The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-05-05

Niues 'hat tnat instrument, NIL laws passed
in pursuance therof, and all treaties, shall
be the. supreme law Of the land, anything
in the constitution or laws Of eiate TO the
contrary notwithstanding.
But it would appear that, after all, 1t is
not an open question. In the senate, Mon
day, resolution was considered, request
Ing the president to open negotiation with
China for such notifications Of our treaty
with that power as would allow of restiic-
tions being placed upon Chinese immigra-
ton to this countryside treaty providing
that Chinese subjects, visiting or residing III
the United States, should enjoy the same
privileges, ETC., as to travel and residence
as those enjoyed by the most favored ma
ton. Senator Edmunds opposed the aaop-
ton Of the resolution on the ground that,
while concedng that IL might be proper
and necessary to place restrictions upon
Chinese immigration, there was no necessi-
ty for such course The evils of the immi-
grafton of vicious persons, he said, were
not confined TO the Pacific coast that the
supreme court Of the United States have
decided that any ntatc law restricting i'm
migration was, and would be, necessarily
invalid; and very properly 50 decided, for,
said he "that IL matter which the cons,i
tuition has left to congress to regulate"
He then gocs On 10 declare the broad
principle, which applies with equal force
TO this exlradtion question as to immigra-
ton. After stating that the supreme
court has repeatedly determined, by unan-
nous opinions, that under the constitution,
" jus! as IL reads, laws passed by congress,
equally with treaties, ate the supieme law
Of the land, anything in any state constitu-
ton, law, or regulation to the contrary
notwithstanding, he says: - Now that
being the state Of the constitution, the
supreme court has decided unanimously
- more than once, and :hink upon per-
" fectJy impregnable grounds, that, if
" law is in conflict with treaty, that
" existed when The law WAS made,
" the treaty, to the extent that
" the law does coailict with it. il
" abrogatei by the general sovereign
" power of the nation. Such, then, is
the law as declared by the only body en-
trusted with the power of deciding upon
the validity of law. II congress- has the
power, by the implication of law, TO alb
rogate treaty, or portion of treaty,
has not the parliament of Great Britain the
same power?
What then have we to complain of :?
Great Britain has simply exercised q power
that We claim 10 exist Of right 1t stems
to us that a great deal Of Unnecessary
breath has been expended in denuucia,ion
of Great Britain, which had far better been
expended in obtaining . Just and needed
modification CT the treaty. Ii would seem,
too, that the president has either done an
unnecessary act, or allowed resentment to
go too far. Instead Of endcavoring TO
modify the treaty, he haa SO far as he can,
abrogated ii entirely. 1t il not necessary
to inquire how far the president can legal
~ undo that which it requires the concur
rent action Of the senate to do. 1t 10 un-
necessary now to inquire whether go long
as the president cannot declare war with
out the consent OF congress, he can alone
do an act which must necessarily result in
WARRIOR if he Can, on his own motion, ab-
rogate this extradition clause Of a treaty,
ne can disregard and attempt TO annul any
treaty, and thus, at his pleasure, precipitate
war. 1t is unnecessary,as we say to inquire
relative to this, for the act is done, and the
country will, right or wrong, probably sue
tain him, aud continue to repYgafsl,;; preme
l lanpq isayS the United States has the right
and power TO do.