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, at New York City, upon the broad ground that it is a petition from the American N. Y.; of the lay conference of the Central German Conference 1912. OONGRESSION AL RECORD-SENATE. 1059
of the Methodist Episcopal Chnrch, held at Pittsburgh, Pa. ; He also presented a memorial of sundry business men of and of the board of directors of the Chamber of Commerce of ' Gregory, Mich., remonstrating against the establishment of a Los Angeles, Cal., praying for the ratification of the proposed parcel-post system, which was referred to the Committee on treaties of arbitration between the Unite1 States, Great Britain, Post Offices and Post Roads. and !!'ranee, which were ordered to lie on the table. He also presented petitions of sundry citizens of Adrian and He also presented a petition of Local Lodge No. 110, Switch- Alma; of the Young l\Ien's Christian Association of Adrian· - men's Union of North America., of Saginaw, Mich., and a peti and of the Young People's Society of Adrian, all in the State of tion of Local Lodge No. 80, Switchmen's Union of North Michigan, -praying for the ratification of the proposed treaties America, of Grand Rapids, Mich., pra.ying for the repeal of the of arbitration between the United States, Great Britain, and oleomargarine law, which were referred to the Committee on France, which were ordered to lie on the table. Agriculture and Forestry. He also presented petitions of the congregation of the Meth He also presented a memorial of Cabinetmakers' Local Union odist Church of Belding; of the Young People's Society of No. 1369, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Adrian, and of the Young Men's Christian Association of America, of Grand Rapids, Mich., and a memorial of Cigar Adrian, all in the State of Michigan, 'praying for the enact Makers' Local Union and Carpenters and Joiners' Local Union, ment of an interstate liquor law to prevent the nullification of of Three Rivers, Mich., remonstrating against the proposed State liquor laws by outside dealers, which were referred to the abolishment of the hand-roller process of manufacturing paper Committee on the Judiciary. currency, which were ordered to lie on the table. Mr. PENROSE presented petitions of sundry local grnnges, Re also presented a petition of the Woman's Christian Tem all of the Patrons of Husbandry, in the State of Pennsylnrnia, perance Union of Three Rivers, l\Iich., praying for the passage praying for the repeal of the (}leomargarine law, wllich were of an interstate liquor law to prevent the nullification of State referred to the Committee on Ag1iculture and Forestry. liquor laws by outside dealers, which was referred to the Com REPORTS OF COMMITTEES. mittee on the Judiciary. He also presented a petition of Local Union No. 9, Stereo Mr. CURTIS, from the Committee on Pensions, to which typers' Union, of Detroit, l\Iich., praying for the enactment of were referred certain bills granting pensions and increase of legislation to better the condition of American seamen, which pensions, submitted a report (No. 205), accompanied by a bill was referred to the Committee on Commerce. ( S. 4623) granting pensions and increase of pensions to certain He also presented a petition of members of the Michigan soldiers and sailors of the Civil War and certain widows and Agricultural College Woman's Club, praying for the estublish dependent relatives of such soldiers and sailors, which was ment of a parcel-post system, which was referred to the Com read twice by its title, the bill being a substitute for the follow mittee on Post Offices and Post Roads. ing Senate bills heretofore referred to the committee: He also presented a memorial of the congregation of the S. 57. Abel Buckingham. Seventh-day Adventist Church of Kent City, Mich., remonstrat S. 74. Wade Beach. ing against the enactment of legislation compelling the observ S.115. James Goodwin. ance of Sunday as a day of rest in the District of Columbia, S.127. James Lynch. which was ordered to lie on the table. S. 151. George I. Martin. He also presented a petition of John Gilluly Post, Department S. 191. Peter l\l. Bryant of :Michigan, Grand Army of the Republic, of Fowlerville, S. 192. James Short. Mich. , and a petition of sundry veterans of the Civil War, resi S.194. John H. Jarrett. dents of Chelsea, l\Iich., praying for the passage of the so-called S.195. John Lunsford. dolla r-a-day pension bill, which were referred to the Committee S. 294. William F. 1cKellup. on I'ensions. S. 341. Lorentz Tlloreso n. Mr. BURTON presented a memorial of sundry citizens of S. 354. George A. Wingrove. Massillon, Ohio, remonstrating against the establishment of a. S. 355. Adam Smitll. parcel-post system, which was referred to the· Committee on S. 373. John Leister. Post Offices and Post Roads. S. 388. William F. Clark. R e also presented a petition of the congregations of the Olivet S. 400. William L. Goodsell. Unitecl Brethren Church, of Dayton, Ohio, and n petition of the S. 411. James l\IcCue. congregation of the Trinity Reformed Church, of Dayton, Ohio, S. 434. John W. A. Lawson. S. 436. Seth H. Tolles. prayi~g for the ratification of the proposed treaties of arbitra tion lJetween the United States, Great Britain, and France, S. 478. Jeremiah H. Taylor. which were ordered to lie on the table. · S. 520. Balaam C. Hornaday. l\fr. BURNHAM presented petitions of the Woman's Chris S. 540. Charles W. Riggs. tian Temperance, Union of Derry and Boscawen ; of the congre S. 557. George H. Slightain. gation of the Congregational Church of Boscawen; of members S. 558. Samuel M:. Hoover, of the Granite Club of :Manchester and the Tourist Club of S. 562. Francis l\I. Cox. S. 607. David Milford. Keene; and of sundry citizens of Antrim, Alton, Salem. Peter S. 639. Alonzo L. Baker. borough, and Nashua, all in the State of New Hampshire, pray S. 650. Eunice A. Starr. ing for the ratification of the proposed treaties of arbitration S. 792. Benjamin F. Spencer. between the United States, Great Britain, and France, which S. 796. William J. DaYis. were ordered to lie on the table. S. 869. Archie S. Blackmer. H e also presented a petition of members of the Architectural S. 871. Robert B. Nicol. · Club of Boston, Mass., praying that the site in the l\Iall in the S. 885. Henry H. Larkin. District of Columbia be selected for the location of the pro S. 909. Philo S. Bartow. posed memorinJ to Abraham Lincoln, which was referred to the S. 928. Thomas D. Sheffield. Committee on Appropriations. S. 953. Fletcher S. Dewey. .l\lr. CLAPP presented petitions of sundry citizens of Dodge S. 983. Benjamin R. Chisam. Center, Chat.field, St. Paul, Browns Valley, Duluth, Minneapolis, S. D93. Hiram Brooks. St. Cloud, .Mnnkato, Eden Prairie, Brainerd, Faribault. Hawley, S. 994. William G. Downs. St. Anthony Park, Winona, Northfield, Rose Creek, Taopi, Two S. 999. Louise Schenkel. Harbors, Alden, Warroad, Pipestone, Detroit, Plainview, and S.1022. Calvin Hitt. Red Wing, all in the State of Minnesota," praying for the ratifi S. 1024. Nancy B. Jenness. cation of the proposed treaties of arbitration between the S.1027. Joseph G. Marsh. United Stutes, Great Britain, and France, which were ordered S. 1060. Robert H. Church. to lie on the table. S. 1107. Paul A. Greely. H e also presented a memorial of sundry citizens of Fosston, S.1117. Jennie West. Minn., remonstrating against the establishment of a parcel-post S. 1137. John Denny. system, which was referred to the Committee on Post Offices S.1147. William F. Hart. and Post Roads. S. 1148. Spencer Ford. Mr. TOWNSEl\"TI presented memorials of sundry citizens of S. 1164. James A. Hibbard. Otsego and Battle Creek, in the State of Michigan, remon S. 1185. Stoughton A. Cheever. strating against the enactment of legislation compelling the S. 1189. John Busha.. obserrance of Sunday as a day of rest in the District of S.1210. David J. Ryan. Columbia, which were ordered to lie on the table. S.1371. Francis Weaver.
> 1060 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 18,
S.1467. Frederick White. of the Ottawa Indian Tribe, of B1anchard Fork· and Rouch de S.1488. Josiah l\fcElroy. Boeuf, reported it with amendments and submitted a report S. 1498. Simon C. Strickland. (No. 207) ·thereon. S.1490. Clem Reid. l\Ir. BURNHAM, from the Committee on Pensions, to which S. 1521. Seth H. Shurtleff. were referred certain bills granting pensions and increase of S.1522. Woodbury Day (alias John White)~ pensions, submitted a report (No. 206), accom1mnied by a bill S. 1645. George L. Keach. ( S. 4624) granting pensions and increase of pensions to certain S. 1693. William Stoneking. soldiers and sailors of the Regular Army and Navy and cel'tain S. 1709. Aaron B. l\Iitchell. soldiers and sailors of wars other than the Civil War, and to S. 1725. William E. Ross. certain widows and dependent relatives of such soldiers and S. 1726. William Patterson. sailors, which was read twice by its title, the bill being a. sub S. 1727 John Fairbanks. stitute for the following Senate bills heretofore referred to the S. 1879. Hiram F. Daniel~. committee: S. 1942. Isaac D. Rowden. S. 56. Joseph Morris. S. 1951. David E. Banks. S. 190. Wi11iam P. Mandeville. S. 1972. Amon H. Johnson. S. 333. Isabella S. Snyder. S. 2082. John .M. Jackson. S. 394. Frederick L. Jones. S. 2121. William J. Frazer. S. 427. Ann 0. Burt. S. 2122. Joseph F. Smith. S. 432. James A. Bean. S. 2220. Victor Tracy. S. 440. Ulysses J. Wannemaker. S. 2261. Russell D. Royal. S. 516. Cora E. Ruttinger. S. 2307. Ann J. Rouse. _ S. 565. Robert H. Parker. S. 2315. Charles H. Senseney. S. 756. Ollie M. Croghan. S. 2349. Samuel Beatty. S. 757. Benjamin A. Yates. S. 2354. George A. Chaffee. S. 794. Leslie Harding. S. 2439. Daniel Burket. S. 824. Louisa A. Thatcher. S. 2458. George W. Patterson. S. 840. Philip C. Elbert. S. 2467. Oliver C. Morris. S. 842. Le Claire H . Ef"ans. S. 2513. Hardin T. Richardson. S. 1136. Libbins w. DaYiS. S. 2561. Elisabeth Teel. S.1480. Joseph L. Cooper. S. 2619. Edwin D. Jones. S. 1481. James Tompach. S. 2679. Frederick .M. Miller. S.1634. Anderson Wright. S. 2736. Edward D. Hagen. S. 1810. Leonard C. Wiswell. S. 2742. Henry R. Kirk. S. 2023. l\Iary C. Whitson. - S. 2743. Joel W. Gladson. S. 2476. Joseph P. Sullivan. S. 2757. Catherine S. Wales. S. 2533. Mary Lillie Bauskett. S. 2758. Sarah A. Peck. S. 2557. Albert W. Kelley. S. 2784. Hiram B. l\Iorey. S. 2616. Andrew L. Wea tberford. S. 2847. Austin J. l\Iarsh. S. 32iO. Paul Lemm. S. 2875. Hiram N. Brann. S. 3589. Otto Paulson. S. 2876. Eugene Sullivan. S. 3659. Sarah F. Maynard. S. 2882. 'l'ilman H. Elrod. S. 3943. Elizabeth S. Lcwerenz. S. 2947. Morris Johnson. S. 4034. Anne G. Robinson. S: 2972. Robert l\Iartin. l\Ir. GUGGENHEIM, from the Committee on Public Lands, to S. 3032. William H. Tillson. which was referred the bill (II. R. 14664) anthoi·izing the Sec S. 3040. Susan Berfield. retary of the Interior to grant further extension of time within S. 3056. Sarah E. Cnnningham. which to make proof on desert-lnnd entries in the counties of S. 3186. Abijah S. Chears. Weld and La.rimer, Colo., reported it without amendment and S. 3231. William H. Peek. submitted a report (No. 212) thereon. S. 3274. Jimeson S. Tweed. l\Ir. LODGE, from the Committee on Immigration, to which S. 3313. William Gurin. was referred the bill (S. 3175) to regulate the immigration of S. 3325. Sarah E. Cloud. aliens to and the residence of aliens in the United States, re· S. 3380. William W. Gordon. ported it with amendments and submitted a report (No. 208) S. 3383. Don Carlos Cameron. thereon. S. 3405. Anna l\.I. Robinson. Mr. GAMBLE, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, to S. 3406. John A. George. which was referred the bill ( S. 3475) exten ACCIDENTS IN COAL MINES (S. DOC. NO. 265). By l\fr. O'GORMA.N : Mr. Sl\100'1'. From the Committee on Printing I report A bill ( S. 4650) granting an increase of pension to William favorably on a paper presented by the Senator from California H. Ha 11 ; to the Ccmmittee on Pensions. [Mr. WORKS] on the 9th instant, being an address delivered by By Mr . .SW ANSON : Dr. John Randolph Haynes before the joint session of the A bill (S. 4651) to amend section 171 of the penal laws of American Economic As: ociation and the Association for Labor the United States, approved March 4, 1909; to the Committee Legislation, in' Washington, D. C., in December last, on the sub on the Judiciary. ject of accidents in coal mines and the means of preventing A bill (S. 4652) for the relief of certain Confederate officers them, with the request that it be printed as a public document. for improper and illegal injuries inflicted; to the Committee on The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the order will Claims. be entered for the printing of the document. A bill ( S. 4653) to authorize the· extension of Fourteenth Street and Alaska A-venue, NW.; to the Committee on the Dis THE AMERICAN MERCIIANT MARINE (S. DOC. NO. 263) . trict of Columbia. Mr. SMOOT. From the Committee on Printing I report By Mr. SMITH of South Carolina: favorably on a paper presented by the Senator from Minnesota A bill (S. 4654) to regulate contracts for the futu.re delivery [Mr. NELSON] on the 8th instant, relating to the American of cotton; to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. merchant marine and shipbuilding industry in the United By Mr. GALLINGER: States for 1909, with the request that it be printed as a public A bill ( S. 4655) to provide for the purchase of a site and the document. erection of a public building thereon at Franklin, in the State The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the order for of New Hampshire; to the Committee on Public Buildings and the printing of the paper will be entered. Grounds. ALBERT S. RENDERER. By Mr. OLIVER : Mr. CRAWFORD. I ask that the bill ( S. 2170) for the relief A bill (S. 4656) gmnting an increase of pension to George R. of Albert S. Renderer, being Order of Busine s J 65, and which Griffith (with accompanying papers); to the Committee on was reported by me from the Committee on Claims on the J Gtll Pensions. · instant, be recommitted to the Committee on Claims for the By l\1r. POINDE.i."{TER: purp se of correcting an error. A bill (S. 4657) granting an increase of pension to Nancy A. The VICE PRESIDE.NT. Without objection, the bill will be Searls· · ta ken from the calendar and recommitted to the Committee . on . A bill (S. 4658) granting an increase of pension to William Claims. H. Johnson; and BILLS INTRODUCED. A biH (S. 4659) granting an increase of pension to Oliver D. Browning; to the Committee on Pensions. Bills were introduced, read the first time, and, by unanimous A bill ( S. 4660) for the relief of L. H. Phipps; to the Com .consent, the second time, and referred as follows : mittee on Claims. By Mr. KERN: By Mr. THORNTON: A bill ( S. 4625) granting relief to persons who served in the Military Telegraph Corps of the Army during the Civil War · to A bill ( S. 4661) for the relief of the estate of T. B. Cowan the Committee on Pensions. ' and others· to the Committee on Claims. By Mr. TAYLOR: By Mr. HEYBURN : A bill ( S. 4662) for the relief of Charles Richter (with ac A bill · ( S. 462fi) for the relief of heirs or estate of John s. Burrows, deceased; companying papers) ; to the Committee on Military Affairs. A bill ( S. 4627) for the relief of heirs or estate of Joseph By l\lr. JONES : Cain, deceased; A bill (S. 4663) to authorize. and empower the Secretary of A bill ( S. 4628) for the relief of heirs or estate of L. D. War to locate a right of way for, and to grant the same. and Crawley, deceased; the right to operate and maintain a line of railroad, telephone~ A bill (S. 4629) for the relief of heirs or estate of Louis R. telegraph and electric-transmission lines through Vancouver Bar Dicus; racks anrl Military Reservation, in the State of Washington, to A bill ( S. 4630) for the relief of heirs or estate of Robert Washington-Oregon Corporation, its successors and assigns; to Edwa rds, deceased; the Committee on Military Affairs. A bill ( S. 4631) for the relief of J . D. Lane · A. bill (S. 4664) granting a pension to Sarah A. Waite; and A bill ( S. 4632) for the relief of heirs or e;tate of J. A. l\Ii1- A bill (S. 4665) granting a pension to .Maria L. Graves; to bous, deceased ; the Committee on Pensions. A bill ( S. 4633) for the relief of heirs or estate of Thomas By Mr. DILLINGHAJf: G. Neal, deceased; A bill ( S. 4666) granting an increase of pension to George II. A bill ( S. 4634) for the relief of heirs or estate of Abner Pierce (with accompanying papers) ; to the Committee on Pen Ogles, deceased ; sions. A bill ( S. 4635) for the relief of N . E. Per.kins· By Mr. OWEN: . :1 bill ( S. 4636) for the relief of heirs or estate of J. O. K. A bill ( S. 4667) granting an increase of pension to Ellis C. Williamson, deceased; Howe; to the Committee on Pensions. A bill ( S. 4637) for the relief of Lottie Bowman· A bill (S. 4668) for the· relief of the Wict.ita and affiliated A bill ( S. 4638) for the relief of heirs or estat'e of Wilson bands of Indians ; to the Committee on Indian .Affa1rs. Cupples, deceased; A bill ( S. 4669) for the relief of S. ~ . Fenton; to the Com A bill ( S. 4639) for the relief of l\Irs. F. l\I. Harris ; mittee on Claims. A bill ( S. 4640) for the relief of heirs or estate of Joseph . By ~Ir. TILLMAN: Holt, deceased; A bill 1 ...;. 4670) for the relief of Mrs. Thomas G. Prioleau A bill ( S. 4641) for the relief of John Rick· and others, heirs at lnw of Thomas G. Prioleau, deceased· to A bill ( S. 4642) for the relief of heirs o; estate of T. E. the Committee on Claims. ' Robison, deceased; By l\Ir. PAGE: A bill ( S. 4643) for the relief of heirs or estate of William J. A bill ( S. 4671) granting an increase · of pension to Roswell Thomas, deceased; and Bradley (with accompanying papers) ; to the Committee on Pen A bill (S. 4644) for the relief of heirs or estate of Theodrick sions. Webb, deceased ; to the Committee on Claims. By Mr. PENROSE: By Mr. BACON: A bill (S. 4672) granting a pension to Gertrude Brown (with A bill ( S. 4645) to establish a fish-hatching and fish-cultural accompanying papers) ; .... station for the hatching and propagation of shad upon or near A bill ( S. 4673) granting an increase of pension to Peter the seacoast in the State of Georgia; to the Committee on Bruner (with accompanying papers) ; and Fisheries. A bill (S. 4674) granting a pension to William H. Rogers · to A bill (S. 4646) for the relief of the estate of Epenetus the Committee on Pensions. ' Heath, deceased; By Mr. GUGGENHED!: A bill ( S. 464 7) for the relief of heirs or estate of Thomas A bill (S. 4675} for the relief of George W. Brown (with Cater, deceased; and accompanying papers) ; to the Committee on Military Affairs. A bill ( S. 4648) for the relief of Martin Ball, heir of Stephen INTERNATIONAL EXPOSITION AT GHENT, DELGIDM. Ball, deceased; to the Committee on Claims. ~r . CULLO~ submitted an amendment proposing to appro A bill ( S. 4649) granting a pension to Perry l\I. D e Leon · to pnate $25,000 to enable the United States to participate in an the Committee on Pensions. ' international exposition to be held at Ghent, Belgium, from 1062 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. , JANUARY 18, April to October, 1913, etc., intended . to be proposed by him to 1p~der ¥ticle I c;if this treaty, that question shall be submitted to the Jo~nt. high commission of inquiry; and if all or all but one of th<' com the diplomatic and consular appropriation bill, which was re mis~1on ag~ee and report that such difference is within the scope fJ! ferred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to Article I, it shall be referred to arbih·ation in accordance with the be printed. provisions of this treaty.' ~·To this clause the Senate withholds its approval. • . AGRICULTURAL. EXTENSION DEPARTMEN1'S. 'Resoh:ed fut·ther, That the Senate advises and consents to ttc rati On motion of l\Ir. S:mTH of Georgia, it was fication of the said treaty with the understanding, to be made a part of such ratification, that the treaty does not authorize the submission to Ordered, That 1,000 copies of the bill (S. 45G3) to establish agri arbitration of any question which depends upon or involves the main cultural extension departments in connection with the agricultural col tenance of the traditional attitude of the United States conccrnin.,. leges in the several States receiving benefits ot an act of Congress ap An;erican questions or other purely governme1Jtal policy. ' " proved July 2, 1862, and of acts supplementary thereto, be printed for 'Resoli;ed fm·ther, That the Senate advises and consents to the rati the use of the Senate. fication ?f said treaty with the understanding, to be made a part of RURAL DELIVERY ROADS. sucll ratification, that the American members of any joint high commis sion of inquiry provided for in said treaty shall be appointed by the Mr. SIU.MONS. On June 21, 1911, I introduced a bill ( S. President, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate." 284G) for experimental improvement of rural delivery roads by the Secretary of Agriculture in cooperation with the Postmaster Mr. McCillfBER. Mr. President, inasmuch as any uncer General, for im-estigating the subject of Federal registration tainty as to proper construction of these treaties can easily be and license of automobiles used in interstate travel, and for cured, either by an amendment in the body of the instruments other purposes, and asked that it lie on the table. I now ask themselves or in the resolutions adopting: then:i, we might well that that bill be referred to the Committee on Agriculture and relieve ourselves of all effort to· maintain our particular views Forestry. of the construction that ought to be accorded to ·them; and if 'l'he VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the bill will be there were no other reasons compelling a further discussion of referred to the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. construction I certainly should not ask the attention of the Senate to any further argument along that line. ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY. But when, on the floor of this Senate, it has been openly Mr. GALLINGER. I move that when the Senate adjourns charged that the President of the United States has with studied to~day it be to meet on Monday next. purpose attempted to deprive ·the Senate of its constitutional The motion was agreed to. power as a part of the treaty-making body and to transfer it3 GENERAL ARBITRATION TREATIES. functions to a commission; when he has been accused of im Mr. LODGE. I morn that the Senate proceed to the consid pliedly, at least, attempting to avord the Constitution which he eration of the arbitration treaties with Great Britain and h.as sworn to support, I feel it is the moral duty of those who France as in open executive session. deny that any such construction should be gh·en to those pro :\Jr. HITCHCOCK. Mr. President-- posed treaties to make public in the same tribunal their earnest The VlCE PRESIDENT. Will the Senator from l\fassachu dissent from those charges. sctts withhold his motion? I have sometime~ differed greatly with the President of the Mr. LODGE. For what purpose? United States on questions of internal policy, but no man csn. Mr. HITCHCOCK. I ask unanimous consent for the present eTer justly challenge his sincerity of purpose, his uniform cau consideration of-- dor, or his devotion fo the Constitution and the people of this .;\fr. LODGE. I do not think, in justice to the Senator from country. North Dakota, who has given notice of a speech, that I can The President declares that there is no purpose in these yield for the passage of bills. I do not think I ought to do it. treaties to limit or curtail the constitutional power of the Sen The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator from Massachusetts ate. The Secretary of State so declares; and, Mr. President, insists on his motion that the Senate proceed to the considera the treaties themselves negative such purpose and can only be tion of executive business as in open session. made to support it by a process of reasoning which shall violate The motion was agreed to. the three fundamental rules of construction-first, that every Mr. 1\fcCUMBER obtained the floor. provision should be given effect; second, that every provision Mr. S~HTH of Georgia. I desire to present an amendment should be made harmonious; and third, that each provision to one of the resolutions of ratification, and I send it to the should be considered with reference to the object sought to be desk. attained and the usages and customs pertaining to it. The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the amendment I was not present at the committee meeting when the major will be printed. Does the Senator from Georgia wish to have ity report presented by the Senator from Massachusetts IMr. it referred or lie on the table? LoDGEJ was adopted. I am not therefore informed as to whether Mr. SMITH of Georgia. Let it lie on the table. it represents the views merely of a majority of those who were The VICE PRESIDENT. The amendment will lie on the present at that meeting or whether it has back of it the numeri table and be printed. cal majority of the entire committee. But I am certain that it ·~Ir. S.l\fITH of Georgia. I ask that the amendment I offered· can not be sustained without violating these fundamental rules be read. . It is short. of construction; that to sustain it .we can not give effect to each The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from North Da- and every provision; that to sustain it we are compelled to kota yield for that purpose? leave certain provisions inharmonious and in conflict; that to Mr. l\IcCUl\fBEIL Certainly. sustain it we must obliterate from our minds the prime purpose Mr. SMITH of Georgia. It reJhtes to the saIIe subject. of section 2 and the customary method of bringing international Mr. GALLINGER. It ought to be read. questions before the treaty-making body. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the l\Ir. President, the members of the Committee on Foreign Re amendment. lations are, I believe, unanimous in their desire to provide for The Secretary rend as follows: the settlement by an arbitral tribunal of .every international Proposed amendment to the resolution of ratification presented by Mr. difference that may arise not affecting the honor, independence, ROOT August 21, 1911. vital interest, or traditional attitude of any country upon ques· Amend the first paragraph of said resolution by adding to the same tions which it deems essential to its national safety. the following : " With the exception of the lust clause in Article III, wfikh reads as The only difference that has arisen in tile committee is one follows: · , of construction of the arbitration agreements submitted. Every . " ' It is further agreed, however, that in cases in which the parties member of the committee, as well as every Member of the disagree as to whether or not a difference is subject to arbitration under Article I of this treaty, that question shall be submitted to the Senate, must agree that the Senate, as a part of the tre3ty joint high commission of inquiry; and if all or all but one of the making power of the Government, can not in law, and ought members of the commission agree and. report that such difference is not in policy, surrender its constitutional right to assent to, within the scope of Article I,· it shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this treaty.' modify, or reject any agreement of a treaty character sub · "To this clause tbe Senate withholds its approval." mitted to it, or its right to insist ·that every such agreement Also amend said resolution by adding at the close of the same the shall be submitted for its action. following: "Resolved furthe1-, That the Senate advises and consents to the rati If it can be established -beyond reasonable cavil that these fication of said treaty with the understanding, Jo be made a part of treaties do not purpose to depri're the Senate of its full consti such ratification, that the American members or any joint high com miss,ion of inquiry provided for in said treaty shall be appointed by the tutional power as a part of the treaty-making machinery of the President, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate." Go>ernment, that its constitutional authority is in no way So tbat said resolution, when amended, will read as follows : threatened or impaired, then the only question is the broad "Resolved (two-thirds 01 the Senators present. concurring therein), That the Senate advise and consent to the ratification of the treaty one, Does the Senate of the United States desire to take this between the United States ana Great Britain respecting arbitration, great and advanced step looking toward universal peace, the signed at Washington on the 3d day of August, 1911, with the excep abolition of the horrors and devastations of wnr, and the re tion of the last cfause in Article III, which reads as follows : " ' It is further agreed, however, that in cases in which the parties moval of the onerous burden of maintaining \ast armies and disagree as to whether or not a difference is subject to arbitration navies which are to-day sapping the yery life of nations and 1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECOR,D-SENATE. 1063 requiring nearly three-fourths of the national revenues through mission, must be submitted to the Senate for its advice and out the world? consent; second, by providing that the report of the joint high Mr. President, the longer one studies and the more care commission shall, in effect, be advisory only. fully he analyzes the provisions of these agreements the more I now approach directly the paragraph in controversy with certain he will become of the untenableness of any construction the single object of determining whether that paragraph, by of them that will impair the constitutional right of the Senate sudden divergence of purpose, clearly antagonistic to the pur to exercise its judgment and discretion upon the whole or any poses so far indicated, nullifies the provisions of article 1 ·tllat provision contained in them. these agreements shall be made by and with the consent :md Reduced to their simplest mode of expression, these agree advice of the Senate and also nullifies the immediately preced ments provide: ing paragraph, that the report of the commission sh_all not be First. ·By Article I that international differences which can regarded as decisions either upon the fact or the law. not be settled by diplomacy and which are justiciable in their To say that the negotiators of these agreements intended by nature shall be submitted to arbitration. the last paragraph of Article III to destroy the clear and positive Second. That they shall be submitted by special agreements declarations of Article I and further to destroy the preceding in each case. paragraphs of Article III, the first of which declat·es for the sub Third. That these special agreements in this country in each mi&sion of the agreements to the Senate, and the second care case shall be made by the President by and with the consent and fully guards against any conclusion of the committee having advice of the Senate. more than ad\isory force, is, in my judgment, paying scant Note right here that no difference can be submitted to arbi respect to the ability of lawyers who ham held the highest tration except by fill agreement, which must be submitted to the judicial positions in the country. Senate. i\fr. President, this paragraph will not bear the construction Fourth. That the agreements shall provide that the differ contended for as elucidated in the majority report; and it can ences shall be submitted either to The Hague tribunal or to a not, without taking a whole clause bodily out of it, be made to special arbitral tribunal whose powers, duties, and procedure conform to the construction placed upon it by that report. shall be fixed by the agreements. Let us analyze paragraph 3, which we are asked· to strike All these shall be submitted to the Senate for its advice and out. It reads: consent. It is fUl'tber agreed, however, that in cases in which the parties dis These are the essential features of Article I. agree as to whether or not a difference is subject to arbitration under So far everything is clear. So far there is no disagreement article 1 of this treaty, that question shall be submitted to the joint higl:l commission of inquiry ; and if all or all but one of the members in the committee as to the proper construction to be placed of the commission agree and report that such di.fference is within the npon these agreements; it, howe·rnr, has been intimated that we scope of article 1- might well dispenEe with Article II, the provision for the crea And I want Senators to pay attention to the words- tion of a commission. it shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provision or But, 1\Ir. President, history, and yery modern history, has this treaty. · often taught the lesson that differences may become so acute, that national sentiment or pride may be so wrought up What is the meaning of the language " shall be referred to through exaggerated statements or bellicose utterances, that it arbitration"? Does it mean that it shall absolutely be arbi may become impossible while the tension exists for a govern trated witltout reference to anything else? Is there any magic ment to submit eYen the most clearly arbitrable questions to in the word "referred" as it is used in this third subdivision any international court. And to avoid this danger, to prevent that gives it greater force or potentiality than is contained in such crisei:, as well as to secure correct data and an unbiased the word "submitted" as it appears in the first paragraph? presentation of the claims of each nation for use and guidance One paragraph says that in case the President believes-in in case the matter shall be formulated into an. agreement for effect, it so says-that it is justiciable it shall be submitted io submission to arbitration, Article II is inserted in the agreement, arbitration; the other says that if all, or all but one, of the and I desire Senators specially to note the purposes of this commission declare that it comes within the scope of article l, it shall be referred to arbitration. Is there any greater force ~rticle II. This article binds the parties, as occasion may arise, to con in the words "referred to arbitration"? Do they carry a stitute a joint high commission of inquiry composed of three meaning greater than that in the preceding paragraph that it nationals of each country, unless otherwise constituted in any shall be "submited to arbitration"? particular casf', to impartially and conscientiously investigate The Senator from l\Iaryland [.Mr. RAYNER] in his very elo any controversy between the countries within the ·scope of quent discussion here the other day stated-and I have his Article I, and to inyestigate it even though they are not all words-- agreed that it falls within the scope of Article I. If it was intended that the decision of the joint high commission should not be a finality, there would not have been the slightest diffi There are many occasions in which such an inyestigation culty in so expre8sing it and inserting in the treaty a cl~ar and ought to be made. I can cite one in the recent history of this unambiguous provision that after the decision of the joint high com country when we raised the Monroe doctrine in the Venezuelan mission it could then be reopened in the Senate for its acceptance or affair, in which a question might well have been discussed, not rejection. whether there was any attempt to violate the Monroe doctrine But, Mr. President, that is a double-edged sword; that is an by .the other country, but whether the real question at issue was argument which cuts deeper backward than it does forward. one that would come within the provisions of the Monroe After a pro\'ision which has clearly declared that this finding doctrine. shall not be final, if the negotiators purposed to make an excep But remember, also, that this is an investigating commission tion, then "\Te might rather look for some words tba.t should only, and that its investigation precedes and is preliminary to clearly indicate that purpose. If it was intended that the find any agreement for arbitration. Its function is partly to ap ing should be final upon a particular question, I answer the prise the Governments concerned of the facts that they may Senator's argument by saying it was the easiest thing in the determine whether the case is an arbitrable one, and if so, the world for the negotiato.rs to have declared, not that this shall be character of the agreement for its arbitration which should be "referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of submitted to the Senate by the Executive of this GovernmGnt this treaty," but that it "shall be arbitrated without further or to the proper treaty-making power of the other Government. action"; that it shall without further action be submitted either And again I ask the Senate to note how carefully the nego to The Hague tribunal or be submitted to some other particular tiators of these agreements have guarded against the infringe tribunal. ment of the proper functions of the treaty-making power of When read in the light of both Articles I and II the purpose the GoYernment by this joint high commission. In the second of the last paragraph of Article III is clearly apparent. There paragraph of Article III, it is decl;ired: can be no clear line of demarcation between questions that are The reports of tbe commission shall not be regarded as decisions of justiciable-that is, · those which do not affect the vital interest, the questions or matters so submitted, either on the facts or on the independence, honor, national safety, or traditional attitude of law, and shall in no way have the character of an arbitral award. any country-and those which are not justiciable. As a rule Now, we must find somewhere a purpose to make an excep the jealous concern of any great country for its own future will tion to or to modify that clear proposition. This mhibition be a sufficient guaranty that no question involving its honor, should be kept clearly in mind in arriving at the intent and vital ~nterest, or its traditional attitude, which attitude is purposes of these agreements. always based· upon what it considers its \ital interest, will So far, therefore, l\Ir. President, the agreements not only do ever be submitted to arbitration; and that both nations should not challenge the constitutional right of the Senate, but every by solemn compact agree :to subrn"t the dc>stiny of their ~ov where recognize and uphold it, first, by positively declaring that er~ents, inrnhing millions and hundreds of million pf .peo eaeh :!greernent tor arbitration, \Yhether the agreement comes ple, to the disposal of any arbih·al court is unthinkable, and ~brou~h the President directly or through this joint high com- as such unworthy of serious consideration. 11064 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE. JANUARY 18, But there may be, and natura11y must be, a zone where the contrary to its findings, that doubt is dissipated by the pro one question merges into the other and where, without serious vision which in no uncertain words declares: charge of caprice, one government may claim that a question The reports of the commission shall not be regarded as decisions of 'is clearly justiciable while the other ma.y claim that it is not. the questions or matters so submitted, either on the facts or on the law. Such a case may depend upon both questions of law and fact. TWs is what the instrument says as to the finality of the con Suclr questions of law and fact may need investigation. If, clusion of the commission. I will ascertain further whether the after such investigation, the facts are so clear that at least succeeding clause modifies that. It especially declares that it is five out of six, or all of the nationals of one country and all not final And if the·decisions are not conclusive there is but but one of the other, agree that the matter is a justiciable ques one body that can make them conclusive-the treaty-making tion, then it may be referred to arbitration, not that it shall body, the President and the Senate. ' beyond all question go to arbitration, but that it may be re I am not unmindful of the particular words used in the ferred to arbitration. But how is it to be referred? beginning of the third paragraph, following the paragraph And right here is the crux of the whole question. Suppose which is quoted, namely: that all the members of the joint high commission, or all but It is further agreed, however, etc., that if the commission agree and report that such difference is within the scope of Article I, it shall be one, decide that the case is clearly justiciable, then what be referred to arbitration. comes of it? Is it immediately referred to The Hague tribunal or other arbitral tribunal? Certainly it is not No other tri But now, if you will look at the provision, you will find that bunal at this stage has e1en been created. It is to be referred this is a distinct paragraph and not a part of and not intended to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of this treaty. to modify the preceding paragraph as to the nonconclusiveness What provi ions of this treaty? .Manifestly those provisions in of all of the decisions of the commission. It is rather, Mr. Presi Article I which provide for special agreement to be made be dent, a modification of the first article. tween the contending countries, and in this country submitted Now, let us look into that a little. Under Article I, the President could not submit a case to arbitration-that is, he to the Senate for its advice and consent could not formulate an agreement, and that is what "submit What w·ould be the mode of operation'{ The joint high com to arbitration" means, so far as he is concerned-and submit m is ion having found by unanimous or almost unanimous deci it .to the Senate for its advice and consent, when he considered sion that the case is justiciable-that it comes within the pro that such an agreement would not be within the scope of Article visions of Article I-the two Govemments proceed to draw up I, even though the whole world might believe otherwise, and a ,special agreement to refer the case to arbitration-not to though every Member of the Senate might believe otherwise. So arbitrate it, but to refer it to arbitration. This special agree this second article is inserted providing for a commission to ment must either provide for its submission to the Hague investigate, and it is intended by this prov'ision, which the tribunal or to some other tribunal, the constitution of which majority report seeks to strike out, to insure the proper pre will be fixed in the agreement. This agreement must then be liminary steps being taken when the question is so clearly submitted by the President to the Senate of the United States. within the scope of Article I as to recei1e the unanimous, or And when this special agreement comes before the Senate, lacking but one of the unanimous, report of the commission. what function is to be performed by the Senate in reference to When the case is so clearly within the scope of Article I as to it? If the construction contended for in the majority report is secure such a finding, then the preliminary steps shall be taken to govern, the ubmission to the Senate is simply perfunc to bring the matter before the Senate for its advice, even tory; tpe reference to it is but idle ceremony. It is sub though the President might not be satisfied that the case was mitted to it for its advice, but it is estopped from advising. It clearly within the scope of Article I. In such case it is made i submitted to it for its consent, but it. is estopped in honor his duty to take the initiatory steps to bring the matter before ffom withholding its con ent. I submit that is a most extraor the Senate for its advice, ana without that there is no duty im dinary and strained construction. It is a construction that posed upon ·him to bring it before the Senate for its advice. does violence to eYery natural intendment of the positive and Suppose, in the matter of the Venezuelan trouble, to which I specific provisions contained in the instrument. When a treaty have referred, the President of the United States, for political is submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent-and I or other reasons, or because he wanted to have his own way, speak of treaties in general-the negotiators know and under-· had answered the final note that came from Great Britain, in stand that the power of the Senate in reference to it is unlim which that country disclaimed any intention to take territory ited. When. therefore these agreements, which are in effect other than that which it had claimed, prior to the promulga separate and distinct treaties, are submitted to the Senate for tion of the Monroe doctrine, by denying the right of arbi its adlice and consent what warrant have we to assume that tration upon the ground that the Monroe doctrine is not an the negotintors intended that the powers of the Senate should arbitrable question and therefore the subsidiary question as be cm-tailed? to whether Great Britain was seeking territory outside of I purpose to more closely analyze this last provision. It is what she held prior to the Monroe doctrine was not an arbi suggested that this paragraph declares that if the commission trable question. In such case the matter could never have agree and "report thnt the difference is within the scope of gotten before the Senate for its consent and advice. .Artice I it shall be referred to arbitration," and that therefore This is the view taken by the negotiators of these instru while the Senate has the undoubted right to djsagree with the ments, the President and the Secretary of State. And this is conclusions of the com.mission it would not be acting in good the only view that will harmonize all of its provisions. And faith in so doing. . between a construction which will give harmony and effect to Mr. President. that is giving a wrong construction to the every prqvision of an instrument and a construction that will word "referred"; that is giving the words'' referred to arbitra leave them in conflict, or that will compel us to eliminate-as I tion " the same meaning as though the instrument declared will soon show we must eliminate-some word or words as ha.v positively that the difference should be arbitrated. We are ing no purpose, the former must be adopted. no more justified in accorcling those words that conclush"e mean 1\Ir. BACON. Mr. President, may I be permitted by the Sen ing than we are in as urning, when we use the words in the first ator to ask him a question at that point? paragraph, that it "shall be submitted to arbitration." That we 1\lr. McCUMBER. Certainly. therefore mean that the difference must go"to arbitration, and Mr. BACON. I understand the proposition, which the Sen the Senate could not act in any way antagonistic to that idea ator is arguing with great earnestness and force, to be thnt if when the matter is submitted under the provisions of Arti the Senate, after the joint high commission has adjudgetl a cle I. But, Mr. President, that is not the complete declara certain question to be justiciable, sbould disngree with that tion. The declaration is that it shall be referred to arbitra commission, the Senate would be authorized undE>r tile terms of tion "in accordance with the provisions of this treaty," and that this treaty to refuse to submit it to arbitration? mnkes an entirely different proposition. That negatives any as Ii-fr. McCUMBER. In exactly the same way ns it would if it sumption that it hould be referred to arbitration without first had come directly from the President in the first instance with goin"' through the Senate in some. form. That means that it out being passed upon by the commission. will be referred to the Sellil.te and will be arbitrated if the Sen Mr. BACON. I underst:md the Senator. He has been 1 ery ate advises that it shall be done; and I submit that means that candid and >ery brGad in his statements. I ask the Senator, ju the Senate can use its full and unfettered judgment as to whether view of his interpretation of the treaty in that regard, if, to the case does actuaJly come within the scope of ·Article I. If avoid all possible question of runbiguity, he would be willing to there is left one solitary reasonable doubt that the negotiators embody as a part of the resolution of ratification the provision did not intend that the Senate should be precluded fl'Om exercis which I will now read. irig its juJl judgn.1ent if there remains a single doubt that such Mr. .McCUMBER. Is that the amendment offered by the an exercise of j ucl g-ment on the part of the Senate was not to be Senator? deemed an act of bnd faith. and that the Senate should not be Mr. BACON. I will read it if the Senator will permit me estopped by the finding of the commission from holding a view not all of it, but just a part of it, which fully expresses the idea. . 1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE. 1065 advanced by the Senator from North Dakota. It is in this such question could possibly be submitted to arbitration, for language: both countries must agree that the question is an arbitrable ol).e. Other questions of like character may arise. Probably in Resolved fttrther- three years we shall have completed the Panama Canal. While This is to be a part of the resolution of ratification practically a highway for all nations, it is nevertheless pecul Resozved fttrther, That the Senate advises and consents to the rati- iarly an American waterway. It is our property. We may re fication of the treaty with the understanding, to be made a part of such gard it as a necessary highway for the mobilization of our war ratification, that the treaty does not purport o~ intend _that there shall ships in either Atlantic or Pacific waters. We may take such in any case be denied to the Senate of the Umt~ States the ful_l ex:er eise of all the powers and duties conferred upon it by the Constitution means to guard and protect it as we may deem necessary. We of the nited States in advising and consenting to the making of may properly say that this is an American question, not an treaties and as to each and every part of the same and as to each and international question, and not one that could be submitted to every question entering therein; and that nothing in said treaty shall be consh·ued to impose any obligation, legal or moral, upon the Senate arbitration. to waive its constitutional authority and duty to consider and deter For the same reason Great Britain holds Gibraltar; for the mine each and every question entering into treaties prO{lOSed or sub same reason she controls the Suez Canal; for the same reason mitted in pursuance thereof, including the question whether the matters in difference are arbitrable. she guards the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. She may prop erly say to the world: "These are British questions solely; we Would the Senator agree to that? regard the protection of this natural as well as artificial high .Mr. McCU.MBER. I stated the other day that while I con way as necessary for the protection of our domains beyond the tended that it was wholly unnecessary, I would consent to put sea, even necessary to supply our o-wn people with the food they in the resolution anything which would make certain that upon can not raise. Our national safety demands that we shall not which the Senators themselres disagree. allow that highway to be threatened." She would very properly .Mr. BACON. I do not ask the Senator to go that far. I ask refuse to submit matters of that character to arbitration. the Senator whether be would agree to that specific language? Again, by Article I, it is provided that these questions must Mr. .McCUl\IBER. I agree to that specific language or so11,1e be justiciable in their nature by being susceptible to decision thing similar to it. by application of the principles of law and equity. I am com l\lr. BACON. That is not the question I ask of the Senator. pelled to disagree with the report of the majority of the com I ask the Senator will he agree to that specific language? mittee, in which they say : l\lr. McCUl\IBEil. I have no objection to the specific lan We are obliged, therefore, to construe the word "equity" in its broad guage. and universal acceptance as that which is equally right or just to all l\lr. BACON. '!'hat is about as close, I presume, as I can get -concerned; as the application of the dictates of good conscience to the the Senator to ans"Wer. settlement of controversies. Mr. McCUl\IBER. I think that is sufficient. "Law and equity," used together anywhere in the English Mr. President, I wish briefly to answer the arguments of the language have a technical meaning. The words "law and majority report. By Article I the matter submitted must- equity" are never understood to mean law and justice. The First. Relate to international matters and not to matters which phrase has its genesis in English and American jurisprudence, are internal or whicl! relate exclusively to what each govern and when used in a legal instrument carries the technical mean ment may properly regard as a policy, as essential to its own ing. We often use French phrases in our English literature, maintenance, life, -progress, prosperity, and independence, as its and when so used the French significance of the words would internal affairs; go-rem. If we were dealing' with Great Britain alone, as we Second. The question must be a claim of right made by one are in one treaty, I can not conceive of there being any claim against the other; and that they should have other than their technical meaning as Third. The claim must be justiciable in its nature by reason of used and always used and understood by both countries. And being susceptible of decision by the application of the principles if we use this English and American term in a treaty with of law and equity. France, it should have the English and American construction, I wish to give my most vigorous dissent to the rule laid exactly the same as a French phrase should have a French con down by the majority in their report of the construction of struction though used in an English document. the words "law and equity," and to agree most heartily with There is a wide distinction between " law and equity " and the construction placed upon those words by the Senator from "law and justice." All laws are not just. Therefore justice Maryland [Mr. RAYNE:R]. may not harmonize with positive law. We can not have an E\ery country must, of course, determine for itself what equity that is opposed to law. Equity carries out the good policies or subjects are international and what are not, and it intent and purpose of the law, which by reason of its uni will naturally be supposed that no government would ever sub versality may be deficient in detail or forms of execution to mit to arbitration a matter recognized as essential to its own meet the equitable requirements of a particular case, but, un safety and independence. For instance, every country by its like "justice," equity can never conflict with positlrn law. own laws determines who may and who may not become citi Let us elucidate this by a very late case which was before zens of such country. The safety of such country depends upon the Senate, the termination of the Russian treaty. I was sur the solidarity of its O\vn citizenship. A nonassimilable people prised to note that a very popular writer in one of our maga have always proved to be dangerous to any country of which zines suggested that this was a case for arbitration. This was they arc a component part. We have a living illustration of not and. could not be made a cause of arbitration. In 1868 we that fact in the terrible struggle between the Manchus and the declared by positire law the right of any citizen of any country Chinese in China to-day. Each country has an inherent right in the world who came to this country and lived here, and to determine for itself whether a people of a particular color whom we might choose to adopt, to expatriate himself from or a particular religion is conducive to its peace and safety, his former allegiance and to become in every respect an Ameri and therefore to determine whether or not such people shall be can citizen. That law is an internal affair that has to do with excluded from its citizenship or from its territory. ·rherefore, the rights of our own people and of their citizenship. No mat no such question could be submitted to arbitration, because it ter what the equity, neither this Governplent nor the Russian is a purely internal question. It would be as improper to sub Government could properly submit its laws relating to its in mit such a question to arbitration as it would to try to com ternal policies to any court of arbitration. And in that respect pel two men, one a vegetarian and one a flesh eater, to submit we have a fair demonstration of the .difference between law and to arbitration which diet the other should adopt. That is a equity and what some people might call law and justice. matter for each to determine and not for one to impose upon .Mr. Sl\lITH of Michigan. Then that statute repealed the the other. treaty of 1832? :Mr. BORAH. They could waive it. Mr. McOUl\lBER. That statute, by clear implication, repealed Mr. l\IcCUl\IBER. Any nation ~an waive anything it sees the treaty so far as we recognized the Russian claim that a citi fit. Russia can waive, if it secs fit, its own view as to expatria zen could not expatriate himself without the consent of his tion, but we haYe no right to demand and to say to Russia that Government, and I claim that in that treaty we praclically did whether or not she shall waive it it is an arbitrable question. admit that, but by our act of 1868 we declared as a positi1e law Our Monroe doctrine stands exactly upon the same footing. that we would not recognize it longer, and we forbade our offi We long ago determined that our safety as a Nation forbade cers from recognizing it. the extension of tbe territorial domain of any European coun l\Ir. SMITH of l\Iichigan. Yes; but suppose the treaty- try over the Western Continent. That is declared to be a Mr. l\IcCUMBER. I have stated that only iu so far as it re policy of this counh·y just as essential to its welfare as the lated to expatriation the statute repealed the treaty. I do not exclusion of undesirable people from its citizenship. Every say it repenled anything relating to shi11ping oi· anything of that country of Europe has impliedly, at least, recognized that policy. kind. But whether recognized or not, no country could claim tbat Mr. S.OIITH of Michigan. Then the Senator does not contend from our standpoint it is a justiciable question. Therefore, no that we _could re~eal a treaty by a statute? '1066 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE. J ANU.ARY 18, Mr. McCUl\IBER. Oh, yes, I do; just as we can repeal a It might be added with equal force that in this particular statute by treaty. case there was absolutely no occasion for arbih·ation, because l\1r. SMITH of Michigan. .A. treaty is the paramount law. there was no difference between the parties as to the right of Mr. McCUJHBER. Unless it conflicts with the statute. A either party to terminate the agreement. The instrument itself statute is likewise the paramount law. decfared in positive terms the right of such termination by Mr. S:~fITH of l\Iichigan. That is not the rule._ either Government, and therefore there was no passible con· 1\Ir. McCU.. J:BER. I disagree with the Senator about that, troversy as to that right being exercised by either party. Not but I do not care to go into a discussion of the subject. only this, but by the positive law of 1868 we had in effect abro 1\Ir. BORAH. We can repeal it, so far as the citizens of this gated that treaty so far as it related to the right of expatria country are concerned, but we can not annul it so far as it tion. It had not been binding upon us since that date, and we affects our international obligations. only did by direction what we had previously done by implica Mr. l\IcCUl\fBER. That is all I claim-that, so far as the tion. _., · internal aspect is concerned, we can. Questions, however, may arise as to whether certain disputes :Mr. Sl\IITH of Michigan. Let me not be misunderstood. The .a.re within the category of those which are excluded from arbi act of Congress would undoubtedly be binding on the adminis tration by reason of not being justiciable. trative officers of this Government. Had a treaty of this kind been in existence during the last Mr. McCUMBER. Yes. Cleveland administration, the last clause of Article III could Mr. SMITH of Michigan. But it would not, in international well have been made use of in determining whether or not a case parlance, void our treaty obligations. was clearly within the :Momoe doctrine. The Monroe doctrine .!Ur. McCIDfBER. Nobody has claimed that. I say the excludes any European power from extending its territorial statute becomes the law of the land governing our internal limits at the expense of any American country. A dispute arose policies, and no nation can ask us to arbitrate our internal between Great Britain and Venezuela as to whether certain ter policies. ritory was British or Venezuelan territory. British forces were Mr. CUMMINS. May I ask the Senator from North Dakota landed, as I remember, to hold a large tract of country which a question? was claimed by Venezuela. If such territory rightfully belonged Mr. McCUl\fBER. Certainly. to Venezuela then there could be no question but that its seizure and permanent holding by Great Britain would violate our Mr. CUl\UUNS. Did you say in the earlier part of your 0 address that the President of th.e United States takes your Momoe doctrine. President Cleveland, in diplomatic terms, new of the construction of Article III? after setting forth our ancient doctrine, desired an expression Mr. .l\IcCUllBER. That is my understanding, and I so de from the British Government of its purpose. The very leisurely clare. I understand others have stated that at one time he manner in which the British Government proceeded in the mat· took a. different view, but I can not find any justification for ter brought about the famous message of President Cleveland, that assertion in any of his public utterances. abrupt and threatening, and which well might have endangered the peace of the country. In due time, or, from our standpoint, Mr. CUMMINS. I simply want to advise the Senator that I past due time, the British Government stated its purpose was heard him make a Tery well-reasoned and a very complete ad to hold only such territory as it claimed actually belonged to dress upon this subject-I sat by his side-in which be took it. This Government conceded that the question as to where a exactly the opposite view and declared that the third paragraph boundary line was located was a proper matter for arbitration; of Article lII was intended to bind the Senate and to bind the that while the Monroe doctrine itself was not an arbitrable ques United States with regard to the character of the controversy. tion, $till the question as to the proper location of a boundary Mr. l\IcCUl\IBER. I have not heard every utterance by the line between a South American Republic and British territory President, and I can not take issue with the Senator, who in South America was a question of that character. We have states that he was present when the discussion took place, but followed the same policy since that time in adjusting our own I have read the addresses as they have been published and such boundary lines with Great Britain, and it is just this which as purported to be given in full, and I have found nothing to calls for this joint high commission, and without which we justify that claim. might possibly, under some circumstances, not be able to bring Mr. CUMMINS. I am told, too, that the Secretary of State, a matter before the Senate when it ought to be brought be- before the Foreign Relations Committee, took the same view fore tt . that the President has taken, or apparently has taken, in his It seems t9 be conceded by the majority report that the .addresses throughout the country. special agreement for submission either to The Hague or to the Mr. l\fcCUl\IBER. Havipg been present when the Secretary other .arbitral tribunal must be submitted to the Senate. But of State was before the committee, I beg to state that I did not right here the report of the majority seems to lay itself open so understand the Secretary. But I do not care to go into a dis to the criticism that it is illogical in that it assumes that while cussion of that. I do not even care what the purpose was. I the matter must be submitted to the Senate for its concur stand upon the construction that should be given to it accord rence, the submission is perfunctory only and the Senate has ing to its language. no right to question the finding of the joint high commission. :Mr. BORAH. Mr. President-- After quoting the clause sought to be stricken out, the report The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Townsend in the chair). says: Does the Senator from North Dakota yield to the Senator from It will be seen by an examination -0f the clause just quoted that if Idaho? · the joint commission1 which may consist bf one or more l?ersons, which Mr. McCUl\IBER. Certainly. may be composed wnolly of foreigners or wholly of nat10nals, decides that the question before them is justiciable under article 1, it must Mr. BORAH. We are now engaged in making this treaty, then go to arbitration, whether the treaty-making power of either and several Members of the Senate, who are peculiarly fitted country believes it to be justiciable or not. A special agreement com to discuss this question from a legal standpoint, hold entirely ing to the Senate after the joint commission had decided the question involved to be justiciable could not be amended or rejected by the different views as to what the treaty means. Senate on the ground that in their opink>n the question was not jus Mr. McCUl\IBER. Yes. ticiable and did not come within the sco~ of Article I. Mr. BORAH. Have we reached the point where we are in t answer this by saying that the treaty ·does not so provide. capable of using the English language so as to express what The treaty, which must be considered as .a whole, declares, first: we mean? The reports of the commission shall not be regarded as decisions of .l\Ir. MoCUMBER. Oh, Mr. President, I have stated again the questions or matters so submitted, either on the facts or on the and again that I am perfectly willing either to modify the law, and sbal1 in no way have the character of an arbitral award. body of the treaty-and if the Senator had been listening he The treaty further states: would have heard that I stated in this argument-- If ·all, or all but one, of the commission agree and report that such Mr. BORAH. I heard that. differen~ is within the scope .of Article I, it shall be referred to arbi Mr. McCUi\IBER. I am willing to make it conform to the tration in accordance with the provisions of this tl'eaty. view which I have and which I think the Senator has, at least How is it to be referred in case of a :finding of a commission as to the rights and duties of the Senate, either by an amend that it is justiciable? It is to be referred in accordance with the ment mah.'ing it clear in the body of the instrument or in the pro,isions of the treaty, and the provisions of the treaty are, resolution to be adopted. first, us provided in Article I, that the agreement can only be If it is claimed by any foreign country that it ha.s a right to made by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and deny a citizen of its country the right of expatriation, and that as provided in Article III, that the report of the commission shall country should try to make that a question of arbitration upon not be regarded as a decision on either the law or the fact, the grounds of equity, we would answer that equity as read in so that under the actual wording of the treaty, the Senate ha.s this instrument always means an equity subject to the positive a duty to perform, and it is inconceiYable to me that those who law of the land, and therefore such a question could not be sub negotiated this instrument should have solemnly provided that mitted to arbitration because opposed to the law of the land. each agreement should be submitted to the Senate for its ad- 1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SEN ATE. il067i vice and consent and as solemnly intended that it sbould d? who, without the action of the commission, must of necessity nothing but. con sent~ and by implication does find when he submits the matter to the If tbe negotiators had so intended they would naturally Senate that it is arbitrable, as to suppose that the Senate is have said, " and if all or all but one of the members of the debarred when it is submitted to it in consequence of the find· commission agree ood report that such difference is within ing of the commission. the scope of Article I, it shall be arbitrated," without further Mr. RAYNER. May I ask the Senator a question! action, instead of saying, "It shall be referred to arbitration, The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from North in accordance with the provisions of this treaty." Dakota yield to the Senator from :Maryland? Again the report says : Mr. McCU:i\IBER. I yield. Under these circumstances to vest in an outside commission the power Mr. RAYNER. I wish to state what my construction of these to say fin aJ ly what the treaty means by its very general and indefinite.. words has always been, and I submit to the Senator what the language is to vest in that commission the power to . make for us an enti rely diff'erent treaty from that which we supposed ourselves to be Senate would do. Unquestionably it goes to the Senate, and making. · they would determine what the arbitral tribunal should be. How this assertion can be made when the very right, the They would say whether it should be referred to The Hague or final right, to pass upon the question whether or not a matter referred to some other arbitral tribunal. That, I think, is the shall be sl1bmitted to arbitration rests in the Senate itself, is duty of the Senate. I would not take any other part of that beyond my understanding. treaty in pari materia with Article III. .Again, the report says : Mr. McCUMBER. I understand the Senator's position. He For instance, if another nation should do something to which we mnde it -very clear, I think. object under the Monroe doctrine, and the validity of our objection Mr. RAY1'1"'ER. The Senator says the Senate would have no should be challenged and an arbitration should be demanded by that other nation, the vital point would be whether our right to insist function to perform. He must admit that it would, at least, upon the Monroe doctrine wa subject to arbitration. And . if the have that function to perform, to determine what arbitral third clause of article 3 remains in the treaty the Senate could be tribunal is to determine the case. dc.>bari·ed from passing upon that question. Mr. McCUMBER. Oh, yes; and that is all, if you gi'rn it If the thircl clause of Article Ill remains in that treaty the your construction. Senate would not only not be debarred from passing upon that Does not the Senate act exactly in the same way whether the question, but by the yery terms of that last clause, providing matter comes before it on a decision by the President that the that the matter shall be referred to arbitration in accordance case is within the provisions of Article I, or a decision by the with the provisions of the treaty, the Senate would be com joint high commission of inquiry that the case is within the pro pelled to pass upon that question. I do not for a moment visions of Article I? Both the President and the commission concede that any arbitral tribunal appointed by a Presi9.ent have to find that fact. The President of his own motion will not who himself had declared that the subject was not one for submit the matter unless he finds it falls within the provisions arbitration and who appointed the members of the joint high of Article I, and if the President holds that it is not within the commission would hold that a proposition so clear as the Mon provisions of Article I, then there is no way of getting it before roe doctrine could possibly be made a subject of arbitration, the Senate, unless we have some· other body that may say that but if they should so hold, still their holding could not be final it does fairly come within the provisions of Article I. In each until the Senate had also so advised. instance the purpose is to secure the initiatory steps and bring A~in, the report says: the matter before the Senate. In each instance it is declared If our right to exclude certain classes of immigrants were challenged, that it shall go before the Senate for its advice and consent, the question would be forced before a joint commission, and if that and there is nothing to be found in the instrument which says commlssion decided that the question was arbitra.ble the Senate would have no power to reject the special agreement for the arbitration of that the power of the Senate shall be limited in any way when that subject on the ground that it was not a question for arbitration the matter is brought before it. Why are we precluded from • within the contemplation of Article I. exercising our judgment in one case more than in the other'? I have shown that by every clause in the treaty the question Both Article I and the last clause of Article m say in effect must :finally go to the Senate. To refer does not mean that it that the case shall be submitted or referred to arbitration Ul is actually to be arbitrated, but simply that it is to take the found to be a proper question for arbitration, not found by the regular course of reference ; first, in the form of the special Senate to be a proper case for arbitration, but if it is found agreement; and, second, to the Senate for its advice and con by the President to be a case for arbih·ation, then it is " sub sent. If that is conceded, as I understand it is, then I submit mitted " to arbitration under the first article, and if it is found that it was not intended that referring the matter to the by this commjttee to be a case for arbih·ation, then it is Senate for its advice and consent was a mere idle ceremony. "referred" instead of "submitted" to arbitration. And yet that is the construction that must be placed upon it Afr. RAYNER. If the Senator does not object to a further to support tbe assertions I haye mentioned in the majority interruption-I have listened very attentively to his speech report. does he draw any distinction in law between submission to Again, the report says: arbitration and reference to arbitration? 'l'o take ft-om the Senate, in any degree or by any means, the power Mr. McCUMBER. I do not. I say there should be none. of sayirig whether a given question is one for arbitration or not is to Mr. RAYNER. But the Senator has drawn a distinction. destroy the power of the Senate on the most important point to be decided in connection with differences arising with any other nation. He says the first article submits it when in the other article it is referred. Everyone admits that proposition. This treaty not only does Mr. l\IcCUMBER. No; I do not say anything of the kind. not take away from the Senate, in any degree or by any means, Mr. RAYNER. I understood you to say so. the power to say whether a given question is one for arbitra Mr. McCUMBER. I say it is referred to the treaty-Iilllking tion, but there is no power that could take that away from the power in one instance and it is submitted to the treaty-making Senate. It is a constitutional right that can not be denied. power Jn the other. I give exactly and practicaUy the same The President, who negotiated this treaty, understands that as meaning to "submit " that I do to " refer." But those who well as any Member of the Senate. And I certainly feel that I support the majority, it seems to me, have to give a definite would be showing great disrespect for his legal acumen if meaning, a more positive and stronger and a further meaning, I supposed that he bad forgotten that in making this treaty or to refer than they give to submit. that either he or the Secretary of State, one of the profound Mr. RAYNER. Let me ask just one more question and then lawyers of the country, should have so purposed. I think I will understand the Senator. I do not suppose the Everywhere in the majority report we find that the words Senator objects. This commission has two duties to perform? "in accordance with the provisions of this treaty," the last Mr. .MccrnmER. Yes. eight words of the article sought to be stricken out, have beeJ1 Mr. RAYNER. Two entirely distinct duties? entirely ignored; have been treated as though they did not exist Mr. McCUMBER. Yes. for any purpose whateTer. If those who agree with the ma Mr. RAYNER. The first duty is an absolutely different duty jority report hold that they did intend to give meaning to those from the second duty? words, and that those words do m~'ln that the agreement must l\fr. McCUMBER. Yes. nHertheless be submitted to the Senate for its advice and con Mr. RAYNER. In one set of cases the matter is referred to sent, then they nre forced ba.ck on the very frail argument them for the purpose of investigation. that, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate is invited and Mr. l\IcCUMBER. In both cases they are for investigation. required to exercise the function of advising and consenting by I beg to differ with the Senator there. In eYery case they the terms of the treaty, it can only only advise in the affirma must investigate. tive. Such is not a reasonable construction. Mr. RAYNER. Undoubtedly. But under the first clause they I submit there is just as much reason for saying that the do not give any decision. Under the second clause they giye a Senate is debarred from exercising its judgment as to whether deci.sion. Now, the Senator brings in the first clause in refer· the case is an arbitrable one when submitted by the President, ence to their duty under tlle second clause. 1068 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. Mr. l\IcCUl\IBER. Oh, no; the point is this-- l\Ir. l\IcCUl\IBER. There is the whole reason for it. There Mr. RAYNER. The Senator couples the two together. That is no provision in the old treaty that will bring the mattei; b~ I do not understand. fore the Senate if the President is disinclined to bring it before Mr. McCUMBER. I can not separate them. They investi the Senate. That is the purpose of the second article. gate a subject. Under all of the clauses they investigate it. Mr. President, our appropriation for the Army aud Navy in There may be no question whatever in their mind, no one may 1891 wa~ $68,342,507. In 1911 our approp~iation was $226,791,- raise a question as to whether the matter is justiciable or 421, an mcrease of 230 per cent in 20 years. within the provision of Article I. Then, as a matter of course, The British appropriation in 1891 was $154,560,782. In 1911 it is referred, but if there is a question, then it will not be r~ it was $332,931,219, an increase of 115 per cent in 20 years. ferred unless all or all but one of them declare it is justiciable. How long can this condition continue? The increase of our l\Ir. RAYNER. But under the first reference the commis population during those 20 years was but 44 per cent. The in sion can not give any decision. crease of the population of Great Britain was 20 per cent. Mr. McCUMBER. It finds the facts and giyes its conclusion; Our appropriation for our Army and Navy increased five and and that is all it does under the second. on~fourth times as rapidly as our population. The British in Mr. RAYNER. , That is separate. crease was five and on~half times as rapid ns her population. Mr. McCUl\IBER. It makes its finding; it concludes what Who can fail to see that the real end must be the question of the facts are; and it presents its conclusions. It does not simply which country will first become bankrupt or paralyzed in its gather evidence and submit the evidence, even in the first, ·for further efforts? The race is toward national pauperism. The investigation. It reports its decision. There is a dedsion in nations of the Old World are to-day being pauperized to defend both instances. The first decision is what the facts establish, th~mselves against each other. Blindly every nation is strug and that is submitted. The other decision is, if ·the question glmg to outdo the other in the size of its armament and its is raised as to its being arbitrable, and if decided in the affirm power for aggression. Before another 20 years at the same rate ative, that is submitted as referred. But neither instance, I of increase in the cost of preparedness for wa~ the countries of submit, is the decision binding upon the Senate, and certainly Europe will reach a state where every other governmental in no more in the one case than in the other. terest must be sacrificed to yield to the single demand for the Mr. RAYNER. .As I understand the Senator, he takes the creation and maintenance of armaments. first clause in pari materia \vith the last clause of .Article III. This condition is a crime against civilization. No country in Mr. McCUMBER. Yes. the world is so situated as is our own country, guarded as she ib I ask that Senators shall especially note that the declaration by the seas, independent as she is of support from auy foreian that the cause shall be submitted to arbitration is the same in source, to take the initiative, and with a strong, earnest ~d brave purpose bring about a cessation of this senseless of this each case. Under Article I the President decides whether the 1 difference-is justiciable, and if he so finds that article declares worse than criminal, expenditure of human energy for the pro it "shall be submitted to the permanent court of arbitration." duction of that which does not tend to the happiness of the Under Article III the commission decides whether the question world, but whose one purpose is to destroy that happiness. · is justiciable, and if it so finds that article declares it "shall be Even in the United States in times of peace, without a single referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the war cloud in the horizon, nearly three-fourths of our govern~ treaty." While the language is general in each section, the pro mental receipts are immediately poured into the war coffers for the maintena,nce of the Army and Navy and the payment of vision being that the matter is to be submitted or referred to pensions. arbitration, the same proceeding is contemplated in each case The pride of this city is our Congressional Library. From the formation of a special agreement and its submission to the the lips of eyery person who for the first time enters its portals Senate for its advice and consent. bursts forth an exclamation of joy and pride. It cost just one If Senators will bear in mind that the great prime purpose of half as much as a completed warship, to say nothing of thfJ the creation of the joint high commission is to investigate the facts maintenance of the latter after completion. This beautiful · and assure that the preliminary steps will be taken to get the structure will last a thousand years. The warship will become matter before the Senate, when it is so clearly within the rule obsolete and useless in 10 years. We are suffering for a want that all, or all but one, of the nationals of both countries so of sufficient buildings to conduct the business of · the country, hold, the harmonious construction becomes simple and rational. 1 and enormous sums are paid annually for rent, and yet the ap .rhe whole question turns upon the purpose of the creation of propriation which we make every year for war purposes would this joint high commission. The instrument says, and I say, build 30 of these libraries, 300 of them in 10 years. We are that the function of the commission is to investigate and to unable while' we are pouring these vast ·sums into our arma insure the proper preliminary steps to be taken which may ment to even appropriate the necessary funds to complete the ev-entually result in arbitration, where, without the inter work of our Census Bureau, and we must leave all its important mediary action of the commission, no such step might be taken, data, collected ·at great expense, until a time when it will be either because the executive heads of the nation are disinclined obsolete and useless. to act or hold a contrary view. I think that a careful reading of the whole instrument will convince any Senator, whose mind And what profit is it to us that because of our greater has not already been made up on the matter, that the purpose resources we shall be able to outstrip all other nations of tlle of the creation of the commission is not to supersede the Senate world in the construction and maintenance of a mighty navy? in determining what is justiciable, and that it is not intended Every dollar that we compel them to expend in an attempt to by the last phrase of Article III to make an exception to the keep abreast of our power means a dollar that might have advisory character of the report whereby on the principal ques bought our goods. We are by tllis race for war power destroy tion, that of the justiciability of the difference, its decision is ing the ability of our customers to purchase our wares, and our to be conclusive; but such purpose is to ·investigate and assure a people in the end will suffer the result. If the money expended consideration by the treaty-making power of all questions which for war purposes the world over could be expended in the com seem to be so clearly within the rule of Article I as to secure forts and luxmies of' life, we would all be comparatively unanimous or nearly unanimous approval by a commission of wealthy. If the vast energy expended in the maintenance of men learned in international law and ethics. armies and navies could be utilized for the real benefit of bu· Mr. President, just one word on the merits, and then I will manity we could have a paradise of plenty on earth. close. You say preparedness for war is the surest guaranty of Mr. BA.CON. Before the Senator learns that part of his peace. As between two nations of equal power, with no con speech I s~ould like to ask µim a question. 1 presume the Sen tract or agreement or understanding to bind them to a rule of ator has compared this proposed treaty with the existi..ng treaty conduct that would be applied to the citizens of each, it may we have witli Great Britain. be possibly true that the one must continue to increase its Mr. ·:rucCUMBER. I have not made a careful comparison, but power to meet the threatening strength of the other. As against I remember the other treaty. the smaller and weaker powers, however, it is the surest guar Mr. BACON. If the Senator will compare it carefully, he will anty of war. find that the particuar article in which this objectionable sen But where will we end? Each additional expense in the tence is found and which the Senator has been discussing is national armament of one nation invites an additional expense copied almost exactly from the existing treaty, except that this on the part of the-other, until the whole civilized world is groan particular change is made in it. If it is not intended to change ing under the enormous burden of taxes required for their the existing treaty, why should additional language be put in maintenance. it when in the treaty as it now exists there is practically the Let us pass these arbitration treaties. Let us secure like same thing, except that there is no outside commission which is treaties with all the nations, and we shall immediately sec an given the power to determine whether or not the matter shall ever-diminishing war budget and an eyer-corresponding increase be arbih·ated? of the world's prosperity and happiness. 1912.: CONGRESSIO~.,.AL .RECORD-SENA1I'E. 1069 · ~rr. President, I feel tlmt ·we do not fully T.eeogD.We ·or app~e Mr. President, we Iha ve to-day reached another stage in world ciate the fa:r-:reaching influence tOf iile ·ocm1irma..tion df these progression, ·w herebw we purpose to force, by the ·power of' ·the treaties. 1 feel .confident that as 'soon ·as these treaties with "WOrld1s sentiment, supplemented by the combined obligation Great Britain and Fcunce :lTe eorrfinned by the ·Senate the of natiullll eompacts of evet-y nation to a.bide by the same code cal\lse of arbitration as a settlement of all arbitrab1e ·differences of morals 1n their international relations that they in turn ex will receive such an impetus that we shall be able 1:o make like .act from tlle-ir subjects, namely, that they rob no other nation of treaties with Germany, Austria, [taJy, and every chilized its honor, that they steal not its territory, that they mUTder country in the world. not its people; and I 'Sincerely hope that the great Government Mr. President, here is another most impoTtant matter which of the United States will be the first Government that shall we must not ov-er1ook, n :nmtter that is far moxe important than attempt to lay the corner stone of this edifice of international the mere settlement of · arbitrable 1questions. WheneTer the justice. great nations of the world agree to submit all differences which Mr. BACON. Mr. P.resident, before the Senator takes :his are justiciable or arbitrable in their nature to an international seat I should like to make an inquiry of him. tribunal, it will force that tribunal and the parties who submit The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from North their differences to its adjudication to determine the line -0f de Dakota yield to tlle Senator from Georgia? marcation between the vital, inherent, God-given, and sacred Mr. l\IcCUMBER. Certainly. • rights of each nation, great and BID.all, and to recognize those Mr. BACON. 1\fr. President, we are all of us in favor of rights. And when we have adrnnced civilization to such a de peace; all of us .are in favor of arbitration of proper subjects gree that the great nations of the world will sign similar com and in a proper way. I understood the Senator to say that he pacts wherein they recognize certain sacred Tig1lts of ather had not carefully examined the existing h·eaties which we have weaker nations as nonassailable, we have done for the peace of f.or arbitration. the world a hundred times ruore than is secured ·by the mere Mr. MaCU!ffiER. r have read all of the treaties. 1:mbmission of minor differences to arbitration. JUr. BACON. I wanted to ask the Senator if he would tell us With a treaty of this chru.·acter, signed :by all the great in what particular the proposed treaty will enable the ~rbitra countries of the world, the war with Tripoli would neTer have tion of questions which are properly arbitrab1e which the exist been heard of. With a treaty of :tbjs kind, signed by ull the ing treaties do not now provide for? I think the Senator ought great nations of the world, including Russia, the cries of rersia to give us that information because the speecl1 of the Senator for justice and mercy would not now be ringing througnout the assumes tlllr:t we have not now any arbitration treaties. I con world. tend that we .now have arbitration treaties, not only the general There is nothing so powerful to-day as arousea public opin convention of The Hague, to which all of the leading powers of ion. It makes wars and it stops wars. There is something in the -earth have gtrnn their consent, but in specific instances, as a m·itten contract, though it binds countrles to nothing more our treaty with Great Britain, for instance; and I should like, than that which honor should bind them, the breacll of which in Yiew of the very elaborate presentation of this question which by imy nation would bring down. upon it the condemnation of the Senator has made, and which is to go out to the country, ffrery other nation. · that there should also go out to the country now a statement by There are few countries in the world to-day which .can wage the Senator of what are the :particular features of the proposed a great . war without borrowing from other countries. The treaty whicll -wil1 make axbih::ible questions which are not now time is coming, and ought to come, when no great nation o:l' the provided "for in existing treaties. world shall be able to borrow money from other clvilized na Mr. McCUMBER. There is nothing, in my opinion, in the tions for the purpose of carrying on an unjust war. It was due proposed treaty which makes any question arbitrable that was to a great world sympathy for Japan in her sh·uggle for the not so under the old treaty. Let us not misunderstand each maintenance of her national 1ife that enabled her to c::m,-y on other in that respect. I have not claimed that, but I do say that war against a country with a population and resources that there is that in the present treaty, Article II of that treaty, .five times greater than .her own and with a territory 500 which insures, first, that n.ll matteTs will be investigated which times greater. Flushed with "Victory, her inclination was to might .naturally tend to irritate both nations and prevent them demand an indemnity, but when she .had gained all she had de from ·being ~able to arbih'ate a question; and, secondly, that it manded as her inherent right for her self-preservation, public · will compel the initia1:ory steps to bring all arbitral matters opinion would not susta:iJi her in a war continued for the pur before the Senate that the Senate may pass upon the question pose of securing money indemnity.. And it was that public of whether :or not they shall 'be submitted to arbitration. opinion that brought about peace between the contending Under uur treaty as it now exists I know of no way of getting nations. a matter before the Senate in the form of a treatv. I know of I wish, Mr. President, that it were within my power to im no duty ·that is imposed upon the Executive to bring a matter press the Senate with my own conviction of the duty which we before the Senate that .he of his own sweet will does not c:rre owe to the world, to bumanity, to all future generations, to con to bring before it. Under this treaty it is made his duty to do so. summate this first great act of world statesmanship-to lay this Mr. BACON. We11, Mr. ·President, '.I want to call th·e atten corner stone in the temple of univm·saJ law and justice. I ha mission does not originate with this treaty by any means, for might think it ought not to be made? How does the Senator ,,c· ha1e got a treaty now proyiding for one of these commis reconcile the differences in those two clauses, one in The Hague sions, to which all the leading nations of the earth and a great treaty and one in the· proposed treaty? I would be -very glad runny tllat are not leading ones have- given their acquiescence to hear the Senator in explanation of that. and consent and agreement. In it there. is this statement now, Mr. l\fcCUMBER. l\Ir. President, I have already discuss~d as to ''hnt would be the effect of the report of that commis at great length the proper construction to be placed upon the sion, giving full cpportuuity for the examination and hearing third paragraph of Article III. The Senator in his question of witnesses and everything else, and it says this : almost directly states that the last paragraph does modify the The report of the commission- first in such a way that it becomes the duty of the Senate to .Mr . .hlcCUl\IBER. From what article is the Senator reading? grant the award, though the Senate may differ with the com .Mr. BACON. I am reading from page 26 of this document mission. I do not gi've it the const111ction, to start with, that numbered 98 of this session of Congress, and I am reading from it becomes the duty of the Senate to grant the award. The . The Hague treaty, Article XXXV. purpose of the last section : 'file· report of the commission- It is further agreed, however- Tha t is, the.commission of inquiry to investigate all these is not intended as a modification of the preceding paragraph, matters- that the report of the commission sha1l not be regarded as a ARTICLE XXXV. decision, otherwise it would have followed immediately rather Tbe report of the commission is limited to a statement of facts, and as a proviso in the same paragraph, clearly stating that pro has in no way the character of an award. 'ided in such cases it should be regarded as a decision, but it I am sure tile Senator wlll recognize the similarity of that is intended to modify the first provision, which is tllat the mat language to the language used in the proposed treaty. The ter can only be submitted to arbitmtion when the President language in the proposed treaty is evidently taken from that. himself is of the opinion that it should be submitted to arbitra While there is a difference of verbiage, it means that, ·and noth tion. Without this last clause ih Article III there would be ing else. But it goes on to say: no method by which the matter could be submitted to arbitra It leaves to tile parties entire freedom as to the effect to be given tion if the President took a view contrary to what rnosL peovle to the statement. migllt take or if he was disinclined to submit it. 'l'he proposed treaty, using practically the same language, Answering the other proposition, let me ask the Senator a goes on to say this as to what the commission shall do- question in return, because I have not read o'er The Hague Mr. OVEill\IA.N. From what page does the Senator read? con-vention for a long time and it is a very ex:tenstrn document. Mr. BA.CON. From page 39, Article Ill, of the proposed Is there anything in that con,ention that compels tlrn ExecutiYe treaty. The second clause of Article III of the proposed treaty to act or compels him to submit a question to The Hague tri is in this language: bunal or to a commission under The Hague tribunal in a ca e The reports of the commission shall not be regarded as decisions o.f in which he himself may hold that it is not a justiciable ques the questions or matters so submitted either on the facts or on the law and shall in no way have the character of an arbitral award. tion? That is practically the same language as the language which Mr. BACON. Does the Senator hold that the proposed treaty I lrnrn read from the existing Hague treaty, which is different will compel the President to do so? in words. The Hague treaty says, using language substantially Mr. l\IcCUMBER. I do. I say-- 1\fr. BACON. If the Senator will pardon me--- the same- Mr. McCUI\IBER. I say it is his duty to do so, because the It leaves to the parties entire freedom as to the effect to be given to the statement. · treaty says it is his duty to do so. .. 1\fr. BACON. Exactly. But the Senator will not wait until I The proposed treaty says : complete the question. It is further agreed, however, that in cases in which tile parties disagree as to whether or not a difference is subject to arbitration Mr. l\!cCUMBER. Pardon me. under At·ticle I of this treaty, that question sball be submitted to the Mr. BACON. The language as to what shall be done applies joint high commission of inquiry ; and if all or all but one of the both to the President and to the Senate. If it is compulsory members of thP. commission agree and repQrt that such difference is within the scope of Article I, it shall be referred to arbitration in on the one, it is compulsory on the other. There i no division acco1·dance wHb the provisions of this treaty. between the two; there is no statement that the President shall There is a sharp and distinct difference. In each case there send it to the Senate; there is no statement that the Senate shall is a proyision for a commission; in each case there is a pro ratify the treaty. There is simply the statement that it shall yision that it shall not be an award. In one case it practically be done. It takes the joint action of the Senate and the Presi says the Senate shall then determine whether or not it will dent to do it. ratify a treaty; in the other case it says, even though the Senate Mr. McCU.!'lfBER. No, Mr. President-- say it does not think a treaty ought to be made, it shall make it. Mr. BACON. Therefore li it is compulsory upon the one, it is hlr. LODGE. In other words, if I may interrupt the Sena compulsory upon the other. tor-- l\Ir. McCUMBER. No, Mr. President; it does not say that it Mr. BACON. Certainly. shall be arbitrated. It simply says that it shall be referred to Mr. LODGE. Down to clause 3 of Article III the proyisions arbitration-- of Articles· II and III of this h·eaty now pending are taken Mr. BACON. Exactly. bodily from The Hague con,ention. Mr . .hlcOUMBER. If the commission so holds. Now, suppose • .Mr. BACON. Absolutely so. the commission did not so hold; then the President, of course, Mr. LODGE. They are absolutely the same in substance, would not refer it, would he? but not in language. · · Mr. BACON. I ask the Senator to answer this question. Mr. BACON. Yes. The language is this : l\Ir. LODGlD. Clause 3 of Article III is whoUy,.new. It shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions l\Ir. BACON. Exactly. Now, the question which I want to of this treaty. submit to the Senator from North Dakota is this: With the That is language imposing an obligation. I say that that language of the two sections read by me, one from The Hague language necessarily refers both to the President and to the treaty which is now the law of this land-the treaty to which Senate; and the Senator is illogical when he says that it com all the nations of the earth of any consequence hm·e already pels the President to do his part toward the making of the agreed-what is the difference between the language of that treaty and does not compel the Senate to do its part toward in the last sentence of it and the last clause of Article III of the making the treaty. · proposed treaty? How does the Senator reconcile these two l\Ir. McCUMBER. I beg pardon; but the Senator, I am with his statement, that under the proposed treaty there will be rather inclined to think, is illogical in making that contention. no obligation upon the Senate to make a treaty which this com The provision " If all or all but one of the members of the com mission shall decide to be a proper· treaty to be made in a case mission agree and report that sucb difference is within the where the Senate should be of opinion that is not a proper scope of Article I, it shall be referred to arbitration in accord treaty to make; how can the Senator reconcile that statement ance with the provisions of this treaty" does not mean that it with the language which says that it shall be done? Why becomes, therefoi·e, the duty of the President or of the Senate to should there be the change in. the language unless it was in s~y that the question shall be arbitrated, but it becomes the tended to change tbe interpretation? In one case it says that duty of the President to formulate an agreement that it may it shall not be binding on the Senate, while in the other case, be referred to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of using the same language up to that particular pa rt of it, it the treaty. That is all. says that it shall be done. Now, what is the meaniuo-? Why ~fr. BACON. Just one minute. The Senator is writing a the change unless it was intended to impose upon the Senate new treaty. There is nothing in this treaty to that effect. the obligation to J?lake ::t treaty eyen though the Senate itself Mr. .McCUMBER. I beg the Senator's pardon. · 1912. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1071 Mr. BACON. I say the Senator is rewriting the treaty. vide re1enues and a civil government for Porto Rico, and for l\Ir. l\icCUl\IBER. Oh, no; I am not. other purposes," I submit the following nomination : l\Ir. BACON. Yes; the Senator is. The language is simply Edwin G. Dexter, of Illinois, to be Commissioner of Educa that "it shall be referred to arbitration." What is the way in tion for Porto Rico, to take effect January 16. (Ileappoint which it can be referred to arbitration? It can be referred to ment.) arbitration only by a treaty made by the consent and the con currence ~f the President and the Senate; and the Senator is CONFIBl\1.ATIONS. illogical when he says that it imposes a compulsion on the President and does not impose any compulsion on the Senate. Executive norninations confirmed by the Senate January 18, 1912. Mr. l\lcCUl\fBER. The Senator is mistaken when he says l\lINISTER. that I say it compels the President to arbitrate. It compels Edwin V. :Morgan to be ambassador extraordinary and pleni the President to take the initiatory steps so that it may be con potentiary to Brazil. sidered by the treaty-making power. That is all I claim it RECEIVER OF PUBLIC MONEYS. means, and nothing more. l\lr. BACON. I will just ask the Senator one other question Fred V. Tinker to be receiver of public moneys at Boise, before I withdraw from the discussion. Did I understand the Idaho. Senator to mean, then, in his general argument thaf the third COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS. clause in the third article of the proposed treaty, which pro Jacob C. Pike to be collector of customs for the district of vides what shall be done by the joint commission and what Passamaquoddy, in the State of l\faine. shall thereafter be done by the treaty-making power of the PROMOTIO:N"S IN THE NAVY, United States after that joint commission has made its report Machinists to bo chief machinists: does the Senato mean that it leaves to the parties-that is, to William Herzberg, the President and to the Senate-entire freedom as to the effect Zenas A. Sherwin, to b ·~ given that statement, and they will make a treaty or not, Otto Boldt, as they see fit, after consideration? Is that the position of the David W. Harry, Senator? Byron C. Howard, l\lr. l\lcCUl\fBEil. That it 1ea\es for the Senate exactly the William S. White, and same powers and authority that the Senate would exercise if the President, of his own motion and without the act of the William D. Sullivan. joint commission, had submitted the case to arbitration? POSTMASTERS. l\Ir. BACON. In other words, in the language -0f The Hague CALIFORNIA. treaty, "it leaves to the parties entire freedom as to the effect Albert L. Paulsen, Wea.1erville. to be gi"ren to the statement" of the commission. That is the CONNECTICUT. language. I read it. I did not give my language then. I read the language of The Hague treaty. What I want to ask the Warren W . .Averill, Pomfret Center. Sena tor is this: If it was not intended that it should mean William H. Brown, Jewett City. otherwise than the language which I have just read and to Edmund E. Crowe, South Norwalk. which the Senator has assented, why was different language George L. Rockwell, Ridgefield. used in the proposed treaty in saying that it should be done, IDAHO. that it should be referred to arbitration? Why is there a change . S. S. Bonham, Wardner. of language if there was no intent to change the obligation? George L. l\Iorgan, Mackay. l\lr. l\IcCUMBER. It is answered by the question which I ILLINOIS. asked the Senator from Georgia to show me where in The Hague treaty provision is made for the submission or the ref Hugh Bennett, Coal City. erence of a case to arbitration if the President himself does Frederick P. Burgett, Keithsburg. not deem it an arbitral one. There is no such provision, as I Tilford P. Hawkins, Rushville. remember, in The Hague agreement. This makes it the duty of Joseph E. Helfrich, Carthage. the President to take the initiatory steps to make the agree Eugene L'Hote, Milford. ment, and to submit it, even though he himself may not agree Charles A. Trowbridge, Minooka. that it is justiciable, if it is so clear that firn out of six men Charles 1\1. Turner, Wenona. learned in international law and ethics so hold. Thomas B. Williams, Sidell. EXECUTIVE SESSION. INDIANA. Rosa Lucey, Tolleston. l\Ir. CULLOM. l\lr. President, I think the discussion per haps bas gone on long enough with so slim an attendance ag KANSAS. we have here. I move that the Senate prO OHIO. have thought it proper to legalize what has been the custom William T. Cole, Leipsic. . heretofore and· what is being done now. Dharles S. Putnam, Conneaut. Mr. HENRY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if no ·gentleman on the Otis Sykes, Chicago Junction (late Chicago). other side desires to make any statement about the Tesolution, OREGON. I will ask for a Tote. The SPEAKER. The question is .on agreeing to the resolu· Vaughan D. Crosby, North Portland. tion. PENNSYLVANIA.. The resolution was agreed to. Caleb S. Brinton, CaTlisle. 'l'HE ARMY CANTEEN. George D. Clark, Blossburg. Mr. JACKSON. I ask unanimous consent to address the John Clinton, Natrona. House for one minute, and to _print as a part of my remarks an Martin L. Hershey, Hershey. editorial on the subject of the .Army canteen. Edwin Hoofnagle, Penbrook. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kansas asks nnani~ George S. l\Iullin, Hyndman. mous consent to addl·ess the House for one minute. Is there Elam 1\1. Stauffer, East Greenville, objection? Walter R. Thompson, Ebensburg. There was no objection. Harry L. Weamer, Quakertown. Mr. JACKSON. I simply desire to say that, in my opinion, SO"UTH CAROLINA. the article which was recently printed in the RECORD on the John W. Dunovant, Chester. Army canteen retlected in a certain sense on the honor and man· E. l\I. Sloan, Walhalla. hood of the United States Army not to say of the citizenship 'UTAR. of the country. I desire that the foTiowing ~ditorial, written Joseph Odell, Logan. by Mr. Harold Chase, of the Topeka Capitol of last Sunday, WASHINGTON. who, by the way, I think is one of the ablest writers of the Howard 1\1. Spalding, Goldendale. country, be printed in the RECORD a.s a reply to that article. Sarah E. Truax, Tekoa. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Kansas asks tmnni· mous consent to extend his remarks in the RECOIID. ls there objection? - INJUNCTION OF SECRECY REMOVED. TbeTe was no objection. The injunction of secrecy was removed from an interna The article referred to is us follows: tional convention for the unification of certain rules of law A STRONG .DEFENSE Oli' THil ARMY CANTEEN LAW. with respect to assistance and salrnge at sea, concluded at .Again "the restorati.on of the Army canteen is up befo.re Congress, and Brussels on September 23, 1910, and signed by the delegates of powerful representations are made by Army officers m favor of beer and other mild .ln.tox:icants in the soldiers' canteen. The arguments the United States to the Third International Conference on have become familiar, although they have ·never yet convinced Congress Maritime Law. (Ex. K, 62d Cong., 1st sess.) thut the soldiers get their booze outside Army lines, thut grafters bung on to the Army po. ts and sell on the edges, that drunkenness and venereal disease arc on the increase, etc. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. There js considerable prejudice against this Army testimony, just as there is considerable prejudice against Army social stnndards. The social life of the Army is gay. There have been some gambling scan· T HURSDAY, J anuary 18 , 191 2. dals in the posts, though le s than might reasonab1y be expected, con- sidering all the drcumstances of the shut-in Army life in time of The House met at 12 o'clock noon. peace. There is arinking at tht:l -posts. A.rmy officers like their cbam The Chaplain, Rev. Henry N. Couden, D. D., offered the pagne and whisky and wine. It is not surprising that they sbould also favor beer for the p1·ivat~. following prayer: Col. Maus, chief surgeon a.n.d chlef medical inspector of the Central We come to Thee, 0 God, our heavenly Father, at tbe begin- Division of the United States Army, denies that the prohibition of in ning of this new congressional day wifu renewed faith and to.xicants in the soldiers' canteen has resulted either ln increased drunkenness or the increase in venereal disease or weakened discipline. confidence in Thee as the dispenser ·of all good. Make us clear "Fortunately," .says this officer, "we are living to-day Jn n progressive in our conceptions, firm in our convictions, strong to do the a.ge, where the alert bu.siness ma.n finds there is -no room or place in · ht •t · · t th · ht th t b th the busy world for the tippler or barroom habitue." rig as 1 IS gwen us o see e rig • a we ma.y e wor Y In bis statem~nt Col. Maus says .that whereas the rate of ndmiss1on of Thine approbation and the app1·obation of. our 1fel1ow men, to sick report for alcoholism was 41 per 1,000 in the 15 yt>ar::; from and glory and honor and praise be Thine forever. Amen. 1885 to 1900, it was but .26 per 1,000 from 1.901 to 1.910. More ~ban . f t da d · d that. Col. Maus says: The J ourna1 o f th e proceed rngs o yes er Y was rea an " When we consider the character of the service from mot to 1910, approved. as compared with that from 1885 to 1900, the alcoholic rate from 1901 LE.AVE OF .ABSENCE. would naturally have been much larger-if the antibeer policy bad not intervened "to reduce it. By unanimous consent leave of --absence was granted to Mr. " From personal observation," says Col. Maus, " I believe that the CANDLF..R, for 10 days, on account of important business. percentages of alcoholism and venereal diseases are greater among men in civil life than among military men." CLERK OF :rHE HOUSE. Neither the admission to sick report nor the ratio of constant sick nor the ratio of alcoholism, says Col. Maus, has been increased b:v the Mr. HENRY of Texas. Mr. .Speaker, I present a privileged absence of beer from the canteen. Furthermore be calls attention to report and resolution from the Committee on Rules. the fact that the English war authol'1ties in London recently author ized canteens without bec.r, and that the German Emperor "has most The SPEAKER. The _gentleman from Texas presents a reso- decidedly taken a stand against beer drinking in the army."• Ile adds: lution which the C1erk will report. "I will conclude by stating th::i.t the control of alcoholism and venereal diseases is within the power of the military authorities.'' The Cl er k rea d as f 0 11 ows: The evils can be dealt with, and furnishing the men with intoxicating House resolution 377 (H. Rept. .238). liquor is not the way to deal with them. Resolved, That Rule III of the rules of the Sixty-second Congress be, PENSIONS. and are hereby, amended by adding a new clause, to be claase 4, to read as follows: Mr. SHERWOOD. :Mr. Speaker, I desire to _print in the REa.. " He shall, in case of temporary absence or disability, desl!{'nate the ORD a very able editorial from the Cincinnati Enquirer on the Chief Clerk, or some other official in his office, to sign all papers that subJ'ect of pension 1eaislation. _ may require the official signature of the Clerk of the House and to do ~~ all other acts, except such as are provided for by statute, that may be The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio asks unanimous required under the rules and practice of the House to be done by the consf'.nt to extend his remarks in the RECORD. Is there ob· Clerk. Such official acts, when so done by the Chief Clerk or other official shall be under the name ot the Clerk of the House. The said jection? designation shall be in ~riting, and shall be laid before the House and There was no objection. entered on the Journal. The article refened to is as. follows: Mr. HENRY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes. to PENSION LEGISLATION .. the gentlemen from North Carolina IMr. Pou]. One of the quest.ions which is causing most embarrassment t-0 legis· · ·n sk th t1 fr lators, which may confront the President in a trying way, ctnd which The SPEAKER . Th e Ch air Wl a e gen ema.n om is likely, . however disposed of, to cot ll considerable figure in the np- Tex:as if he wants the report read? ~ proachlng campaign, is that of pe.n.sJons •to the Civil War veterans. Mr. HENRY of Texas. I do not suppose it is necessary to Since the passage of the dollar-a-day Sherwood bill by the House there ·eport. It is simply a favorable report. has been a great deal of criticism not only of that ·measure, but of the read the I system, and it has been constantly said that no one should receive a i\lr. POU. Mr. Speaker, this is a unanimous report from "the pension 'U.Dless he is disabled or needy; in short, that a pension is a Committee on Rules, and_it simpiy legalizes, by amendment of charity, the only reci{>ients of which should be paupers. 'rhere is an- .ef Clerk under the Clerk . other side to this which it is only just should be made known,1. and it the r111es Of the House' What the. Chi ·has been recently very temperately presented by Hon. H. C. uoodlug, of the House is doing now and always bas been doi.Iig. I think lately chief jn~tlce of Arizona. He says: "All the die,tionaries, law no further explanation is necessary. As I understand rt, it has and English, define war pensfons as b.ased on valuable service tn the ast for the principa'.1 assistant to past-as having the consideration of vruua.ble scrvices that never were been the Custom for Years P fully compensated.'' 1In this they all concur. Black's Law Dictionary the Clerk to perform· these duties, and the Committ~ ·On R~les says:, " A stated allowance for the soldiers' valuable services to th~