Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1874-07-28


lowing letter from Bangor, strongly support
ing Speaker Blaine's position on the Consti-
tutional limitations of the treaty making
power Of the Government
BANGOR, Me-, July lG, 1874.
To the Editor of the Erening Post:
Your somewhat elaborate editorial review
of Speaker Blaine's letter in your issue of
the l4th suggests some thoughts on a consti.
tutional point of grave Importance.
Before entering upon that, however, a few
words on the economic points involved may
not be out of place.
The position taken by Speaker Blaine in
regard to the Reciprocity Treaty has the al
most, if not entirely, unanimous approval OF
his constituency, and this without regard to
their belief in a protective tariff or a reve
nue. tariff. The question lies thus in their
minds, to illustrate by single case Here
we have a vast amount of lumber in our
State which we have to chop with taxed and
protected axes, haul with taxed and protect
ed harness, cut with saws and engines heav-
lily taxed and protected, and all the work
done by men who wear taxed hats, taxed
clothes, taxed boots, and who in consequence,
must have enhanced wages. Now e reci-
procty treaty with Canada to admit her lum-
Der free of all duty, while the Maine lumber
is still kept under the disabilities just refer
red to, is simply to give Canada the control.
of the American market-in other words,
while tying down Maine lumber with various
taxes, it would command Canadian lumber to
90 free" AS to the inexpediency and injus-
tice of this there is no division of sentiment
among Speaker Blaine's supporters. His let
ter had reference to local issues of this kind,
and aA ha taEa fhnr ho la
have proved a most unfathful exponent of
the district that has SO long trusted and hon
ored him. 1t is not Speaker Blaine's fault if
others have attempted to give to his letter a
wider significance. 1t was in truth a purely
local address, faithfully rejecting the wants
and wishes of the people before whom he is
again candidate for Congress.
But there is point in your editorial which
with the large authority always attaching to
an opinion in the EVENING Posi-, may do
much mischief If correctly understood, you
maintain the right of the President and the
Senate, by the treaty making power, to regu-
late for any period of time the duties on inn
ports. In the proposed treaty of reciprocity
the plan is to have certain scale of duties
on Canadian articles for one year, another for
the second year, and thereafter importation
to be free for twenty years. If thus on
NdDauldu dItlClSS why nOt VII IlIsIsi, anu
then on French, and then on German? And
if the President and two thirds of the SEN
ate agree, why, under the power you claim
for them, might they not make treaties of
this kind to continue for hundred years,
thus depriving the next three generations of
all power over the revenues of the country?
The question thus readily presents the reduc-
ito adj a5snrdum.
In the famous Jay treaty in 1876, so often
quoted, the question was whether the House
was bound to make an appropriation to carry
out treaty duly concluded. This is an en-
tirely different question from the one present
ed by the Reciprocity Treaty, though the two
issues are often confused. But in the discus
sion Of the Jay treaty the weight of opinion
was entirely in favor of the House exercis-
ing its judgment in regard to the merits of
treaty when it called for an appropriation. In
that case the appropriation (ninety thousand
dollars) was only carried by three majority,
and among those voting against it was James
Madison, Albert Gallatin, Edward Livings-
ton, Nathaniel Macon, Joseph b. Varnum,
and many other leading statesmen of that
day, north and south. And Mr.. Benton, in
a note inserted in his Arrangement of Con-
gressional Debates, says: "This vote of the
House to carry the treaty into effect was no
abandonment of the right it has asserted to
judge of its merits and to grant or withhold
the appropriation according to its discretion"
And thus the House in 1868 only after long
and doubtful struggle agreed to appropriate
the seven millions for the Alaska purchase,
and in the debate the merits of the treaty
were freely discussed; Secretary Seward new
er claiming that the House was bound by
anything more than its own sound discretion.
Now, it is not too strong an affirmation TO
say that the treaty making power (the Presi-
dent and two-thirds of the Senate) have just
as much right to appropriate money from the
Treasury to carry out treaty as they have
to regulate by treaty the revenues by which
money shall come into the Treasury. Nay,
the case is stronger; for there is nothing in
the Constitution prohibiting an appropriation
Of money originating in the Senate; whereas
the Constitution expressly declares that "all
bills for raising revenue shall originate in the
House of Representatives" The line Of de-
marcation for the treaty making power is
plain, and is easily defined, viz. 1t is abso-
lutte except where it conflicts with powers
specifically granted to the House of Repre-
sentatives. And as in England for a century
past all treaties affecting the revenue or re-
curing the payment OF money must be sub
United to the Commons, SO here the House
of Representatives must be consulted in like
cases.
Article vi of our great charter says "This
Constitution and the laws of the United States,
which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and
all treaties made or which shall be made
under the authority of the United S tates,
shall be the supreme law of the land" Now
observe Off there be anything in the sequence)
the Constitution comes first, next the laws and
next the treaties. To-day we have law duly
enacted and perfectly constitutional which
levies certain duties on Canadian products.
Can that law be annuled by treaty without
the full concurrence OF the law making power,
any more than a treaty can be abrogated by
a law without the concurrence of the treaty
making power.
One point more: twas the whole purpose
and design of the founders of the government
that the power to raise taxes should be kept
in the hands of the people-not only the
amount, but the mode OF raising them must be
LETT to the people. And the place where the
people vote is the House of Representatives
the states voting in the Senate. The Sc
nate has seventy four members. Look over
your census table and you will find twenty
five States sending fifty senators-more than
two.thirds of the whole body-and yet having
in the aggregate population Of but fifteen
millions, OF only three-eights of the whole
| country. Do you seriously contend that these
| senators, constituting two-thirds of the whole
body and vet homecoming States that cOnf a in