The New York herald., 1878-03-12
Z WASHINGTON.
The Resolution OF Inquiry
Into the Fishery Award.
DISSATISFACTION WITH THE TREATY.
All the Advantages and All the
Money to Great Britain.
SPEECH OF SENATOR BLAINE
Current RumOrs Touching the Selection
of the Third Commissioner.
HOW TO GET EVEN With The CANADIANS.
Mr.. Hewitt in Defence of
President Hayes Title.
4 CRITICISM ON CIVIL SERVICE REFORM.
Current RumOrs Touching the Selection
of the Third Commissioner.
HOW TO GET EVEN With The CANADIANS.
Mr.. Hewitt in Defence of
President Hayes Title.
4 CRITICISM ON CIVIL SERVICE REFORM
FROM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.


REVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COM
MIssIoN-CAN THE LAwMAKINa POWER AB-
RooATE THE PROVISIONS OF TREATY.
The papers called for by Mr.. Blaine's resolution Of
inquiry will be sent to The Senate by Wednesday, and
the Secretary Of State will send in later the week,
perhaps early next week, formal report Con-
gress Of tho work OF the Fishery Awards Commis-
sion. The whole will then be before the Two
houses, and It Is expected that lively discussion will
begin. which may last some time or may be moro
quickly ended by referring whole 70 com.
mittee Tor investigation not only Of the value Of tho
fisheries, but OF The suffered by fishermen
In Canadian waters during some years. and, IN tact,
since the treaty Was ratified.
IL 10 not certain that the President, In communi-
pasing to Congress the result OF the award and the
papers connected with The work of the commission,
vii make any recommendations the subject NO
booy here thinks ought 10 pay $5, 500 900, and
yreat number and variety OF reasons will be given by
hncrent persons why the verdict of mission
rs out OF three should not be binding under
Me circumstances The opinion OF Secretary Evarts
win not be known, of course, unit. the papers sent
Congress, but tho facts that both the American CON-
missioner, Mr.. Kellogg and the American agent Mr..
Foster, protested against the award az II
announced and had their formal protest entered upon
the paper itself as also The grounds OF their protests
Are thought Significant IL is we'll known that the
Becretary OF State watched the proceedings OF tho
sommission very carefully Mr. Kellogg protested, as
sili be below, she double ground that no aid
rot think, alter having heard all the evidence pre-
nnted, that We ought TO pay anything, and thss he
loubted whether any but . unanimous award
binding His protest is in these words:--
Tho United States Comm ssioner Is OF opinion that
he advantages accruing 10 Great Britain under the
reaty Washington are greater than the advantages
en0fA fARPn nm hA al lof nv hA cath
and he cannot therefore IN the CONCLUSIONS
nounced by his colleague He deems II his duty 70
iuYther that it questionable whether
peIent Tor the Board 10 mako award under the
lrosty except with The unanimous consent Of ns
besx --~sr
Mr. Fosters protest was in the following Words
have no instructions from the government OF the
United States 10 the course to be pursued in the
contingency Of such result as has just been
ngned ny COMMISSIONERS it might be claimed
hereafter that, as agent OF the United States had
such an Inference seems my duty guara there
fore make this statement. which l desire TO have
placed upon record.
1t Is not impossible tina: refusal to pay tho
award may not BE- tho eud Of this matter. Under the
treaty OF Washington Canadian fish and fish oil come
In free. and attempt may be made to abrogate
tho treaty this part It, but append the tarn
or to an appropriation bill clause requiring duties
bs hereafter collected these articles, without dis
crimnation In favor Of Canada. II Is held by those
who propose this that Congress is competent make
such regulation IN spite OF treaty provisions, and In
support Of this view decision OF Judge Curtis cited
delivered in the United States Circuit Court Massa
In the OF Taylor against the Collector Of
Boston. This action against the Coec
tor to eblige him TO refund certain duties
paid under protest by Charles G. Taylor
Russian hemp Imported by him while the tariff OF
1912 was In operation. The duties on Russian hemp
CLAIMED that he ought to havc paid only $25 per ton,
because tho treaty with Russia stipulated that no
higher rates Of duty should be imposed on Russian
products than ike articles from other countries,
the Tariff act In contraventon OF this treaty stip-
ulaton imposed $40 per ton or Russian hemp and
only $25 per ton on Manila, Suerra and other hemp
Judge Curtis held tbat, though treaty is law OF
the land under the constitution OF tho United Satcs
Congress may repeal IT, so lar as It is municipal Law,
provided its subject matter Is within the legislative
power Of Congress, and that promise in
treaty that the products of a country
shall not DO subjected 10 higher rate Of duty than
like products imported into the United States from
other countries addresses itself the political and
10 tho Judicial department OF the government,
aud the Court try the question whether has
been observed or not Though the treaty with Russia
OF Doce ember, 1882 stipulated that higher rato Of
duties should be imposed on goods imported IRON
Russia than on like articles imported from other
places this Court cannot try the question whether
certain species Of hemp which duty OF $25
ton Is imposed by act Of Congress Is, "like Rus.
san hemp" within the meaning OF the treaty. THIS
Is a question Tor Congress, not for the courts
Tho language oil Judge Curtis' decision portant
because the case was appealed, and It stands,
therefore, undisputod. He said
IL IN act OF Congress should levy duty upon i'm
nnrl m merc ~ dor
snail not DO leveu, SO that the treaty IS conlct
wIh The act, does the former tho latter give the
rule OF decision IN judicial tribunal OF tho United
States In case 10 which rule or tho other
must be applied? The second section Of the fourth
article OF the constituton is:ihis consttuti
The laws OF the United States which shall pe mace Ia
pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which
shaI be made under the authority OF the United
Statcs shall DO tho supreme law oi the land.n There
IL nothing IN the language OF this clause which
treaty and the OF Congress aoru tho rule
Ordinarily are not rules by sovc.
Icigns for tho conduct OF their Subjects but nracs
by which they agree 10 regulate their own conduct
TINS provision oil our constitution has mado treaties
part OF our municipal law, but II has not assigned
10 them any particular degree OF authority Ia our
municipal law nor declared wbetner laws enacted
shall or shall not be paramount 10 laws Otherwise
enacted. No such declaration Is mado even IN respect
TO the constitution itself.
He added further-
In commencing this inquiry think IL material to
observe that II 10 solely question Of municipal as
distinguished IRON public law. tho foreign sovereign
between whom aud the United States n treaty has
been made has right TO expect anu require us stpu-
lations 10 be kept with scrupulous good faith, but
through what internal arrangements TINS shall be
done Is excusive.y Tor the CONSIDERATION of
the United States; whether the treaty shall
isel DO the rsic OF acon OF the people as well as tho
governments whether the power 10 enforce and npply
" sbali reside IN ono department or onohcr neither
the treaty Itself, nor any implication drawn from II,
gives him any rrht 10 inquirr. IL the people oil the
Ubitcl Stai.s were To repeal so much oi Their const
!u'ion as makes treaties part OF Their municipal law
40 foreign sovereign with whom treaty exists could
lnsty compians Tor " is not matter With which he