Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1816-01-27

year 1904, the Spanish brigantine Nancy,
came into Norfolk in distress. In order to
give 20 her owners the benefit of the treaty
stipulation, it was deemed necessary to
pass an act RENTING the duties in that
particular instance, and providing that
they should not be payable in similar in
stance in future. The treaty with France
IN 1901, had been alluded to by the gentle
man from n. G. (Mr. CASTOR BY refer
ring to the appropriation act, passed in con-
sequence of the ratification Of that treaty.
1t viii be found to contain a declaration OF
the obligation to return vessels captured
during the war, according to the conditions
OF the convention. Mr.. f. presumed that
this was supposed sufficient authority for
the delivery of the Berceau by the Pres-
d mt. in performance of the conditions of
the treaty. The statute book was full of
examples, but none were more decisive
than those found upon the cession of Loui-
siana to the United States by France in
1903. Although France coded it to the
United States, Congress thought it neces-
sary to pass an act authorizing the Presi-
dent to take possession of it, and to use the
military force, if necessary, for that pur-
pose. Although it was recognized as be-
longing to the United States, and of Course
governed by their laws, so far IS they were
applicable to its situation, at that time it
was deemed most expedient to pass an act
to lay and collect duties on imports and
tonnage within the said territory In this
act, provision was made to secure to
French and Spanish ships the commercial
advantages which were promised as one Of
the conditions of the cession. But this was
not all i'll the year 1900, an act was pas
sed, allowing drawback of duties on goods
exported from the United States to New
Orleans, being a foreign port. Although
the reason of this act had ceased, and it
might have been considered repealed by
the transfer of this port to the United
States, it was supposed necessary to repeal
the act by an act Of Congress, passed in
1903.
Louisiana, too, was admitted into the u
Mon, not by treaty stipulation, but by an
act of Congress. in performance of the OBJ
legation imposed by it.
Mr.. F. said, that no difference was
made by the constitution between treaties
with foreign powers, and treaties made
with the Indians within the territorial Ii
mits of the United States. The rule had
been extended to them. Without enume-
rating the particular cases, he could refer
to an arrangement viii h had been made
with all the Indian tribes with whom we
had catered into compacts-that crimes
committed by whites upon Indians, within
the Indian territory, should be punished in
the same manner as if the offence had
been committed upon citizen Of the Uni
ted States, within the jurisdiction of some
distri t of the United States. This engage
ment had been complied with so FIR as it
could be complied with by the COVE nment
Prosecutions had been instituted against
fl1rco h. H., 4 -,
ces. Mr.. T. did not remember of any pu-
nishments, but this was not the fault of the
government. These prosecutions were,
however, C commenced, not upon the treaty,
but upon the law, made in consequence of
the treaty engagement. These remarks,
Mr. f. trusted would satisfy the House,
that the course proposed to be pursued, in
relation to the late convention with Great
Britain, was perfectly in unison with the
practice in all former cases. And justified
by the rule upon which that practice had
been founded. The only difference be-
tween the present and former cases was,
that in this case the convention stipulates
advantages to British vessels, which can
not be enjoyed without an alteration of the
system of reven nue., and repeal Of existing
laws. Some gentlemen had imagined that
the law of the last session, on the subject
OF discriminating duties, contained all the
necessary provisions to meet this contract
between the two countries. This was a
mistaken opinion. The law of the last
session repealed our discriminating duties,
on tonnage, &c. of foreign vessels and
on goods imported in foreign vessels, upon
a condition which has not happened. that
49, that an abolition Of al the ciscrmina-
ting duties, so far as they were hjuri us to
the commerce Of the Tn ted States, should
have taken place in that foreign nation to
which the vessels and goods should belong
The treaty between tin country and Great
Britain stipulates an abolition of dscrimin-
ating duties only in the ports of his Britain
mic Majesty's European d0minons. MIR.
+. said, it was somewhat extraordinary,
that 1t should be doubted i'm this country,
whether the House ofRepreseutatives were
authorised to act upon subject which, in
England, would have required the nterpo-
sitlon of the House of Commons He did
net intend to draw any argument from
the resemblance of the two governments.
but to bottom one upon the difference
between them. II could not be denied that
in this government, the Executive power.
including its authority to make treaties,
was more limited than in Great Britain.
Yet in Great Britain, this very treaty will
require an act of parliament before it can
be carried completely into effect--An act
which some of us will live long enough to
sec. his was the ordinary course in that
country. NJ some of the most remarka-
bic periods in British history, instances had