Helena weekly herald., 1879-01-23
ANTI.CHINESE LEGISL ALTON.

~
1t seems probable that some law will pass
Congress restricting Chinese emigration to
this country. Such measure has been re-
ported from the House committe with only
one dissenting voice. Its principal feature is
the prohibition of any vessel receiving more
than fifteen Chinese for passage to the United
States, requiring every captain bringing such
passengers to render sworn list, and pun.
lshing violation with fine, which is made a
lien upon the vessel Few if any in Montana
but will rejoice at this action, and wish that
it may soon become law. If the prohibi-
ton was made complete and perpetual, we
could submit with the greatest composure.
Nor would we cry our eyes out if all the
Cinnamon in the country could be carried
back to the Flowery Kingdom at an early
day.
The Congressional committee accompany
their bill with report, which maintains the
position that it is perfectly competent for
Congress to legislate on contravention or linn
it.tion of treaties. They reason that Congress
unlimited power to legislate for the welfare
of the people; that treaties are no more than
statutes, and that the principle applies that
the latest statute repeals any former statute
Inconsistent Herewith. The opinions of
former Attorney Generals are cited, which
prove at least that the principle and practice
cannot be said to be settled We cannot,
however, forget that Secretary Evarts has
Just emerged from successful encounter
with Lord Salisbury on this identical question,
applied to the treaty under which the Geneva
and Halifax awards were made The same
position was successfully maintained, too, in
the controversy over the Extradition treaty,
and the power of Parliament to abridge the
rights acquired by treaty was denied vigor-
oueiy by us and as good as conceded by Great
Britain.
Il looks rather inconsistent, if not childish,
to plant ourselves SO soon upon the other side
of this issue. We shall not be respected
abroad, and can hardly maintain self-respect
if we are SO vacilating. However anxious
we may be to secure early action on this
question, it is surely better to take time enough
to count the cost and consequences. If the
damage to ensue outweighs the gain hum
dred fold we had better forego the gain, or
seen it in a legitimate way. 1t may all be
rue, rs maintained by the committee, that
treaties were never designed to have more
power than acts of Congress, but then it
must be born in mind that in case of treaties
a foreign power is the second party, and no
foreign powers will treat with US unless there
is some security that the rights acquired by
treaty will be maintained. If we choose to
amend our constitution and laws, so that no
treaty shall become effective Till approved by
all branches Of complex government, it is
an entirely domestic concern, in which for
eign powers have no interest; but they have
right 10 ask of US and of every people that
aspire to enter the sisterhood of nations as
sovereign unit, that the treaties we make shall
be binding on US as we'll as on those with
WHOM va treat
The peace of the world depends on the
practice of good faith between nations, and
,Sis not consistent with good faith for one
coordinate branch of government to undo
what has been done by another which we
hold out to the world to be competent for the
business Treaty making is farce that will
soon come to an end if no body is bound
thereby, or if the whole force of treaty is
to be annulled by such reservations as are
now claimed by this House committee. The
parties that make treaty are the ones to
undo it or modify it. The youngest and most
ignorant citizen can fully comprehend this
principle, and any amount of argument and
illustration cannot weaken the justice and
reasonahleness of such a proposition. If we
give it out that we will only stand to bargains
that are advantageous to US, we abdicate our
position in the family of nations and leave
fvaras the only method Of settling differen-
,ces Better open negotiations with the Chi
sse government to modify the treaty, offer.
g to make the restrictions mutual, or give
Some other equivalent. Our negotiations
would be with the Pekin government, and
we have no reason to believe that it desires to
lose its SUBJECTS by immigration.
=@--------
The Democratic organ laments the stub
iarness of Republican Federal officers in re-
II So -; We il advertising and for d;scrim.