The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-04-14
The Chinese Bill Its Constitutionality

than match for him.
-----------------
The Chinese Bill-Its Constitutionality.
II anybody entertains doubts as to thu
constitutionality Of the Chinese bill, all he
need do In order to have his doubts re-
moved Is 10 read Mr.. TucKER's speech In
favor OF the bill. II there is in the treaty
any provision which divests, or tries to di-
vest, Congress OF its power under the Con-
stitution 10 regulate commerce with Tor
eign nations, then so much OF the treaty
itself is in violation Of the Constitution,
and should be treated by Congress as II 1t
had never been in existence. Could a
treaty ALLEVIATE any Of the territory OF the
United States, when Congress has in ex-
press terms been granted the power to dis
pose Of all the territory OF the United
States? Could the United States Sem
ate by treaty deprive Congress OF the
power Of laying a tariff upon goods
brought into this country from Eng
land, Mexico, or any other country III
so, the United States Senate has the power.
without the aid Of the House, to convert
this country into land Of free trade, and
put an end to all protective tariffs. These
questions, suggested by MIR. fuckers
speech, are sufficient of themselves to re-
move all objections to the Chinese bill on
account of its want of constitutionality-
that is, IL a bill to regulate immigration
from China. or from any other country,
can be held 10 be bill to regulate COM
merce with foreign nations. On this point
Mr.. TUCKER says:
"This power to regulate commerce, bya
number OF decisions of the Supreme Court
OF the United States, has been held to in
clude the power TO regulate immigration to
the United States"
II seems TO us that that single statement
disposes Of the constitutional question. In
fact IL was an act Of almost ineXcusable pre-
sumption in Mr.. ARTHUR to raise that ques-
tion after Mr.. EDMUNDs in the Senate and
Mr.. TUCKER in the House-lawyers so far
superior to hmsef-had declared the bill
to be constitutional. Nothing but very
decided conviction that the bill was uncen-
stitutional could justify him in yetoing 1t
on that account. And that he has no such
conviction will be proved as soon as an
other bill to prohibit Chinese immigration
is sent to him; for he will certainly sign it,
his excuse being, Of course, that bill to
prohibit Chinese immigration for ten or
fifteen years may be constitutional, though
one TO prohibit the same for twenty years is
unconstitutional.
We will quote some Of Mr.. fuckers au-
thorities. The first one shows wha: the
men who framed the Constitution thought
upon this subject. In 1896 the House of
Representatives passed by vote Of 81 to
80 the following resolution:
Resolved, 1t being declared by the Sec
ond section OF the second article OF the
Constitution that the President shall have
power, by aud with the advice and consent
OF the Senate, TO make treaties, provided
two thirds OF the senators present concur,
the House OF Representatives do not claim
any agency IN making treaties, but that
when treaty STIMULATES regulations on any
OF the subjects submitted by the Constitu-
ton to the power OF Congress, it must de-
mend for its execution as to such stipula-
tions on law or laws to be passed by Con-
gress. and il is the constitutional right and
duty of the House of Representatives in
all such cases 10 deliberate on the eXpe-
diency or inexpediency OF carrying such
treaty into effect, and TO determine and act
thereon as in their judgment may be most
conducive tothe public good.
So much for the House Of Representa-
tiyes. Now for the Supreme Court Of the
United States. In Taylor Us. Morton JUS
tice CURTIS of the Supreme Court, pre-
siding in the Circuit Court, after holding
that a treaty and its obligatory force as be-
tween the United States and the foreign
nation Is question for the political and
not the judicial department, says:
"There Is nothing in the mere fact that
treaty is law which would prevent Con-
gress from repeating it,"
And again:
"To refuse 10 execute treaty for rea-
sons which approve themselves to the con-
scientious Judgment OF the nation is a mat
ter OF the utmost gravity and delicacy; but
the power TO do so Is prerogative, OF which
no nation can be deprived without deeply
affecting its independence. That the peo-
pie OF the United States have deprived
their Government Of this power in any
case do not believe. That ii must reside
somewhere, and be applicable to all cases,
/ am convinced. feel no doubt that it
belongs TO Congress"
The decision was that law Of Congress
could repeal q treaty.
And finally, in The Cherokee Tobacco,
IL Wallace, GIG decided in 1870, swAYNE,
Justice, speaking for the Supreme Court
and citing the case OF Taylor rs. Morton,
above quoted, with approval, said:
GA treaty may supersede a prior act Of
Congress, and an act of Congress may SUI.
persedc prior treaty."
And this principle was decided in that
case.
1t seems to us that the argument is unan,
swerable.
The Liberal Party.
The ph1a1atnIso De- a