The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-02-22
The Tearing Up OF Treaties.

returned to the House for action thereon 1T
is to be hoped that the Executive may have
influence enough to induce the House to
suspend for the present any further consid-
Grafton of the measure. 1t is to be assumed
that majority of the House will be reason
able and patriotic in this matter which SO
directly concerns the foreign affairs OF the
country. We have already said, in previous
illusions to this subject that the respon-
sibility for the proper conduct OF the bush
ness which the United States have with for
eign countries is primarily with the
President and the Department OF State.
The President has, no doubt, taken
the advice of his Cabinet, and has
decided whether it is his duty to veto the
bill il presented to him rs it passed the
Senate, and the reasons which he would
publicly express in veto ought to satisfy
the House, if presented privately to prom-
nent members, that no further action on
the measure is advisable during the present
Congress- II is not believed that Mr.. Evarts
will stand on point of prerogative and re-
fuse to communicate conidentially on the
subject with members of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs aud leaders of both parties
in the House. II he desired that public
pressure be brought to bear OH China
that pressure has been exerted by Congress.
This is one of the occasions when Secre-
tary of State needs to practise at home the
arts Of diplomacy, and We look to see Mr..
Evarts arrest the Chinese measure in Con-
gress, in order that the President of the
Unitod States and the Emperor Of China
may here calmly review the obligation OF
1858
1t will be much better for the whole sub
ject to be dropped from consideration i'll
Congress than even for the amendment of
Mr.. Conkling to be adopted, since his
proposition only postpones our withdrawal
from the treaty till January, 1880. His
amendment was proposed in these words:-
That the President OF the United States is hereby
requested immediately to give notice to the Emperor
of China that much Of the existing treaty between
the United States aud China permits the mgra-
ton of subjects OF the Chinese Empire aud their
donicile in this country is unsatisfactory to the
government Of the United States and in it's Judgment
perncious, and to propose such notifications of said
treaty will correct the evils Of said mod
ihcations to be made in supplemental treaty
to be submitted to tho Senate of the United States
on or before the LIST of January, 1880. Should the
government of China refuse omit to agree by
change OF the existing treaty such modification
aforesaid then tho President of the United States is
further requested and he is authorized to inform
the Emperor OF China that the United States will
coed by laws Of its own to regulate or prevent the
migration importation to its shores of tho sub
jects of China and after the LIST of January $780, to
treat the obnoxious stipulations as at an cnd.
Mr. Conkling, it will be seen, denounces
the treaty in peremptory terms. He. to be
sure, advises the President to endcavor by
negotiation to obtain a modification in order
to correct the evils" which he describes as
'spernicious," but if China refuses he then
requests and authorizes the Executive to soy
IS China that the obnoxious ''stipulations"
will come to an end in 1880.
As to the perpetuity of the binding obli-
cations of treaties which contain no limita-
lions as to time, or any arrangements for
bringing them to an end by the act Of one Of
the signatory parties, there cannot be much
room for dispute. TO use phrase so often
employed by Mr.. Thurman in the Senate,
1T won't do" for the United States either to
lay down the doctrine, or assent to the doc
trine, that one party to a treaty permanent
in its character can emancipate itself there
from whenever it sees fit, and thus bring
back the whole subject matter Of the treaty
within its own control. Such doctrine, if
acted upon, would put the axe ut the root
OF all treaty obligations as permanent az
rangements of peace. And yet it may be
that, owing to it's altered condition, nation
is unable to maintain certain treaty stipula-
tions into which it has entered, and it also
may be that the other contracting party will
not consent to an abrogation of the treaty.
An overwhelming majority of the people of
the United States may say that Mongolians
shall not come to the Pacific coast, treaty or
no treaty, and the Emperor of China might
decline to modify the treaty. In such
o case our government would be possibly
compelled to give notice that the United
States must withdraw from the treaty, and
especially if the government could not exc
cute it. There is, we fear good deal that is
misleading in general declarations that every
withdrawal from an international treaty
permanent in its scope and tenor, and with
out the consent Of the other party, must, of
necessity, be an immoral act on the part OF
the nation which withdraws.
The whole question was in 1870 elabo-
rately discussed between England and
Russia in the matter Of the stipulations of
1856 about the Black Sea. Russia, in its
circular note of October, 1870, set up various
reasons for Withdrawing arbitrarily from
the treaty. One was the assertion that the
treaty had been violated in sew
eral essential clauses by the entrance
of foreign men-of-war into the straits.
Another was that the invention Of
iron-clad vessels had changed tho whole
situation. Another reason was the new
political condition of Moldavia and WAL
lachia. Lord Granville replied for Eng
land that these reasons might be sufficient
to initiate new negotiations, but not to rup-