16 Ne Osi eee. 
Seok - BE 
BREEZE 
| T North Shure Biceeze § 
Published every Friday Afternoon by 
NORTH SHORE BREEZE CO. 
Knight Building Manchester, Mass. 
J. ALEX. LODGE, Editor. 
Manchester 137, 132-3. 
$2.00 a year; 3 
Advertising Rate 
Telephones: 
Subscription Rates: 
months (trial) 50 cents. 
Card on application. 
pao To insure publication, contributions 
must reach this office not later than Thurs- 
day noon preceding the day of issue. 
Address all communications and make 
checks payable to North shore Breeze 
Co., Manchester, Mass. 
Entered as second-class matter at the 
Manchester, Mass., Postoiiice. 
Volume 9 December 8, 1911. Number 49 
The Problem of the Treaties 
President Taft has proposed two 
treaties, the one with Great Britain 
and the other with France, compel- 
ing the arbitration of international 
ditferences. The passage of the 
treaties are in jeopardy because of 
clause three, which provides tor the 
submission of all judiciable matters 
to a commission. The Senate in- 
sists upon its prerogatives given by 
the constitution claiming that they 
will be nullified by this clause in the 
new treaties. But the opposition of 
the Senate is not altogether one for 
the petty rights of the Senate. The 
bill was returned with three re- 
ports, the adverse majority report 
signed by Henry Cabot Lodge, 
chairman, the minority report signed 
by S. M. Cullom and Elihu Root 
and an individual report by Mr. 
Benton, agreeing with the minority 
report but making supplementary 
comments. There is evidently an 
honest difference of opinion on 
broad grounds. A statement that 
the Senate’s action was due to its 
jealousy of its prerogatives is at 
least misleading, if not untrue. The 
majority report, says ‘‘The inclusion 
of the Senate as a part of the treaty 
making power was provided upon 
mature consideration in the Consti- 
tution. It has, on the whole, 
proved of the highest usefulness for 
the prevention of hasty and ill con- 
sidered agreements with other 
powers and for the preservation of 
the interests of all and every part 
of the American people. So long as 
that duty rests upon us we must 
continue to perform it with courage 
and firmness and without evasion or 
abdication.”’ 
As a case in point the Senate ma- 
jority report says, ‘‘one of the first 
of sovereign rights is the power to 
determine who shall come into the 
eountry and under what conditions. 
No nation, which is not either tribu- 
tary or subject, would permit any 
other nation to compel it to receive 
the citizens or subjects of that other 
nation. If our right to exclude cer- 
tain classes of immigrants were 
challenged the question could be 
forced before a joint commission, 
and if that commission decided that 
the question was arbitrable the Sen- 
ate would have no power to reject 
the special agreement for the arbi- 
tration of that subject on the ground 
that it was not a question for arbi- 
tration within the contemplation of 
Article I. In the same way our 
territorial integrity, the rights of 
each state, and of the United States 
to their territory might be forced 
before a joint commission, and un- 
der article three, in certain contin- 
gencies, we would have no power to 
prevent our title to the land we in- 
habit from being contested in a 
court of arbitration. Such an 
invitation would be a_ breeder of 
war and not of peace and would 
rouse a series of disputes, now hap- 
pily and entirely at rest, into malign 
and dangerous activity. To issue 
such an invitation is not in the opin- 
ion of the committee, the way to 
promote that universal peace which 
we all most earnestly desire.’’ 
Here we find the peace argument 
used both for and against the treat- 
ies. It is clearly a case of the doc- 
tors disagreeing and the layman 
waiting in suspense. It is evident 
that both sides wish the peace 
‘‘which we all most earnestly de- 
sire.’’ If the present treaty form 
is not the best a new form agreeable 
to all parties should be formulated. 
Meanwhile opposition to the present 
form of the treaties ought not to 
open any one to criticism of guilt of 
‘‘jungoism ’’ or lovers of war in 
preference to Peace. Let us have 
the treaties and ample provision for 
the protection of our rights in mat- 
ters for arbitration. 
The Los Angeles Confessions 
History was made last week in 
the Los Angeles compromise and it 
will doubtless be a turning point in 
the history of the struggle between 
capital and labor in the west. Such 
an armistice there must  conse- 
quently react upon labor problems 
and conditions all over the United 
States. The important factor in the 
confessions of the week was not 
alone the discovery and confessions 
of the perpetrators of the Los An- 
geles disaster and the destruction of 
the Llewelyn Iron Works, although 
these facts are of importance. The 
saving of a million dollars in state 
expense, the probable defeat of a 
mayoralty candidate, the skill and 
ability of a great detective and the 
alertness of the local government in 
the prosecution of the investigation, 
are, while not merely incidental, of 
minor importance in the face of the 
movement of the business men of 
Los Angeles to put a stop to the 
growing antagonistic sentiments due 
to class distinction and to prevent 
the intense feeling which would be 
the inevitable result of the trial all 
over the country. Every newspaper 
and. magazine of national impor- 
tance had representatives in Los An- 
geles and the dire results of the 
trial would be felt in every union 
in the states and in every state of 
the Union. The taking of sides 
would have been inevitable. The 
saving of the money the trial would 
have cost is as nothing compared 
with the ill will and estrangements 
which could and doubtless would 
have been engendered by the trial 
and the inevitable verdict of guilt. 
A clear ease of guilt in an honorable 
trial would not have been accepted 
by thousands of deceived people 
and the Government and the cause 
of peace would be a loser even in 
ease of an honorable judicial vic- 
tory. The trial of the two brothers 
had already become a_ great test 
ease and thousands of honorable 
men contributed to defend their so 
believed honorable brethren. This 
money was not contributed to assist 
lawless men to escape the penalties 
of the law but in most cases it was 
contributed by honorable men who 
believed in honorable name of union 
labor and in the innocence of the 
men. Even if it can be proved that 
certain leaders knew of the guilt of 
these brothers, every dollar is a trib- 
ute to the honor of the contributors 
G. E. WILLMONTON 
ATTORNEY AND 
COUNSELOR AT LAW 
WILLMONTON’S AGENCY 
REAL ESTATE AND INSURANCE OF ALL KINDS 
SCHOOL AND UNION ST’S, MANCHESTER 
OLD SOUTH B’LD’G, BOSTON 
SUMMER HOUSES FOR 
RENT. 
MORTCACES -- LOANS 
TEL. CONN. 
