The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-07-19
THE ZOLL vEREIN TREATY-THE Ma
TIONAL INTELLIGENCER.

THE ZOLL vEREIN TREATY-THE Ma
TIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
Tho Inieliigencer, Of Tuesday last, contains five
solid columns this treaty--the object being de-
fence Of the Wing Senate in rejecting it. The In
telgencer asserts, snd endeavors TO maintain, that
the treaty, if ratified would have been uneonsiiiu-
honai and rsid as well also tina, il would have been
gro. Jrsssd on the ZolI verein States.
Because the Cons tuition delegates TO Congress the
power to regulate commerce with fore On nations,
&c. and because the treaty provided reduction of
the duties certain articles, the manufacture and
production Of the German States, the President, in
making the treaty, has, Jas the Slnate would have
been, guilty Of 'paipabe usnpaiion of power ex-
pres>ly delegated to Congress" Still further, the
Intelgencer maintains that ratification of this trea-
~ would have rendered the President and Senate oh
noxious to the charge Of having violated The solemn
instrument, which they, public servants, had sworn
10 support"
If there exists any foundation for such an allega-
tion ~ this, then the Senate in 1882, majority of
the members Of which were Wings violated the
Constitution, well the oath they had taken to
supporf II R,,s sh~-~ = -
assertion. 1t is mere sophstry, subterfuge. There
was neither violation of oaths Of the Constitu-
ton, then nor would there have been in the rafca-
tou Of the abovensmed treaty. 1t matters not whe-
Their there exists other treaties than that made with
France 10 refer to precedent that is enough
for our purpose. That treaty contained provision,
requiring the admission into this country of the low
quality of wines of France for consumption, at
q reduced rate of duty. That treaty was
ratified, and the Publications exchanged on the
Cd day of February, 1924 law was passed by
Congress fixing the duties the wines of France, in
conformity with the treaty stpulations. The treaty
approved on the 18th day of July, 1892, and on
the Same day, the treaty made public by the
proclamation Of the President. Could not the same
course have been taken with the Zoll verein treaty.
Although it may, in the eyes of the lntelligencer
appear "folly," we re-assert tina. " there
solid arguments reasons that can be adduoed
either in paliaton justification of the action of
the Wbig Senate rejecting the treaty"
Did the House whom called on to act on the treaty
with France intorpose few preliminary objec-
tions" None whatever. Did that body, on that
occasion, regard the action of the President and the
Senate, in making and ratifying the treaty. mode
Of originating revenue bills without their sent p
Not at all. Did they see any thing like Executive
usurpation" at that time Or were they then ap-
prehensive that by this course of Executive usur
patton, they, instead of originating revenue bills, as
the English House of Commons does. might soon be
compelled to assume the position Of the English
House Of Lordsi" We have not tha smallest part-
Gle Of doubt that had the Senate ratified the treaty
the House would not have regarded the measure as
a "palpablo infracton Of one of its peculiar and
most estimable rights" but would forthwith have
passed an act, fixing duties 10 conform 10 the pro-
visions Of the treaty. The Inlelligencer has not an
inch Of ground 10 stand upon to sustain its positions
as 10 the unconstitutionalty of the treaty, or the
..:srs:a s4 r a4a 81 sa SHOULD have
We are sure that the President will be qqite will
ling to 90 to trial. are with the In,ellgencers
article before the country" Its arguments are too
feeble and Its ressonings too sophstica like its pro-
toype, the report against the treaty. to delude the
People, or save those who rejected the treaty from
merited condo mnation by those whose interests have
been wsn,ony disregarded.
Did the lntelligencer, when enumeraiing what
constituted that which 1t denominates 4" the mighty
concession" we should gain by the treaty, omit in
tentonaly or not, to mention that the German States
engaged not to impose any duty on cotton or to aug
ment the present duty on rice Such were a part of
the stiPulations which the In,egsncer omits TO no.
lice.
The lntelligencer justihes the Senate Of 1892 for
having, according to It's doctrine, violated both the
Constitution and their os,hs in ratifyng the treaty
with France, because gave indemnity for spolia-
ions on our commerce" Because money was IN
The question: the Constitution and osths might with
peoPriety be violated Such are the ethics Of the In
seligsncer But again /" the limitation TO the re-
duction OF duties in Mr.. Rive. treaty was an impor
tant feature in its favor" being only ten YEAR,. -
and "was so short" One of the objections urged
py The Committee Of Foreign Relations against the
ratihcas'on OF the Zol verein treaty was tina, ait
places beyond The power Of Congress to exceed the
stipulated maximum Of mpor, duties, for st least
three years. In one case, the Integencer regards
ten years short period and In the other the com
nitee think three years long period.
Very few OF the articles enumerated in the treaty
on which the duty was to be lowered, arc manufsc.
tursd in this country The argument for ia reieo-
ton, that its ratification would have brought our o,,,,
dessote industry into direct competition nj ho, If
n, 500 men, ~hoS rages ON four pence 10 ,hiI.
""S day, on all the manufactured articles en-
or'ced IN IT. IS therefore, futile and void. docs the
lnselgsocer intend 10 convey the idea thatthe whole
population Of the Zoll yerein States are men. and
that all are msnufscturers' Such is actually its
language.
IL Is not fact, . asserted by the Intelligencer.
that the high duties imposed by some OF the German
states are solely with view to revenue and not C,r
protecting any branch Of their own industry.
We have the assertion Of the Prussian Minister os
State, made in 1897, that the duty on tobacco was
viewed ~ measure OF two-fold nature. In the
Hrst place, il had been agreed upon as protective
measure, and secondly, as fiscal measure, a large
revenue being derived from the duty imposed Con.