The New York herald., 1879-02-28
The chasnber OF Commerce and the
Chinese.

merce which was held yesterday to protest
against the Anti-Chinese bill now in the
hands of the President was, perhaps, the
most respectable OF the many re-
spectacle demonstrations against this
bill, which passed both houses OF
Congress by heavy majorities The
attendance Yas unusually large, and
the resolutions deprecating this measure
were passed without a dissenting voice or
VOTE This unanimous and emphatic ac-
ton of the most important commercial Or
ganization in the United States will no
doubt be treated with considerate defer.
ence by President Hayes, if his mind is not
already made up as to his action on the
bill. The Chamber Of Commerce deserves
praise for the dignity and decorum OF its
proceedings on this exciting question,
which has occasioned so much Incorporate
denunciation in some other quarters. The
Chamber does not assail the motives Of Con-
gress, and it wisely refrains from asking
the President to veto the bill 1t only asks
him to withhold his approval. Simple in
action by the President will as effectually
dispose OF the bill as a formal veto; ana
if negotiations are in progress, or he intends
to open negotiations, for a modification
Of the Burlingame Treaty, it may be wiser
that he should not show his hand by an
official statement Of his reasons. veto
message resting on the same grounds as the
Chamber of Commerce resolutions, or the
published opinions of Dr. Woolsey, or the
- IS y Ia
William Lloyd Garrison, would commit tho
President so entirely to the point of view of
the Chinese authorities that it would be q
complete surrender of the American case If it
is desirable to modify the treaty. 1t proba-
bly, better that the Chinese government
should he left in ignorance as to how much
or how little our own may be brought to con.
cede in new negotiations. If the President
should take this view of the impolicy of
embarrassing further negotiations by need
less committals he must deem it fortunate
that the bill was presented to him at so
late point Of the session that he can
quietly defeat it without any statement of
his reasons
The great stir and sensation which have
been created in the. public mind by this
new phase Of the Chinese question cannot
be wholly accounted for by respect for the
faith Of treaties, although this is one ele-
ment of the excitement. Senator Blaine
made an able and artful speech against the
Halifax fisheries award, and there were
multitudes who shared his views but
popular sentiment was not so wrought up on
that subject as it is in relation to the Chinese
Treaty. The difference is that no American
believed the Halifax award to be just,
whereas large portion of our people would
zealously defend the free admission of
Chinese immigrants even if there were no
treaty securing to them the privilege. We
suppose that no intelligent publicist dis
putes that Congress may abrogato certain
classes of treaties. Under our govern
ment any treaty which can be termi-
mated at all is terminated by an
act of Congress- The reason why
this power, whenever it is necessary to ex-
ercise it, necessarily devolves upon Con-
gress was SO lucidly explained by Mr.. CAL
houn in his speech on the British Conven-
ton Of 1915 that mob ody who ever read his
argument can entertain doubt as to,where
that power is lodged in our government,
Some treaties provide for their own ter
mination by. giving stipulated no.
tice, and it is Congress which always
decides when such notice shall be
given. A treaty may become void if
intringed by the other party, but it is for
Congress alone to declare treaty void for
such reason. Treaties of amity and COM
merce are dissolved by a declaration of war,
but Congress alone has power to declare war.
Some classes of treaties are absolutely
irrepealable even in the event of war
between the parties to them, such as treaties
OF boundaries and treaties for the cession
of territory. Other classes Of treaties are
not regarded as SO permanently binding,
such as treaties of friendship, treaties of
alliance and reciprocal regulations of
trade, which are sometimes revoked by one
of the parties under strong pressure of
new circumstances. But, as the abrogation
of treaty without consent is q recognized
casus beli, the abrogating government
assumes this risk, and hence under our
BoVerhmehS Ine power 10 eAelciscu ny Soh-
gress, which is clothed with the war power.
But Congress in all such cases is bound
to exercise its powers under the guidance
of reason, conscience, equity and due
sense Of the national honor. 1t has no moral
right to abrogate any treaty no. terminable
by it's own provisions until all the resources
of diplomacy have been exhausted to secure
voluntary release from an inequitable bar
gain. Tho recent action Of Congress de-
serves oil the popular condemnation it
is receiving, because it seeks to abro-
gate an important treaty without pre-
vious recourse to negotiation. This is
an indefensible trifing with the national
honor The subject is not one which re-
o,;rns baste eince for sn,ne nontbs post