Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1827-02-20

both houses and il would be wise now TO act on
the same principles, unless the House should
think that the necessity removed by the act Of
1921
- Mr.. McDufTie was sorry to differ in this matter
from some of those with whom he was in the habi,
OF acting, but he did not consider the cons,i,u .
tioua question as involved in this bill He held
Treaty TO be paramount to all laws of Congress;
! and proof of this, he asked whether .nv
gentleman could, for a moueut, maintsin that ,
treaty could he repealed by Law Blu, why not il
| it only equal to a law! Ii both were equal.
the lat would i:evail. The only Circumstance
which gave any appearance of difficulty to the
present case was, that the law of Congress existed
prior To the treaty. But this was n difficulty in
appearance only; the Treaty being supreme super
seeded The law. Yet, as a matter of convenience &
expediency, law should ordinarily be passed for
the execution of treaty The gentleman from,
Georgia had said, that The consent of this Hous.
was necessary TO confirm treaty
Here Mr.. Forsyth explained. He had adyanc-
cd no such doctrine-be had only said that when
the execution of treaty involved the Consti,u.
tional powers Of this House, the House mus, leg
siate before the treaty could be carried into effect
10 tins, Mr. M'DuiIie expressed his assent, but
SAID, that If the gentleman from Georgia contends,
that where treaty repeats law thi. House mus,
act before he law is repealed, he advanc ed doc
'rine 10 which he (Mr. MD J could never ayree
The sen,lera an had asked if treaty can repeal .
tax! The answer easy.
treaty was the supreme law Of the land vel
IL was not SO beyond The Cons i,uiionai limits as
signed TO the treaty making power If treaty j.
made which transcends the power given 20 max,
treaties II Is unconstitutional, aud Is not the su
preHe IVY. or any law Of the land; but when L.
Ultimately made, within the limits Of The treaty
making power, ii prevails all laws of Con.
gress, and on this principle law of CONGRESS- ex
III but The will ofO a
ses the united will of powers.
some explanation now took place between
Messrs. Mercer& FORSYTH
Mr.. Wur's demonstrated embarrassing bill
which required to be passcd without delay
Mr.. Csmbreleng explained the operation of III,
Navigation Law, as extending only to the tlirec
trade, and not embracing the trade with the Colo
mes. In such instances as those OF Sweden, Den
mark and Guatemala, that law did not reach th,
case. "a OIL had been received last session. from
ne Senate, meeting this case, and removing al
the difficulties. he now rose TO enreat from IN,
courtesy OF the gentleman from Georgia that h,
would not obstruct The passage of the bill. Tb,
present was question which touched our Nayi-
CATION Laws, and they must he accommodate &c
those treaties. II Denmark, Guatemala, Sc. wen
the whole length of repeating their k-crimin atinc
duties, the y >. must do the same. He hoped Ia,
gentleman would withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Iomi!son said, that the gent eman hal ask
cd, why legislation necessary, He thoueb
that he had already explained that the proposirior
to aboi sh these duties, not in the form of ;
treaty, but OF diplomatic note. The Treaty. wen,
to Affect the commerce Of the u. $. aud the Col
onies OF Sweden The Committee doubt e6 if H.,
law OF 1924 ex'eLded to the Colonies. and tho,
presented to The House case OF necessity. t,on-
gress must act tha, the may be met The,
were asked 10 act, net i'll order 10 fulfil treaty. hn
! TO facilitate the forming of one
This was quite different question lo,, ,b,,
ed oy the gentleman from Georgia, and did no
draw af' er it the same consequences NJ y, -
went into statement OF what took Mace in III,
controversy OF 1916, and nsis ed that there ~ a
no necessity that the Hou-e should now re.asse,
the power which it then claimed
Mr orsyth observed, in conclusion tina, if an,
ie5iSia ION was Necessary, was the time I,
leg, late The law of 1921 did not cover ei,be
Inc Swea'sh or the Danish Treaty, for both thos
P""e.- h'u eoiohie-. lie was sorry the gent,emai
from New \ ork had been SO strenuous Tber
was no absolute n. cessity TO pass the bill At tbi
Time. III the discriminating essties were co1cc,ed
'hey could and wonId he repaid. He protested a
Sa'h-t arquiesclng Ia any violation of the Consu
u, LOT the SAKE OF convenience or profit in trad.
IL the President had not supposed that .ome I-gis
itioh was nece sary, why would he have comnu.
nicatej these treaties to the House? He was an,s
sorry he had introduced his Amendment the obiec
tons 10 II were so various.
The gentleman from s. Carolina. (NIr aI,D,m.,
had sad that it idle to suppose a treaty vonI,
be made, interfering with direct taxes: bu, +, Or,
moi imPos's raxes! If treaty could touch the ono
it could the other Wv '"e
Inc question was row taken on Mr.. Forsvtb,
amendment, and 1t was negatiyed, by larpe ma
jority. p "''
The bill was then ordered to a Sd readino. m,
The House adjourned