Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-01-25
| law which abrogated a part Of the treaty, the
! question before the Court was,
WHICH SHOULD GOVERN, THE TREATY OR TIE

| a law which abrogafed a part Of the treaty, ths
| question before the Court was,
WHICH SHOULD GOVERN, THE TREATY OR THE
LAW OF CONGRESS?
The law having been passed subsequent to the
treaty. The Court says: But conceding these
views to be correct it is insisted that the section
cannot apply to the Cherokee Nation, because it is
in conflict with the treaty Undoubtedly one or the
other must yield. The Tepugnancy is clear and they
| cannot stand together. The second section of the
sixth article OF the Constitution of the United States
declares: This Constitution and the laws of the
| United States which shall be made in pursuance
thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be
| made, under the authority OF the United States,
shall be the supreme law Of the land" etc.
1t need hardly be said that treaty cannot change
the Constitution be held valid if it be in violation
of that instrument. This results from the nature
and fundamental principles of cur Government.
The effect of treaties and Acts of Congress- when in
conflict, is not settled by the Constitution But the
question is not involved in any doubt its proper
solution"
Now wish to call the attention of the Senate to
this language
ga treaty may supersede prior Act of Congress,
and an Act OF Congress may supersede prior
treaty"
Could ANYTHING be plainer9 A treaty can super
sede prior Act OF Congress, because the Supreme
Court says so. maintain now, in the light of ths
decision, as an humble member of the legal profess
sion, and looking at it from Workngmans stand
point, regardless Of technicalties, thot the United
States can by treaty naturaize the citizens OF any
nation that they en- make the treaty regardless OF
the naturalization laws because treaty is the su.
preme law OF the land. The Constitution gives the
Government that power The Supreme Court says
so IN SO many words when it decides that treaty
may supersede prior Act Of Congress. The Court
goes on to say
SIN the cases referred TO these principles were
| applied to treaties with foreign nations"
| The very proposition for which am contending.
Treaties with Indian nations within the juris-
diction Of the United States whatever considera-
tons Of humanity and good faith may be involved
and require their faithful observance, cannot be
more obligatory. They have no higher sanctity,
and greater inviolability immunity from legis-
iative invasion can be claimed for them"
| Now ask your attention to the next sentence,
as illustrating the proposition for which contend
"The consequences in all such cases give rise to
questions which must be met by the political de-
| partment Of the Government. They are beyond
| the sphere of judicial cognizancen
| Now, l submit to every lawyer in this body, and
TO every member of the Senate who is not lawyer,
if the proposition laid down in the decision which
the Senator from Marin invoked, does not maintain
to the uttermost the proposition which have adj
vanced in reference to the Burlingame treaty, and
| this Swift-Angell- Prescott Chinese treaty? We
claim that treaty can supersede law of Congress
| that u treaty naturalize the citizens of any
country, with whom treaty may be made and
| that IL treaty is made and ratified between two
high contracting parties, to wit, the United States
and foreign nation, that all the laws of Congress
SHRINK TO NOTHING AND CROMBLE INTO
DUST BEFORE A TREATY
BY the force OF the United States Constitution as
| expounded by the Supreme Court of the United
States. We content, speaking at lea for those
who favor the Davis resolutions, to rest our case
upon the authorities presented by the Senator from
Marin, believing that these authorities when rightly
read and properly construed, and easily construed
they are, ortify tn! very proposition Tor which
| contend. They show coIclusiyely that treaty
overrides laws Of Congress or State Legislatures,
and that if the Burlingame or Swift treaty can be
construed comforting any right of naturalization
it is PERFECTLY legal for such treaty to do hence
| the treaty ought to be free from doubt The Sena-
tor from Marin laid great stress upon the power
given to Congress by the present treaty-the Swift
Angel treaty, mean-to regu ate Chinese imuigrs-
| ton | was thunderstruck at hearing that state.
ment advanced rs argument for the new treaty.
Why Congress has the power now Congress did
not need any treaty to confer that power upon it, to
wit: the power to regulate to prohibit Chinese
other foreign immigration. Congress needs no
| treaty; Congress needs power to be given
| it by the Emperor of China to enable it
TO pass laws regulating foreign immigration
or to prohibit foreign immigration. 1t needs notlI
ing save the broad platform of the Constitution oi
the United States and the requisite number of votes
| in Congress assembled. That is all. Not single
lawyer in either branch OF the National Legislature
dare c0utrovert the proposition that Congress had
the power to override the Burlingame treaty and
pass lust such laws as it saw fit in refer. to the
regulation CT prohibition Of Oh nesc immigration.
The queStl has been
| QUESTION OF POLICY, NOT OF POWER.
Congress has the power, and the Supreme Court
of the United States says so. The Supreme Court
| of the United States says that whether Congress
shall override and abrogate q treaty or not, is a
question to be settled by the political department OF
the nation, and not by the judicial. 1t is simply
question Of policy whether or not Congress shall
ercise that power; and tie veto message of Presi-
dent Hayes did not attempt to take the other side OF
the proposition, but simply said it was not cour-
| teous to the Government of China That the
argument made against the fifteen passenger bill,
and it opposed upon grounds Of policy, notupon
legal grounds, for attempted to deny the alb
stract right and power Of Congress to pass the bill
Why, sir, Congress needs nothing at the hands OF
any foreign country to give it power 20 regulate ini
migration. 1t asks favors 1t asks no concession
| of this power 1t has the power now, given it by
| the Federal Constitution.
| The other day Senators upon this floor voted
| against a bill prescribing new punishment for
murder which | had the honor to introduce, not
because this Legislature did not have the power to
pass the BILL but because they deemed il bad policy
to pass it. Congress has the same power, in refer
| euce to Federal legislation, only greater in my
Judgment, than the Legislature has to pass any law
not in direct and open conflict with the Constitu-
ton and the Supreme Court Of the United States,
in the case ted by the Senator from Marin, says
in express terms, in regard to the very point
under discussion, to wit the proper force OF treaties
made by the Federal authorities.
| The Senator then uses this very remarkable argu.
against the resolutions that the owners OF the
steamship lines are against the treaty. Mght | be
allowed respectfully to ask of the Senator
now he knows that fact? Has any
agent of the transportation companies
interviewed the Senator from Marin. | believe he
may reply that he has seen it in the public print
When man arrives at that stage of life that he
believes everything he reads in the newspapers, he
is older than the venerable Senators who daily
honor us with their benign countenances and sage
say ings, and younger than the boy Senator from
San Francisco, as he calls himself Mr. Dickinson
And might reply TO it by saying that TIE blatant
fraud from San Francisco, Denis kearney is for the
treaty, and if that is not enough to make every
decent citizen in California oppose the treaty. then
do not know the force of that kind Of Argument
When such a consummate politicalfra as Kearney
announces himself as in favor of any proposition
il is dollars to cents, as the gamblers say am TOLD
they they dot isa
WHALE TO A SHRIMP THAT THE PROPOSITION
THUS FAVORED is WRONG.
In conclusion what we contend for, as | under
stand t-and believe express the sentiments Of
those who favor the Davis resolutions-is this:
First-We know that The Chinese have been nat
uralzed in the United States since the Burlingamt
| treaty was pissed, and that it has always been
| claimed that the Burlingame treaty aided the Chi
nese in obtaining such naturalization.
| Second-We know, further, that the question as
to whether the Burlingame treaty gives or does no,
give any claim privilege of naturalization, or en-
titles the Chinese to apply therefor, is in doubt.
! rhird-We know that the present treaty makes
this doubt still greater, and in our judgment may
confer upon the Cinnamon the right to ask for nat.
| uraization
| Fourth-We know that the people OF California
are unanimous in their opposition to Chinese immi.
grafton, and willing 20 resort to every legal and
constitutional means in their power to rid the
try Of the Cinnamon now here, and to prevent
| others from coming
Fifth-we know that under the Burlingame treaty
| Congress can prohibit Chinese immigration abso-
lutely, as is admitted by all and further know
that the Swift-Angell treaty takes from Congress
this power to prohibit Chinese immigration.
/ Sixth-Under this condition of affairs we wish to
have the present treaty made so plain upon the
question OF naturalizipg Chinese that not even
United States Circuit Judge can mistake 1t and we
wish the treaty TO leave Congress the power it now
has Of absolutely prohibiting Chinese immigration.
We wish to have it settled definitely, if it is to be
arranged by treaty. that Chinese shall not be natu-
rallied in America, and that the United States re-
serves and insists upon its power and right to forbid
the coming of any Chinese, for any purpose, to
shores
We do not claim that the Burlingame or Swift
treaty in express terms naturazes Chi esq., but we
| insist chat it leaves the matter in doubt when it
ought to be clear, and that it is only by forced
construction of either treaty that Chinese de-
MED naturalization. We wish no play Of words no
concealed ideas, reliance upon construction OF
statutes treaties, but plain, simple declaration,
| 80 No Chinese shall be naturaZed in America"
Inside say can change the naturaliz ton laws,
for il have not power enough to defeat the treaty
or oprohibit Chinese immigration, certainly are
not strong enough to amend the naturalization laws
When an effort Is made to amend them all classes of
foreigners become alarmed Let us fight treaties,
not laws contest tie surrender of rights not waste
time in vain endeavors to change good laws.
II this treaty should be ratified by the Senate of
/