The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-11-12


government in appointing an agent to investi-
gate the working Of the reciprocity treaty,
with view Of reporting tho result to the So
cretary of the Treasury. 1t Ia alleged that
Mr.. Cobb Is opposed to the treaty, aud has
made several orders In connection with its
construction which are complained of by the
Canadians as illiberal and ooatrary to the spirit
of that convention. The opposition in Canada
insist that this Ill feeling has arisen in conse-
queuce of the recent tariff established there,
and they fear the result will be the abrogation
of tho treaty by the American government.
On the other hand, the organs of the present
Canadian government contend that their exist
ing tariff is purely . revenue measure, and
that the United States, which itself
sets the example Of revenue tariff,
cannot reasonably object to Il; and, secondly,
that by the terms of the reciprocity treaty it
cannot be ended until Jane, 1866, and then only
upon condition that one years previous notice
has been given of such intention.
There Is very little doubt bat that the re-.
gently established Canadian tariff was drawn
up In the iaterest Of the Grand Trunk Railroad,
and with view to direct as much Of the Cana
dian trade as possible from Rochester, Buffalo,
&C.. to Quebec; but 1t Is too small matter to
have any particular effect upon public feeling
in the United States. 1t has caused some fut-
tering among the railroad mon and forwarders
on the lakes, and it is very probable it was for
this reason Mr.. ex- Congressman Hatch, of Buff
falo, was appointed special agent to inquire
into the workings of the treaty.
The Montreal Gazette, an organ Of the
present Canadian administration, in allud-
ing to recent article in the HERALD,
is, however. mistaken In supposing that
the United States will be compelled nolens
uoleas to continue the operation of the treaty,
should it be demonstrated that it is one sided
unfair arrangement 1t is not to be expected
of course, that our provincial contemporary
should be very we'll acquainted with any sub
ject in particular; but as the article in question
assumes sort of semi-oficial char acter, more
intelligent examination of the matter might
have been anticipated. The treaty undoubted
~ declares that it 'shall remain in force for ten
years from the date at which 1t may come into
operation, and further until the expiration of
twelve months aftereitber ofthe high contracting
parties shall give notice to the other Of its wish
to terminate the same;" but it has always been
a recognized principle with the United States
that the treaty making power is necessarily and
obviously subordinate to the fundamental laws
and federal constitution, and cannot ami
hilate its constitutional powers that there
fore Congress, by its Inherent sove-
ieignty, can at any time put an end
to any treaty-the treaty making power
!. e. the Executive, having no right to
bind the legislative branch of the gov
erRment, without the consent OF the latter, to
any abrogation or limitation of its constitu-
tional functions.
The reciprocity treaty, however, SO far as
the interchange Of goods duty free is con-
ccrncd, depends upon the act Of Congress
which was passed to carry it into effect, and a
repeal of this act would leave the treaty abso-
lutely useless to the extent in which Canada is
affected The House of Representatives, pro-
perly jealous Of the absorption Of power in the
hands of the Executive, passed a resolution on
the 7th April 1906, that when treaty de-
pended for the execution Of any Of its stipula-
and duty Of the House to deliberate on the
expediency or inexpediency Of carrying such
treaty into effect; and this, too, in the face Of
message sent by President Washington week
previously denying the existence Of any such
powerin Congress. When the reciprocity treaty
was under consideration by our government
this question was brought up, and the right of
Congress fully recognized in the clause which
rendered the assent of Congress necessary to
give it effect. The old federal doctrine held
that under the constitution treaties were the
supreme law of ne land but they can only be
SO where they do not violate constitutional
rights, and do not infringe upon the sovereignty
of the people. As we have already observed,
the reciprocity treaty, by its very terms, re-
cognises the right of Congress to control those
stipulations affecting in any way the public
revenue, and in direct violation of the old
federal doctrine. Without, therefore, going to
the extent of abrogating the treaty, all that
Congress needs do is to repeal the act which
gave it vitality. Our Canadian friends will
therefore understand that they are not
half SO firmly planted as they imagined,
and if they have no better arguments
to offer in order to sustain the treaty than that
they have managed to "do the Yankees, .
they may wake up some fine morning next
winter and find the Yankees have "done''
them.
But this reciprocity treaty Is measure OF
much more importance than it would be were
it simply convention for the interchange OF
certain commodities between the British pro.
vinces and the United States. AS far as the
interchange portion is concerned 1t is evident
the Canadians were and must be largely the
benefciaries; for, whilst the United States af
fords market to the Canadians for all the emu.
merated products we sell the Canadians in re.